Give up your guns now

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Krakatoa
Because we are smarter than to use them.
And yes, he is a moron because he used that analogy. Because all the right wing haters can nit pike his comment out of context to prove how bad the democrats are.

No, he is a moron because his analogy has very little relevance to the topic. A rogue gov would recognize that relations with other nations would be necessary especially if theyre fighting a "rebellion" at home... I don't really think nukes would look too good on the news and the citizens of other nations would not tolerate supporting such actions... If the new rogue US Gov will do that to its own citizens...what will they do to you?

Plus, nukes are no good when fighting an insurgency. The enemy would be mixed in with the people. You would create an emp that would effect all vulnerable electronics. I mean, if it comes to that, removing or changing the 2nd amendment will be the least of Your worries.

The gov having nukes, attack helicopters, jets, etc is not an argument against gun ownership or the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I resent that notion. I don't have any respect for this "may as well give up cause the other side has cooler toys" attitude.

I can definitely see how due to the high levels of cowardice infused into this thought, and the total lack of critical thinking, it might appeal to SOME of my fellow Americans who I am not too proud of at the moment...
*ahem-Democrats-ahem*

a reply to: 3n19m470

The very same military with all its cool toys that could not subdue a country the size of Afghanistan ... or Iraq for that matter. Can magically subdue a country the size of the US because they have nukes and cooler toys?

a reply to: Golantrevize


I will tell you that alternative news sources will fill you in about the guillotines.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: 3n19m470

The very same military with all its cool toys that could not subdue a country the size of Afghanistan ... or Iraq for that matter. Can magically subdue a country the size of the US because they have nukes and cooler toys?

Lol, you really think those countries couldn’t be nuked off the face of the earth if TPTB desired? Or short of nukes, all out invasion? (See Desert Storm as example). It’s a good thing there is more concern for civilian casualties than the mainstream media acknowledges.
If the juice was worth the squeeze, there would be an instant (within reason) win. The problem becomes the cost of keeping enough boots on the ground to hold secured ground and if that cost outweighs the potential benefits...which it currently does not.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Interesting since it's usually people of a certain demographic who say their right to arms is to stop a tyrannical government, to inhibit their overreaching ways.

Yet your American rights are being eroded every day and guns literally won't help you, there's been no uprising.

Tbh it'll never be an argument of which side has the coolest toys, it's an argument of rights AND responsibility.

A responsible nation wouldn't "nuke" it's own citizens or in any other way commit acts of genocide, at home or abroad. It won't lose such weapons and would keep them safe and secure for when the potential of needing them should ever occur.

A responsible gun owner would act in a similar manner, as in not massacre their own family or innocent people, not leave loaded guns lying around unsecure, educate those with access.

From the outside looking in, I've never seen it as an issue to your right to guns. It's your responsibility that's the issue. But then isn't that the reason there's so much hyperbole and general craziness to the topic?

Maybe stoopid gun owners should be shot on the spot??? Might as well give in to the logic of the situation right? It's not like either side can be "logical" about the situation lol.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: 3n19m470

The very same military with all its cool toys that could not subdue a country the size of Afghanistan ... or Iraq for that matter. Can magically subdue a country the size of the US because they have nukes and cooler toys?

Rules of war?

If their was no rules we'd have denoted the likes of Afghani or Iraqi to the history books, you don't have a clue what you're talking about is all I can assume.

If it was comply or die those countries would be easily subdued. Just take 5 minutes to look at genocide hotspots over the last 50 years and what small arms can do to annihilate and subjecate (child soldiers killing family) you genuinely don't want to know what a modern arsenal could do when rules and humanity are off the table.

But then, I've just used an extreme narrative to make a point... Kinda like the senator everyone is twisting panties about.

a reply to: Golantrevize

What a joke. He has no idea. In a standing army with only a few defections? Maybe so. But chances are patriot forces would control and deploy those nukes not the anti American left.

If he thinks they can win, why not try it? He a chicken?

Good luck. They're going to need it. Hope they end this charade soon. There's no room here for those treasonous bastards anymore.

They're not welcome here. They are not Americans. They are the enemy, as they have made clear.

How to make this crystal clear?

An awb is a declaration of war.

Any further regulation is a declaration of war.

Any regulation on ammo, manufacturers or dealers is a declaration of war.

Any attack on patriot gun owners is a declaration of war.

How to make this crystal clear?

An awb is a declaration of war.

Any further regulation is a declaration of war.

Any regulation on ammo, manufacturers or dealers is a declaration of war.

Any attack on patriot gun owners is a declaration of war.

a reply to: Golantrevize


Can't say I'm surprised by this.

Isn't this what leftists want?

a reply to: Golantrevize
Gotta love these idiot democrat (redundant) politicians. Lmao

a reply to: RAY1990

Swalwell doesn't seem to think the rules of war would apply against Americans. If he did, he wouldn't have made those comments.

Of course, I could mention, once again, the outrage that occurred when Trump asked why we couldn't nuke countries. It seems that certain facets of the political spectrum represented by mainstream media outlets took him 100% seriously ... HE WANTS TO NUKE OTHER COUNTRIES.

But here we are being told that a similar comment by a Democrat is in no way in earnest. It's just some representation of hyperbole and rhetoric. Isn't this typical?

The fact remains that a government serious about remaining in charge would not nuke its own populace. For one thing, a government in the middle of an armed uprising needs the support of the remainder of its populace. No matter how rabid in support people are for the government. How quickly do you think they'll stop supporting that entity in the face of watching it nuke its own?

Then there is the military. As I mentioned before, the military would be split in this scenario. They are a volunteer force, not a professional one. Not all will play ball for the government in a scenario where they'd be asked to shoot at their own families. Some would take their toys and go to bat for the other side.

And how much quicker does that happen when it's revealed that the guys at the top want to send their families home in a nuclear fireball? Just because the government is nuts doesn't mean the entire military commend structure is.

If all the village idiots in the world got together and formed a village, Swalwell would be the village idiot of that village.

I know that this congressman was attempting, notice I said attempting--he failed remarkably well, to describe the discrepancy in power between the US military, and average civilians in terms of armament. That a war, or insurrection, call it what you will would be impossible for the mere civilians to win...

He over-stretched the hyperbole more than a tad bit... Actually past the point of absurdity.

Not to mention, the odds in this hypothetical war are not as stacked against the mere civilians as one might, at first glance, think.

a reply to: seagull

No. They aren't.

For one thing, there is a lot of America and not as much military as many people like to think. The logistical problems of securing the major population centers and the supply routes would be difficult enough without having to try to squash a determined guerilla resistance made up of trained former military, local yokels who know their areas like the back of their hand, and similar types who can move with impunity.

... and that's without factoring in the areas of the country that would openly rebel, not just resist covertly.

Can't help but remember that old biblical saying, the book of Proverbs I believe it was,.."The abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

This clown is willing to "nuke" his own backyard to get rid of the "undesirables"?

I'm really wondering what these A-holes call "hate speach". But I'm glad he said it. I hope his kind keep barking.
The untrainable, barking dog, gets the .22 behind the ear.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Certainly the notion of using nukes on a homeland insurrection is ludicrous. You know it and I know it and I would bet that most of us know it. The only ones who might not know it are crazy people.So....

This guy, this Democrat Rep makes a statement, no a tweet, engaging with an adversarial reply addressing the issue gun rights in regards to how they will be needed to fend of an armed crack down by the government, and in so doing uses a stupid analogy. Pointing out the miss match in weaponry between the government and citizens. That is what I understood about the mans statement.

From this simple gaff, it has been blown up to making this guy, and hence all liberals, out to be crazy. Why? Because only crazy people might think this was a viable action to take. Or even threaten. And were that the case, I would agree. But...

He was not threatening anyone, just making an over the top analogy. But look at the first page of this thread. One after another took it to be that he is crazy and was threatening conservatives with nukes. What I see as paranoia does not allow for a reasoned inquiry of what he was really trying to say, it was just taken at face value as interpreted by over zealous defenders of the 2nd Amendment. Here I stress ''over zealous'' because I am a defender of the amendment and do not want to give up my guns either.

As well, I agree that the might of the government's armory is not an argument against gun ownership, rather a dismissal of the defense of that ownership based on the idea that our weaponry would serve us in a battle with government forces.

Were it to come to that all would be lost anyway.

So threatening people is a good way to get people to give up firearms? Who would have known...

a reply to: roadgravel

I'm already packing mine up.

I is skeered.

a reply to: seagull

Where I live, people don't shoot each other despite a large number of firearms. Every raffle a group does to raise money is full of rifles as prizes.

I think they are looking at the wrong people as a cause. What about gangs whose purpose is criminal.