"The Government Has Nukes" warns Eric Swalwell[D - CA] to Gun Owners
154 replies, posted
This just goes to show how detached from reality our leaders really are.
What a stupid thick cunt
Would legitimately love to see the look on the faces of anyone willing to turn the key on their own country as they realize WIND BLOWS FALL-OUT INTO YOUR BACKYARD AS WELL AS THE LIBS' JACKASS.
You realize this braindead suggestion of nuking one's own people came from "the libs," yes?
Homefield is negated in both directions when a civil war occurs, both sides have the same knowledge advantage and additionally, you'd be fucked to to somehow think even just a fourth of the US military would stay with the US military in a Civil War scenario.
Except the person bragging about nukes is part of "the libs", jackass.
Not exactly. The United States across all of it's fifty states has some huge differences in terms of culture, local ecosystems, terrain, and overall how things are handled between state to state, hell even town to town in some cases. The East and West Coasts are separated from themselves and the Midwest by massive mountain ranges like the Appalachia, Rockies, and Cascades. Not only that, but you also have massive rivers with their respective watersheds that effectively sever this country into several distinct parts/regions. Think of the Missouri, Mississippi, and Colorado Rivers for examples.
Another thing to take into account is that even the US Military acknowledges that different camo patterns have to be used for certain regions:
http://i.imgur.com/J0M33VC.jpg
And just to nail my point home, if you have the time... Please look at this website for the dialects of American English.
I’m not saying we should “ban the scary guns” but we should ban the scary guns. This is another thing I can’t stand. People who pretend to be all like “oh I’m not against gun ownership” and then try to justify something monumentally stupid as another assault weapons ban in the next breath. This kind of shit right here is the exact reason why gun owners don’t believe any deals can happen in good faith and always assume malevolence from the gun control side.
Nixon’s administration made weed illegal to target anti-war protesters and black people.
The pro-establishment Democrats would have a lot to gain by putting gun owners in jail once the backlash subsides because felons can’t vote in most places. Just saying I think some of these politicians know exactly what consequences their actions will bring, and they’re just in it for themselves. I mean one of them was even convicted of weapons trafficking.
We've not really tested that theory. The US has never really made it a policy of totally steamrolling/carpet bombing a country into submission since Korea.
We could've annihilated that country but we didn't because we were trying to entice the NVA to come to the negotiation table. Vietnam was a political failure, not a military one. If we had truly tried to steamroll Vietnam like we did Korea, there'd be nothing left of pre-1964 Viet Nam
Do you think the US is going to carpet bomb its own land?
What would even be the point? "we won but there's nobody left to rule Lmao oops"
Under the doctrine of "gradualism", in which threatening destruction would serve as a more influential signal of American determination than destruction itself, it was thought better to hold important targets "hostage" by bombing trivial ones. From the beginning of Rolling Thunder, Washington dictated which targets would be struck, the day and hour of the attack, the number and types of aircraft and the tonnages and types of ordnance utilized, and sometimes even the direction of the attack.[29] Airstrikes were strictly forbidden within 30 nautical miles (60 km) of Hanoi and within ten nautical miles (19 km) of the port of Haiphong. A thirty-mile buffer zone also extended along the length of the Chinese frontier. According to air force historian Earl Tilford:
Targeting bore little resemblance to reality in that the sequence of attacks was uncoordinated and the targets were approved randomly – even illogically. The North's airfields, which, according to any rational targeting policy, should have been hit first in the campaign, were also off-limits.[30]
because we weren't trying to destroy North Viet Nam, we wanted to bring them to the negotiation table
We dropped 7 Million Tons of explosives in the Vietnam War. Double the amount we dropped in World War II.
Don't give me this shit.
The heavy bombings were intended to destroy the will of ordinary Vietnamese to resist, as in the bombings of German and Japanese population centres in World War II - despite President Johnson's public insistence that only "military targets" were being bombed.
https://libcom.org/history/1957-1975-the-vietnam-war
This was taken from Howard Zinn's *A People's History*. No matter your opinion on him, we dropped a hell of a lot of ordinance on the Vietnamese in an attempt to bomb them into submission - even in the words of men like General Curtis LeMay who said that we should bomb "them" back to the Stone Age.
He's not arguing that the US didn't bomb them, he's arguing that the US could have bombed them EVEN MORE but didn't to force negotiations.
That was the exact reason we were dropping over 7 Million tons of bombs on them and over 13 Million Gallons of defoliation agents. You can not argue that the largest bombing campaign in history was somehow magically not to destroy the people and places those bombs were being dropped.
Yes because most of those places weren't strategically important. Don't get me wrong, it's horrifying but in essence it was all a big intimidation campaign.
Might be hard to believe but the US was just flexing its muscles. They could have done more damage easily but didn't. I'm not saying they were benevolent at all but they intentionally limited the inflicted damage.
The overall strategic goal of bombings in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia was to halt the PVN and especially their supply chain. The targets were strategically important. Problem was the bombing campaign was ineffective and only strengthened resolve against the United States.
"Big Intimidation Campaign" that involved bombing three countries, and killing countless civilaisn in a war that the US shouldn't have been involved in in the first place.
*drops literally more ordancnace than in World War II and manages to kill a bunch of civilians and not achieve any of its goals*
haha just flexing.
lmao they purposefully dropped more ordanance than had ever been dropped before, they didn't "intentially limit the inflicted damage".
You're missing the point. I'm not gonna go further along this line of discussion because you seem too emotionally involved atm.
I don't think they'd even need to, since pro-regime militias would most likely be able to do their work for them anyway.
how am I "too emotionally involved"???
the goals of the bombing campaign were not met, we were attempting to bomb the north into submission.
i sure bet the government would fear a well armed and well educated populace even more. you do know that anyone, regardless of political affiliations, can own a gun?
That's not really what happens in practice, though. When a majority of gun owner would, by all account, actually support a tyrannical regime, it kind of runs against the idea of civilian gun ownership facilitating a resistance movement.
I'm not so sure a government would really be afraid of pro-regime militias they can easily manipulate into doing their bidding.
that is not what happens in practice because guns have been made a partisan issue for some god forsaken reason. there's nothing stopping dems from arming up to the same level as those pro-regime militias.
Weapons cost money. The average democrat most likely simply has less use for guns than the average republican. You can't just say "well everyone should buy guns then!" when they simply don't see the need for it in time of peace.
The line of arguing of blaming democrats for not buying enough guns for your anti-tyranny 2A argument to hold water doesn't make much sense either.
So how exactly do you explain literally every other conflict like this hypothetical that has happened in other countries
What makes America different?
How many of those conflicts have resulted in toppling the American government again? How many of them have even become a serious threat to the US government?
Oh right, none of them. Their strategy is just to force the conflict to go on long enough that the government decides that the attrition isn't worth it to keep occupying some far-away foreign country. Not to mention of course that the guerillas and the civilians they hide behind are still the ones that suffer the overwhelming majority of the casualties.
The essential difference is the stakes. If America fails to win a conflict in a small, destabilized country, the government will be fine. They might lose control of whatever interests they had in the region and face public backlash, but they're not at risk. If a tyrannical regime loses a civil war, they'll be exiled at best, sent to the guillotines at worst. There is no "pulling out" of a conflict against a domestic rebellion that wants to topple your regime, it's fight to the death (or until rebellion actually becomes powerful enough to be able to defeat your forces and you have to flee).
Yeah civil wars don't tend to try to topple governments that don't rule over the people in the war?
Okay, and the stakes are the same everywhere else a civil war or revolution has ousted a ruling government.
The government wanting to win doesn't mean that it will.
why can't i say that if i think more people should see the potential need for it, even in peacetime? i don't even think owning a firearm to fight tyranny is the primary reason anyone should own a gun. owning a gun gives one a measure of self-sustainability in instances where one might not be able to rely on the state or our infrastructure to help, no matter how remote that possibility might be. you don't buy a fire extinguisher when your home is already burning, i would caution against only considering buying a gun when it seems like it would be most necessary to your survival.
i personally would rather not roll over and take it because it is too hard to fight back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.