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

[Fau Teixeira]

And you quickly prove my point. You believe that is what actually happened if you want. As Paul Harvey would say .... you need to research the "rest of the story" and not just the liberal lies and bullet points they tell you to speak.

just repeating what chris wallace has said on fox news .. my bad .. if you can't trust the republican news network who can you trust i guess

[CF DolFan]

just repeating what chris wallace has said on fox news .. my bad .. if you can't trust the republican news network who can you trust i guess

So the democrats actually funded police and the republicans were against funding the police .. ijs

I find it hard to believe Chris Wallace said this but then again he is a Democrat. I don't mean that figuratively as he is literally a registered and voting Democrat.

[Sunstroke]

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.

Seems like "C" is the logical answer... An AR-15 IS an assault rifle and it still ISN'T enough to fight with our military.

Duh...

[CF DolFan]

Seems like "C" is the logical answer... An AR-15 IS an assault rifle and it still ISN'T enough to fight with our military.

Duh...

As usual you try and rewrite the narrative to fit your argument rather than making a logical argument. First off it's NOT an assault rifle as it isn't automatic but if it was an assault rifle then it would be "designed for infantry use". Infantry is part of a military. hahaha

as·sault ri·fle
Learn to pronounce
noun
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

[pondwater]

Seems like "C" is the logical answer... An AR-15 IS an assault rifle and it still ISN'T enough to fight with our military.

Duh...

Like usual, you're wrong again.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I find it hard to believe Chris Wallace said this but then again he is a Democrat. I don't mean that figuratively as he is literally a registered and voting Democrat.

He is a registered democrat because he lives in Washington DC and local elections are typically held in the democratic primary but he voted for both democrats and republicans in the general election.  I have a very liberal leaning friend who moved to Idaho and is now a registered as a republican for similar reason.  Chris Wallace definitely leans right, although certainly  more moderate than the rest of fox.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

Is a fully-automatic .50 caliber machine gun:

a) a weapon of war
b) not enough to defeat the most powerful military in the history of this planet

For conservatives, this is an either/or question.  Both things can't possibly be true!

[pondwater]

Is a fully-automatic .50 caliber machine gun:

No one is talking about .50 caliber machine guns except you. Stay on topic.

a) a weapon of war

AR15s aren't:

a) fully auto
b) assault rifles
c) weapons of war

b) not enough to defeat the most powerful military in the history of this planet

But they are enough to "take on" any military and keep them engaged for a substantial amount of time. History has proven this time and time again through countless conflicts throughout the world.

[Spider-Dan]

pondwater doesn't like examples that disprove his point.  Stay on topic!

But they are enough to "take on" any military and keep them engaged for a substantial amount of time.

Like I already said: the Branch Davidians (among many others) already showed what you need to take on the US government and lose.  I'm pretty sure Biden would agree that you don't need "F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons" to take on the government and lose.  Hell, you can do that with your bare arms!

[pondwater]

pondwater doesn't like examples that disprove his point.  Stay on topic!
Like I already said: the Branch Davidians (among many others) already showed what you need to take on the US government and lose.  I'm pretty sure Biden would agree that you don't need "F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons" to take on the government and lose.  Hell, you can do that with your bare arms!

Again, I'll ask. In your opinion, what would it take to justify American citizens to take up arms against the government? Is there no circumstance that you can fathom?

Hypothetically, say a "radical" political element took over the government, shut down the borders, went full Nazi/Hitler mode, and started firing up the gas chambers? Would you just get in line or would you pick up arms against your government? 

[Spider-Dan]

I do not believe that a nuclear power can be overthrown with handguns and rifles.
So no, I do not believe that there is any circumstance in which an armed revolt on the US government within the United States of America would be more successful than an unarmed revolt.

I would think this should be very intuitive to most partisans like yourself.  To wit:

1) Think of a political group you oppose or disagree with (e.g. BLM)
2) Give them lots of guns, and have them use said guns against the government

Do you really think these guns will help advance their cause?
Specifically, that they will help more than nonviolent protest?

[pondwater]

I do not believe that a nuclear power can be overthrown with handguns and rifles.
So no, I do not believe that there is any circumstance in which an armed revolt on the US government within the United States of America would be more successful than an unarmed revolt.

That wasn't the question. So I'll try to decipher your ambiguous reply. Are you saying that you would just get in line for a concentration camp, gas chamber, or firing squad.

Also, what does being a "nuclear power" have to do with it?

[CF DolFan]

pondwater doesn't like examples that disprove his point.  Stay on topic!
Like I already said: the Branch Davidians (among many others) already showed what you need to take on the US government and lose.  I'm pretty sure Biden would agree that you don't need "F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons" to take on the government and lose.  Hell, you can do that with your bare arms!

This from a guy who has been preaching that an unarmed buffalo hat guy and his buddies took over the Capital and all the democrats were in mortal danger. HAHAHAHa I promise you that millions and millions of law enforcement and former military, as well as current ones, would stand to do pretty well. In fact we have seen that other countries would come in and aid so there's that possibility as well. I don't see Biden carpet bombing for very long if at all.


Hopefully this pic doesn't trigger fear in you guys

[Spider-Dan]

Are you saying that you would just get in line for a concentration camp, gas chamber, or firing squad.

In that case, I've already answered that question:

And in that situation, your choice is not whether or not you voluntarily get in line to the gas chamber... it's whether you get to see your wife and children gunned down, killed in an explosion, or burned to death after you fire on the law enforcement that has come to haul you off to the camps.

Again, the fact that you always talk about this in hypotheticals is bizarre, because hypotheticals are unnecessary.

If you were an undocumented immigrant applying for asylum (in full accordance with international law) in 2018, and the US government came to steal your infant from you before deporting you, what are you gonna do... shoot them?  Do you think that will make any difference?  The very idea is laughable.  Furthermore, your perpetual cry of "Are you gonna just lay down and take it when the concentration camps arrive?" rings bitterly hollow, given your enthusiastic support for the very actions I described above.  

The choice you offer - either you pick up a gun, or you "get in line for the camps" - is not only a false choice, it's a dumb and ineffective one.  There's another option that involves neither meek submission nor picking up a gun: mass protests and civil disobedience.

Also, what does being a "nuclear power" have to do with it?

Because nuclear powers aren't some "3rd world countries and banana republics using Soviet era technology."  The latter are the types of countries that might be susceptible to an armed revolt.

[Spider-Dan]

This from a guy who has been preaching that an unarmed buffalo hat guy and his buddies took over the Capital and all the democrats were in mortal danger.

And the Capitol invaders didn't fire a single shot.  Q.E.D.

If you have political power, you don't need guns to overthrow the government.
If you don't have political power, no amount of guns is enough.