Venezuela or tinanmen square 2.0
- Thread starter herdfan429
- Start date
Either you or BC (since he liked your post) can explain:
So let's say Venezuelan citizens had regular arms like American citizens do. What would these citizens in the streets armed with shotguns and pistols be able to do to stop that tank from running them over?
That's not a tank.
And the motherfvckers can't live in it. Sooner or later you have to poke your head out.
The troops on the street on motorcycles? Shoot 'em. The troops beating people in the street? Shoot 'em. Sooner or later, troops get tired of being shot for an asshole.
No. Citizens armed with shotguns and pistols don't wander over to a military base and wait for the military members to poke their head out.
No. If citizens are shooting, the federal military doesn't send guys out in motorcycles or beat people in the streets. They drop fvcking bombs on those locations, much like our federal military does to targets overseas. In other words, the citizens armed with shotguns and pistols have no fvcking chance.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment argument makes absolutely no sense. Give each citizen a choice of a shotgun or pistol. See what happens to them if they start shooting at the military.
we'll simply call up swayze from the grave and have him get his pack of wolverines together.
No one in Venezuela is going to be dropping bombs (unless it is the US). These are't Muslims.
You think shotguns and pistols are the only weapons available? Or are you, being the meticulous, tricky bastard you are, purposely limiting your argument to short-range firearms?
You think people can live on a base forever, after the opposition has blockaded the supply routes?
Yags seems unaware of Serb and Greek partisans shooting heavily armed Nazi's throughout the Balkan campaign and our experiences in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam...
No, I'm discussing the commonly legal guns U.S. citizens are allowed since we are playing hypotheticals about why the 2nd is needed.
Let me get this right:
You think civilians are going to block supply routes for the military base with their shotguns and pistols while the military shoots at them from the sky, runs them over with tanks, drops explosives on them?
You must be joking. The U.S. destroyed the parts of Iraq and Afghanistan that it wanted. If it wanted to take out all civilians, it could have easily done that regardless of every citizen having a pistol or shotgun.
Actually, no you are not. You are purposely leaving out rifles.
Yeah, because it doesn't take much. You think broke-ass truck drivers are going to risk life and limb for the asshole in charge and his stooges? People are actually eating fvcking rats and dogs in Venezuela. This situation is the very definition of a populist uprising. You have had classes on this subject. You know better. Or maybe MU really does have tutors take tests for athletes....
And "insurgents" still managed to kill and maim a shitload of soldiers...
Conflict history from WWII on is mostly a history of insurgency.
Ok. Yags continues to be ignorant on this subject.
Pistols and shotguns are not all that's legal under 2A, so as Raoul surmised you are arguing an illegitimate standard as usual.
We bombed the crap out of VC and the Taliban, yet they mostly killed our troops with small-arms fire and booby-traps.
Pistols and shotguns are not all that's legal under 2A, so as Raoul surmised you are arguing an illegitimate standard as usual.
We bombed the crap out of VC and the Taliban, yet they mostly killed our troops with small-arms fire and booby-traps.
Include rifles along with handguns and shotguns. It makes absolutely no difference. A federal army can still destroy an army of citizens with those weapons.
You think broke-ass soldiers are going to risk life and limb to go to the Middle East and fight an oil war? A broke-ass truck driver carrying supplies to/from a military base would be escorted by armored vehicles, tanks, etc. Go ahead and try using your pistol/rifle/shotgun to stop them. See what happens.
Those insurgents were given a hell of a lot more weapons than people in Venezuela would have access to if a version of the 2nd Amendment passed there. I didn't say a Venezuelan army wouldn't have some casualties. But in the long run - and by "long" I mean a very short amount of time - the Venezuelan army would crush (literally and figuratively, as you just saw) civilians trying to kill them with guns.
You need to work on reading comprehension. I used the phrase "the commonly legal guns." The commonly legal guns are shotguns/rifles/handguns. It is not at all an illegitimate standard. The commonly legal guns in the U.S. - if permitted to be owned by Venezuelan citizens - would do nothing to stop a federal army hellbent on killing any who oppose them.
And you want to talk about illegitimate standards? Both of those were fought on foreign soil. Both of those had serious consequences politically around the world for the deaths of civilians. Venezuela? If their citizens started using guns to kill their own army, they would not need to be walking through the Vietnam jungle taking out village after village. They could simply air bomb the fvck out of every single town whose citizens are trying to kill them.
It's no different than what the U.S. does in its wars. Destroy the cities. Crush their facilities. Annihilate their ability to make/get food. When they have no other choice, you control how and when the citizens get food. They aren't killing those trying to give them food. Just like the U.S. does overseas, the Venezuelan army has the ability to manipulate their people. Those who are still living can't eat their shotguns/rifles/handguns. Those things aren't going to do anything to planes bombing them and tanks shelling them.
Our soldiers are not broke-ass. Maybe by "rich American" standards, but not by global standards, and not by the standards of empirical evidence on what level of income influences the chance/support of revolution (hint: it is SUBSTANTIALLY lower than what even an E-1 makes).
I am doing some assuming here, but I am going to take a guess and state American troops are far more patriotic and loyal than a Venezuelan truck driver that ate a rat for dinner.
It's about time. Now we can effectively kill people from farther than 30 yards.
You are making a rich assumption that the military there would 100% support the government once the shit really hits the fan. Or 90%. Or even 50%. Since 1945, Venezuela has had NINE coups or attempted coups. To say that nation has a history of parts, or most, of the military saying fvck the government would be an understatement.
Take that up with the writer of the Bill of Rights - James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he discusses his reasoning for the 2nd Amendment. There, he has a thorough explanation for how many citizens/guns would be needed based on the population to be able to overtake the largest possible number in a federal army with the same population. At no time did he question if the federal military would be loyal. Had he questioned it, like you have, it would entirely change his argument of the need for guns for all.
I can put a bullet in the eye of a doe at 125 yards with a cheap Remington 873. That 06 round would tear through body armor, and I don't need to be that accurate. Wound one, take two out of commission.
Besides there is only around 600,000 max active duty troops and most of those are fat pogue admin people.
No way in God's green Earth they could weed out rednecks in West Virginia and 50 million others in Appalachia and the Rockies and the Sierras.
Besides there is only around 600,000 max active duty troops and most of those are fat pogue admin people.
No way in God's green Earth they could weed out rednecks in West Virginia and 50 million others in Appalachia and the Rockies and the Sierras.
And they wouldn’t need to. They are too stupid, too lazy, and too poor to do any type of rioting of the federal government.
Billy Bob ain’t coming out from the Sierras to try and overthrow the government in DC.
What? The Venezuelan government is responding to the damage and attempts by the civilians to overthrow the federal government. Billy Bob ain’t going to do shit up in the Sierras with his rifle. A federal army would have no reason to do anything since he isn’t a threat to them up there.
I’d invite you to explain, but we both know that you can’t.
I think the points have been made. You make a lot of assumptions and frankly don't know what in the world you are talking about.
It's you that don't know what you're talking about. There are 1.3 million active duty military personnel, not counting the army reserve, army national guard, air national guard, marine corp reserve, navy reserve, air force reserve, and coast guard reserve, which amounts to about another million. With less than 9% of that number, the U S invaded a foreign country and occupied the capital in roughly 20 days. That was done against a minimum of 300,000 trained Iraqi soldiers with 10 mechanized and armored divisions.
Your only hope that your 2A rights will protect America is if the armed forces fight each other. Otherwise the uprising is squelched rather quickly.
What happened after that invasion? What is the population of the USA, number of guns, land size, size of cities. You also assume that in an event like this the entire US military would be against the people. How do you conduct MOUT in a city like Los Angeles, Atlanta, New York?
Of those numbers how many are going to kick in doors? Have you ever done MOUT training? You know what is one of the worst things ever is? Kicking in a door going street to street?
How do control the population in the USA? And, the size of the USA? How do you control Texas? That is one state?
Don't be stupid. An event like that in this country would make Iraq look like a picnic. You are talking taking down a depleted military. You don't even get to the occupation part.
I love the mititary. But, there is not military in the word that would want to try to occupy the USA.
The freaking squids in the Navy and the kids of the Chair Force ain't going to do diddly poo in the case of an uprising, likewise the National Guard.
liarherdfan, voting for and defending president Bonespurs, a draft dodger who knows more than the generals. Your idiocy knows no bounds.
At lunch tomorrow, ask those Fortune 500 company execs how many employees they'll have when they retire, then get back to us.
They thought they could hide out below ground or in the hills somewhere and evade the U S military. How'd that work out for them. moron.
