Muh right to bear arms to fight tyranny

brace for
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
fags.

Obama drones hundreds every day, you can easily drone 100k in your own country within a week

Marat said "We need 100000 heads to save the Revolution" (in a country with 23 millions of people) so I would say the Indian revolution was a quiet one.

>you can easily drone 100k in your own country within a week
No you can't. /k/ would laugh at you.

>/k/
kek.
Gotta strafe the muzzies.

>Gotta strafe the muzzies
wat ?

Yes you can, especially if they are congregated in demonstrations. We are all laughing at you, cuckold.

You're a child who have no ideas what 100k people represent.

>France 1789: The Third State (general population) were forbidden to possess arms.
>Russia 1917: All non-military russians could face the death penalty for owning guns.
>India 1945: The general population had virtually no firearms at all
And look at the fucking shit they replaced it with.

Not him but 100k people isn't a lot.

Revolutionary France took on the entire Europe and WON.

Revolutionary Russia became the URSS and won WW2

Independant India became one of the few nuclear power and between seventh and fifth economy in the world.

not him, but how the fuck are you going to use a drone to shoot 100,000 people?

Another embarrassing post. Get a grip.

>ridiculous amounts of firepower no citizen should need or have
And who exactly are you to tell me I shouldn't keep my AR-15? I happily invite you to come try it out, it's pretty dope. But you're also welcome to come try to take it :^)

>missile

>a drone
Pretty sure the government has more than one predator drone.

>1 missile that can be mounted on a drone
>100000 people

sure, but one drone can't do much and even if the government had 1000 at their disposal, a perfect weather and a secure and stable base of operations, they wouldn't manage to do it

the rest would be spooked to death

t. my dad was in the military once

ye others will be spooked
the consiquences for the government won't be nice doe

they were white males about to gangrape a school of muslim lesbian transgirls

it had to be done

thanks to the elastic clause, the constitution can be updated to meet the present days needs - out of all of the constitutions amendments the bill of rights portion is in desperate need of constant revisions.

as a country that was founded on the ideals of for the people by the people, it seems that there is a major disconnect between we the people and the man (or as the conspiracy "nuts" say, "them" and "they" - btw if the late '80's and early '90's generation of conspiracy theorists' were redeemed in mainstream media, i wonder what will be redeemed in 20 years from now - the nsa started as an et monitoring sort of agency)

the american revolution forced the then world power into multiple series of stalemates by regularly bleeding its ability to perform combat duties - they ambushed supply convoys much more than they faught - its called guerrilla warfare.

What consequences? People doing demonstrations and protesting?
>get droned

>people operating the drone get rushed, raped and slaughtered

>Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving whole nation of arms, as the blackest. - Mahatma Ghandi

If you want some real answers although obviously biased ask /k/.

You needs guns against tyranny because the Government have guns. It's that simple. If the government and law enforcement have guns and the public don't then they utterly dominate the public martially.

Yes I do believe civilians should (and do) own tanks and artillery too.

>implying civilians would know who was operating
>implying civilians would have the balls to break into a soldiers house and try to kill him
Hillary won the popular vote

>buy tank
>learn to operate it
>try to use it against the government
>get droned

Arthur Kellerman's research in 1993 found that the likelihood of a homicide occurring in a gun-owner's house was 2.7 times greater than in a non gun-owner's house.

This risk is about the same as that of having a convicted criminal in the home with you.

As opposed to the non-existant chance any of you Rambos will rise up against government tyranny

also, i would rather build a powerful airgun from parts that could be bought from any hardware store- air powered weapons can be silenced and there is no flash to worry about and ammo can be crafted.
(undetectable full auto at a fairly close range!)

If Drones are so good why did the US lose the Iraq and Afghan occupations?

>people unironically believe this

>Arthur (((Kellerman)))

k lol

Iraq and Afghanistan are totally shit today so they "succeeded"

t. neoliberal

you are so /pol/ it is unbelievable

yes, they would know where they are operated from and they would know it easily. and there won't be even a place where to land these drones if an actual revolt happened.
>not having the balls to attack soldiers during a revolution

>these US elections relevant at all to anything
jesus

>gangbanger shoots your gay air tank and you're probably fucked by compressed air and without a weapon

Or it explodes, it'll probably explode.

>Gun owners only own guns to fight a totalitarian government
>They can't win therefore their right to own guns should be recinded.

This is just a two dimensional divide and conquer meme. It's all just propaganda to dehumanise and ridicule a group of people that the establishment disagrees with.

The worst thing that can ever happen to antiGun politics is when people find out normal people they know and like are gun owners.

response to 2 posts up,

soon they are going to ban tables, chairs, glass, silverware and electricity - everything can be used as a lethal weapon.

in the future, the government will be required by law to install cameras in every inch of our homes and record everything we do - but then again modern cellphones have at least 2 cameras in them, appliances have cameras for "marketing purposes" and smart homes are the newest thing.

Where are droned operated from, libshit?

>US elections not relevant
Kill yourself, the results illustrate that half the country is turned off by nationalism and will not fight at all.

...

>baseless assertions

You know those drones are operated by people. You think some guy is gonna mow down his countrymen in droves? You think they'll blindly obey orders like that?

And what do you have besides baseless assertions?

they would not need to land the drones, there are cruise missiles for that - i cant remember which "special military order", but the us can perform aerial strikes against populated areas on its own soil if at least 70%(?) is deemed hostile.

i think drones are operated from the pentagon

>Where are droned operated from, libshit?
From military bases/airfields that will get overrun

>Kill yourself, the results illustrate that half the country is turned off by nationalism and will not fight at all.
No reason to fight if your interests are not harmed you moron. You can't compare the US today to the USSR a hundred years ago.
>a /pol/ trumpshit

you are so illogical

70% is a high number. Also, drone striking metropolitan areas won't energize any opposition. No way.

Here's what the gungrabbers don't get about the armed population;

It's not to fight the government. It's to ensure the government won't overstep its boundaries without bloodshed.

When people are unarmed, dissenters can be rounded up, put through "corrective education" in prisons, or insane asylums. People won't die, and the government can keep up the facade that they're doing it for the "Greater Good".

In western countries, even the government has its qualms about killing off vast amounts of its own population. Do they care about the people? Hell no, but they like to think of themselves as the good guys, and this is hard if you have to kill hundreds of thousands of your own countrymen.

An armed population would mean a totalitarian shift needs bloodshed. The government would eventually succeed, but they'd need to step into full scale totalitarian a lot quicker than without an armed populace. The threat of totalitarianism in the west is the sneaky kind of totalitarianism, the kind that strips away liberties one at a time. The people in power do not want, nor do they realize how they're contributing to the construction of a totalitarian state, and they also want to avoid it. But an unarmed populace is a populace easy to ignore.

Guns change the whole fucking deal.

Instead of sending a couple of unarmed cops over to a political dissident, someone who drew Muhammad a couple of times, and this guy now needs to be put behind bars for "reeducation". They now need to send a whole SWAT team. And if the offers resistance, lethal force is necessary. So, guns made a simple harassment arrest into a political killing, that's surely going to fuel the resentment of the general population towards the government. And the government now has blood on their hands.

Politicians aren't warriors. They want control through the least amount of resistance. Adding guns into the equation changes the entire course of action they need to take.

>civilians overrunning all military installations in the usa
loled desu

i would not be surprised if the us nukes itself to silence uprisings, america is on its decline (the thing that happens fairly swiftly after a country's golden age) people with power would much rather destroy the world before they lose their "status quo".

a good example is the reign of terror in france during late 1700's to early 1800's.

fun fact, patriots that were promised compensation for their role in the american revolution were gunned down when they demanded that they get their end of the deal after the country was freed from britain.

>implying it would be only civilians
>what is revolution
back to /pol/ you disgusting faggot

i cant remember if it was 70% exactly - it was anywhere in between 60% to 90% and not drone strikes, tactical cruise missiles.

>Implying the military is antiGun.
Some of them are but seriously now. They are the minority.

yeah, no. we would get moved down before we even reached the perimeter. anyone that would get themselves killed and knew the statistical impossibility of even taking on one soldier and still doing so would be better off jumping from a building.
if anything, fuck the world a live your own life.

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary."

One of those countries has laws against what civilians are allowed to say.
Another one allows the beating and assault of minorities (Gays)
The third has such a divide in class, and mass amounts of poverty. Not to mention corruption through out the entire government.

@Norwayfag,
war isnt about caring, all wars (and i mean ALL of them) have economic incentives - its king of like a political cartoon from the 1800's - they knew it, some faught it (the confederacy was not over racism - the federal government stealing slaves/living farm equipment was the last straw - obviously the mentality was much different back then).

the government system that many people died to form was not supposed to get that intrusive.

also, abolishing slavery had an ulterior motive - russia abolished servitude and we wanted alaska

>implying soldiers would kill fellow soldiers over killing squabbling civilians

And again you missed the whole point of the armed populace. It's not about war. It's to make a clear distinction between what the government can, and cannot do without the citizen's consent.

The gun on a citizens wall is there, not for fighting the government, but to remove any chance of ant stepping your way to tyranny.

You'd have to go all out from the start, and this is not what government wants.

>be Europopr
>don't own a gun, a car or a house
>get jailed for a racist tweet

>implying soldiers would kill fellow civilians over killing squabbling soldiers

>If the government and law enforcement have guns and the public don't then they utterly dominate the public martially.
Then how do you explain ALL the very real revolutions that actually took place in which the population don't use personal weapons but just weapons they took FROM the government.

>need

Who died and made you king of the zombies?

>a good example is the reign of terror in france during late 1700's to early 1800's.
The Terror is 1793-1794 and it was the revolutionnary themselves doing crazy shit while the general population was EXTREMELY armed. If anything that's a case FOR gungrabbers.

> Monarchy: weapons are banned
Revolutionaries easily overthrow the king with minimal bloodshed

> First Republic: Everyone is armed to defend the Revolution against the "Ennemies of the state"
So much executions you can't even count.

Predator drones aren't dirt cheap, and they cannot fire on civilian households at random. So long as you do danger close and wear clothes to counter thermals, the cost effectiveness of a redneck will be ~20 times higher than a predator drone, mostly because suburban america is way easier to survive against drone strikes than afghanistan.

>people don't die in collective re education

The reason guns are important is that America has a shitload of rural territory where cops are 30m-5 hours away, europlebs.

the same is true for a lot of European countries. Not every Euro country is Belgium or Great Britain.

>suburban america is way easier to survive against drone strikes than afghanistan
Lmao

Why wouldn't this be true? You could straight up stand on the other side of a house with civies in it.

How the fuck would thermal tracking in a desert not be harder to survive in?

This entire website is turning to shit.

Why do you want someone else to control your availability of weapons? Think its dangerous to keep a gun in the house? Don't buy one. You're a pussy but that's your right.

Has an evil white christian even done anything to you? Ever? Ever feel like this is a false narrative?

I would die in a purge if it meant all you people never got a chance to reproduce.

>the government will just kill everyone with drones
Yeah, that'll sure make them real popular with the people

>hiding in mountains and caves is more dangerous than sitting in suburbia protesting at the nearest mcdonalds

Which is why they use drones dingus.

>people make fun of my right to arm bears.
>better call them big poopooheads.
/tumblr/

>P2W shitters

It's like I'm really playing an Overkill game

Some scholars actually did a study and concluded that unarmed revolutions are more likely to succeed than armed ones, because the real determinant of success is if the soldiers switch sides, and they are more likely to join up with people who aren't shooting at them rather than those who are

Governments are not afraid of armed civilians, because armed civilians are useless

They are afraid of mass demonstrations and the army refusing to follow orders

Russia part's still going on today.

Actually plenty of self proclaimed white Christians have done evil things directly affecting my life.

But to be really fair, I don't think they were really Christians and neither are you.

Actually come to think of it, you have so little faith in your god and promise of a better afterlife that you have to cling to this life and your defend your life and possession with violent force.

There were many Christians in the past that went willingly to Roman deaths and did not rise up against the government even though they were persecuted because they knew they had a better life in the hereafter.

Really... Jesus isn't known for killing Roman soldiers in a violent revolution.

And to add to that... Maybe you should be a Muslim and not a Christian, because their religion actually supports violence against people where Christians know their reward is in the hear after and to render unto Cesare and willfully to their death without fighting back.

>army refusing to follow orders
knowing they might start shooting back makes this more likely

The government loves it when dissidents start shooting, because it means you can then kill or imprison them with no political fallout

The military are less likely to support an armed revolution than an unarmed one

>might

its a moot point anyways since firearms will never ever ever ever get banned in the US ever.
the only time the government ever got close to even trying was the 94 AWB, and that pretty much shocked the entire gun owning population of the US into a permanent state of paranoia about the gubbament taking their guns.

>McCarthy witchhunts
Witchhunts don't turn out to be true.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

>having a gun is as dangerous as having a crminal in the room
>the average number of hands a human has is less than 2
Completely situational

>That's one big drone.
For you.

>revolt against government
>significant part of the military deserts to your side
>drones shooting each other