Biden To Americans Who Own Guns: You Need Jets, Nuclear Weapons To Take Us On

[Phishfan]

Wrong.

[pondwater]

Wrong.

Snorkel

[Spider-Dan]

If you threaten to beat my ass and I tell you that you'll need a gun to win. I am in fact threatening to use my gun if you attempt to beat my ass.

This statement explains a lot of your posts in this thread.

So if if I were to threaten, say, Brock Lesnar, and he says that I would need a gun to kill him, by your logic, he is also saying he would need a gun to kill me.  That's how it works!

The ramifications of this belief system are... hilarious.  So if Iraq would have needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully invade and conquer America, that must mean that America needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully invade and conquer Iraq!

[pondwater]

This statement explains a lot of your posts in this thread.

No you're just twisting people's words again.

So if if I were to threaten, say, Brock Lesnar, and he says that I would need a gun to kill him, by your logic, he is also saying he would need a gun to kill me.  That's how it works!

That's how what works? Brock Lesnar? WTF are you talking about? You're side tracking again. If Brock Lesner says that I need a gun and I bring a gun. Then yes he would need a gun to kill me or he would be dead.

But if I didn't have a gun I would bring a knife, bat, brick, gasoline and match, etc. In the real world big fat bloated steroid bitches die like everyone else, LMFAO.

The ramifications of this belief system are... hilarious.  So if Iraq would have needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully invade and conquer America, that must mean that America needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully invade and conquer Iraq!

Japan would have needed to use nuclear weapons to invade and conquer America, likewise America needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully conquer Japan. Biden was implying that, "you can't win because we'll kill you with our better weapons".

Again I'll ask, if you threaten to beat my ass and I tell you that you'll need a gun to win. Whatcha gonna do? Bring a gun or just try to beat my ass and get shot?

[Spider-Dan]

That's how what works? Brock Lesnar? WTF are you talking about? You're side tracking again.

You're the one that specifically mentioned beating people up as an analogy!

If Brock Lesner says that I need a gun and I bring a gun. Then yes he would need a gun to kill me or he would be dead.

In your analogy, you have ACTUALLY BROUGHT the "F-15s and maybe nuclear weapons" that Biden claimed would be necessary!

Once again: someone much bigger and stronger than you says that you would need a gun to fight them.  That doesn't mean that THEY also need a gun to fight YOU, or that they are threatening to shoot you.  Because they're much bigger and stronger than you!

Japan would have needed to use nuclear weapons to invade and conquer America, likewise America needed to use nuclear weapons to successfully conquer Japan. Biden was implying that, "you can't win because we'll kill you with our better weapons".

Iraq would have needed to use nukes to conquer America.
America DID NOT need to use nukes to conquer Iraq.
Apparently, you can't explain this.

[pondwater]

Once again: someone much bigger and stronger than you says that you would need a gun to fight them.  That doesn't mean that THEY also need a gun to fight YOU, or that they are threatening to shoot you.  Because they're much bigger and stronger than you!

You're conflating conquering with taking on. Biden didn't say "to beat us", he said "to take us on". This isn't about winning, losing, or conquering.

Once again, America was bigger and stronger than Japan at the time and yet we only "conquered" them because we used 2 nuclear weapons. We can also reference the Israel/Palestine situation in which Israeli military is much bigger and stronger than the opposition. How long has that been going on? Is it over? Who got conquered?

Just two actual real world examples that refute your OPINION that being bigger and stronger always equates to conquering the enemy.

Iraq would have needed to use nukes to conquer America. America DID NOT need to use nukes to conquer Iraq.
Apparently, you can't explain this.

Of course it can be explained rather easily. It's rather simplistic and correct to assume that Iraq (and Afghanistan) would more than likely need some type of nuclear weapon or other strategy to conquer America. But by no means do they specifically need nuclear weapons and or F15s.

Furthermore, Iraq didn't need nuclear weapons to keep "much bigger and stronger" America engaged in an endless military engagement and fighting for 31 years. An endless war that spans 9 Presidential terms, 6 different Presidents, and trillions of dollars in debt. Also of note, Afghanistan has kept us engaged and fighting for 20 years. I wouldn't use the word "conquer" when referring to either of those endless wars.

And for reference, the Revolutionary War only lasted 8 years, the American Civil War only lasted 4 years, WW1 only lasted for 4 years, and WW2 only lasted 6 years.  The US hasn't conquered anyone significant since WWII.
 

Hypothetically:

1% of US population = 3.5 million
US civilian firearm ownership = 393 million

US active duty = 1.5 million
US military firearms= 4.5 million

So are you saying that, just 1% of the US population and all of their modern firearms couldn't "take on" the US military without having nukes and F15s and at least do as well or better than the rag tag groups in the Middle East using Soviet era weapons and Toyotas?

[Spider-Dan]

You're conflating conquering with taking on. Biden didn't say "to beat us", he said "to take us on". This isn't about winning, losing, or conquering.

Already asked and answered:

From the Whiskey Rebellion, to the Civil War, to Waco, to the Capitol invasion... citizens have been taking on the US government and losing since the nation's founding.

I don't think anyone disputes what kind of armaments are needed to take on our government and lose.

Furthermore, Iraq didn't need nuclear weapons to keep "much bigger and stronger" America engaged in an endless military engagement and fighting for 31 years. An endless war that spans 9 Presidential terms, 6 different Presidents, and trillions of dollars in debt.

First of all, the idea that the Iraq War is still ongoing is bizarre.  Iraq isn't Afghanistan.

But more importantly: convincing a foreign government that occupation is not worth the hassle is not remotely similar to overthrowing a government in its seat of power, which is what you and yours want to do.  So your continual comparisons to Vietnam and Afghanistan are irrelevant; the goal of those insurgents is to make the Americans leave, which is not an option for you.

Unless you're literally talking about seceding and forming a new Confederacy.  Are you?

[Phishfan]

Pond you need to study history some more. The fact that we defeated Japan by using a nuclear weapon doesn't mean it's the only way we were going to defeat them. It would have been a longer process but Japan was already in the process of being defeated. The bombs were dropped to avoid having a full scale invasion. We had been beating them back one island at a time.

You also need a math lesson. We invaded Iraq in 2003. 31 years?

[Spider-Dan]

Wait... I think pondwater believes the Gulf War - i.e. Poppy Bush's Operation Desert Storm - never ended and is still ongoing to this day!

[pondwater]

Wait... I think pondwater believes the Gulf War - i.e. Poppy Bush's Operation Desert Storm - never ended and is still ongoing to this day!

You haven't really conquered or defeated anyone if your military has been engaged with them for 31 years.

[Tenshot13]

Here's something no one is talking about...we're seeing more and more UFO sightings every day.  What if they're aliens and what if they're hostile?  I bet you wish you'd have an AR-15 then.

...I'm half kidding, but you can't deny all of the recent UFO sightings.

[pondwater]

Here's something no one is talking about...we're seeing more and more UFO sightings every day.  What if they're aliens and what if they're hostile?  I bet you wish you'd have an AR-15 then.

...I'm half kidding, but you can't deny all of the recent UFO sightings.

Probably need one of those cannon thingys that Biden was talking about. But since they have been illegal since the beginning of time, I'll just have to use my "weapons of war" on the little green men from outer space, haha

[Phishfan]

Here's something no one is talking about...we're seeing more and more UFO sightings every day.  What if they're aliens and what if they're hostile?  I bet you wish you'd have an AR-15 then.

...I'm half kidding, but you can't deny all of the recent UFO sightings.

If they are hostile aliens they will probably probe you with an AR-15.

[Tenshot13]

If they are hostile aliens they will probably probe you with an AR-15.

Probably.  It's better than rolling over and dying without a fight though.

[CF DolFan]

Saw a meme that pretty much sums up this conversation and the dilemma of the left. An AR-15 is (A) an assault rifle/weapon of war or (B) not enough to fight with the military. LMAO ... you really need to pick a side and then stick with it.