User Panel
You gotta get that bitch off the ground before you can do anything with it.
You could also launch 1000 F18's and not kill 1000 scattered riflemen. |
|
Want me to show you how to disable an F-15 on the ramp with a rifle? Three shots will tie it up for days, or permanently with enough precision in the shot.
But that should not be the target, it's the revolutionary and tyrannical politicians that believe they will hide in their offices. A day or two without power and communication will soften them up. |
|
|
The tank and airplanes have maintainers with families. The tanks and airplanes sit in the open surrounded by security not in tanks. Tanks and airplanes need fuel to fly.....
Liberals are dumb and ashamed you want to protect yourself. |
|
Tanks and aircraft will be interesting to watch in NYC, Chicago, SF, LA, Detroit, and Baltimore, etc. I am sure that will make the libs feel safer in their gentrified neighborhoods, until called out as being racist.
|
|
Quoted:
I've heard this crap multiple times in recent years and it drives me absolutely crazy. Had a co-worker (liberal as hell) tell me this exact thing the other day at work - "gun owners think they can defeat anything with a rifle - how effective is that rifle going to be against tanks and aircraft?" I reminded her of all the insurgencies throughout history where poor farmers with only small arms kept major military powers on their toes for years and years. I told her, "the last time I checked, the Taliban doesn't have tanks or aircraft either - they wear rags, have little to no transportation, and still (with only small arms) - they haven't been defeated or given up." She had no response to that and walked away. Anyone else encounter this bullshit logic from the left? View Quote |
|
I don't care about throwing rational arguments at the left, they are irrational.
My response to that now is always this: Attached File |
|
Quoted:
I've heard this crap multiple times in recent years and it drives me absolutely crazy. Had a co-worker (liberal as hell) tell me this exact thing the other day at work - "gun owners think they can defeat anything with a rifle - how effective is that rifle going to be against tanks and aircraft?" I reminded her of all the insurgencies throughout history where poor farmers with only small arms kept major military powers on their toes for years and years. I told her, "the last time I checked, the Taliban doesn't have tanks or aircraft either - they wear rags, have little to no transportation, and still (with only small arms) - they haven't been defeated or given up." She had no response to that and walked away. Anyone else encounter this bullshit logic from the left? View Quote The 2A recognizes a God-given right to own and posses all arms which include anti-tank weapons. The 2A isn't about robbers and rapists as most CONservatives state, its about tyranny and genocide. The Founders meant ALL arms otherwise they would have stated that the citizenry should only have "lesser" arms like crossbows and catapults instead of muskets and cannon - they did not. They were very clear it meant the same arms as any standing army or any arms which were available. The 2A is about TYRANNY and it is nonsensical to state that the 2A is about defense against tyranny BUT that machine guns, grenades, rockets, etc. should be illegal as how can one defend against tyranny when they are at a great disadvantage? The NRA and most "pro-gun" internet and talk show celebrities have done such a disservice to the 2A by talking only about CCW and home defense. This is why we are losing, along with calling our Republic with a Bill of Rights a democracy which it is not. |
|
Quoted:
I watched a movie once in which a Chinese guy stopped a tank with a briefcase. View Quote Tank Man (now with more raw footage) . |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I watched a movie once in which a Chinese guy stopped a tank with a briefcase. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8zFLIftGk . |
|
Quoted:
I've heard this crap multiple times in recent years and it drives me absolutely crazy. Had a co-worker (liberal as hell) tell me this exact thing the other day at work - "gun owners think they can defeat anything with a rifle - how effective is that rifle going to be against tanks and aircraft?" I reminded her of all the insurgencies throughout history where poor farmers with only small arms kept major military powers on their toes for years and years. I told her, "the last time I checked, the Taliban doesn't have tanks or aircraft either - they wear rags, have little to no transportation, and still (with only small arms) - they haven't been defeated or given up." She had no response to that and walked away. Anyone else encounter this bullshit logic from the left? View Quote The tank drivers in America have families here too. Mom better hope her kid doesn't aim so good. |
|
Quoted:
I don't understand why these people think that someone who would go that route would be participating in conventional battlefield warfare in the first place. I'm pretty sure that most of the rebels know that if they ever pull the trigger, they'll be discovered and either killed or captured with a quickness. So why would they waste that trigger pull on some random 20 year old military conscript? That military dude isn't the ones calling the shots. View Quote |
|
The IRA fought a nuclear power, an empire, to a standstill with a few hundred fighter at most in the field.
|
|
Planes have to land somewhere and tank crews have to get out sometimes
|
|
Quoted:
I think our country is a little different. We actually got our freedom once by violence. I think a second revolution would be a slow start but once going I have no doubt it would accomplish the same thing the first one did. I think many people would be like Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot. They will sit by the sidelines until it touches their lives, and it will, and become the modern day minuteman. View Quote I see no Thomas Paines or Thomas Jeffersons. We have a Thomas Sowell, but he got old and no one gave a fuck about what he had to say. |
|
View Quote |
|
Tanks and airplanes can't keep the politicians that want to wage war on their constituents safe. They sure as heck can't protect those politician's homes and families.
|
|
Quoted: To add to that, much of the U.S. military equipment relies on contractors to stay fully mission capable. A lot of those contractors are veterans, and, just like many folks currently in the military, they tend to lean to the right. You don't have to blow up train tracks which would haul tanks from the depot if the folks who work at the depot either fail to show up for work or even go so far as to sabotage the effort, themselves. If a U.S. president did decide to turn the military on Americans in large scale, there would likely be mass desertions-particularly among combat arms personnel, as they tend to be conservative leaning. Sure, the Army would still have a bunch of supply sergeants and personnel clerks, but they aren't going to be doing shit. Of course, any of us who have served knew combat arms folks who leaned left. So, yeah, those people might be willing to stack up on an American's house, or drive an Abrams down Main Street. But, there won't be many of them. So, yeah, let (shudder) President Sanders order the 82nd ABN DIV to enforce Federal gun laws in an American city. He'd better hope the members of the 123rd Mess Kit Repair BN (ABN) are up for the fight and that they are successful in the first couple of days. After the supplies they brought with them run out, they won't be getting any more of anything else. View Quote If you can make 6 widgets per hour, make 4 instead. When you can make do using only 5 parts, end up using 7. Take a 20 minute dump on company time, use all the TP, leave the water running on the way out, and be sure to clog that shitter. Turn your place of employment into a literal shithole and use it to drive division between management and line workers. If you are reading this...you are the resistance. |
|
Quoted:
It would be harder for me to learn to drive a tank than it would be for me to obtain one. Getting ammo for it would be a little bit tougher but I’ll bet I could work it out once I had a tank. View Quote I'll be wearing my grey man uniform |
|
|
we need to take guns from these anti government nuts!
Trump is literally hitler! only the government should have guns |
|
Quoted: We aren't the same Americans. I see no Thomas Paines or Thomas Jeffersons. We have a Thomas Sowell, but he got old and no one gave a fuck about what he had to say. View Quote |
|
|
I would've also told her, if they're so ineffective, you wouldn't be working so hard to take them away.
|
|
|
|
It’s not worthless against those that maintain those tanks or aircraft.... or those ever so sweet and vital supply lines.
|
|
Quoted: They obviously don’t think it’s such a leap for them to use tanks and jets and drones against us. They’re already predisposed to it. It’s pretty much a forgone conclusion in their mind. So why do we (you and I) think they won’t do it when the time comes? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
That’s easy to answer- It’s because not very long ago there were plenty of random 20 year old military conscripts loading “dissidents” onto railroad cars... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't understand why these people think that someone who would go that route would be participating in conventional battlefield warfare in the first place. I'm pretty sure that most of the rebels know that if they ever pull the trigger, they'll be discovered and either killed or captured with a quickness. So why would they waste that trigger pull on some random 20 year old military conscript? That military dude isn't the ones calling the shots. In the age of surveillance everywhere, thermal, drones, etc... if one were to take action, that person would probably be eliminated relatively quickly. It might be a better strategy if they went for the three-pointers rather than the easier layups. |
|
Not reading all five pages, but has no one mentioned sticky bombs?
*unbelievable not until page 2! |
|
Quoted:
The fact that some people are comfortable with the thought of their government having the wherewithal to use tanks and aircraft against their citizenry, and in fact are more comfortable with that than they are with the thought of you being armed, tells you all you need to know about them. View Quote |
|
|
Well, if the AR15 is no match, or threat, to the government/military weapons why do the dims/libs/progs/socialists want to take them away from us so bad?
|
|
Quoted:
To add to that, much of the U.S. military equipment relies on contractors to stay fully mission capable. A lot of those contractors are veterans, and, just like many folks currently in the military, they tend to lean to the right. You don't have to blow up train tracks which would haul tanks from the depot if the folks who work at the depot either fail to show up for work or even go so far as to sabotage the effort, themselves. If a U.S. president did decide to turn the military on Americans in large scale, there would likely be mass desertions-particularly among combat arms personnel, as they tend to be conservative leaning. Sure, the Army would still have a bunch of supply sergeants and personnel clerks, but they aren't going to be doing shit. Of course, any of us who have served knew combat arms folks who leaned left. So, yeah, those people might be willing to stack up on an American's house, or drive an Abrams down Main Street. But, there won't be many of them. So, yeah, let (shudder) President Sanders order the 82nd ABN DIV to enforce Federal gun laws in an American city. He'd better hope the members of the 123rd Mess Kit Repair BN (ABN) are up for the fight and that they are successful in the first couple of days. After the supplies they brought with them run out, they won't be getting any more of anything else. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: Tough to move tanks and planes when the guy fueling it gets shot, or the driver delivering the fuel gets shot, or ... Notice how the anti-gun people have no idea that people can and will change tactics based on the available tools. This applies in war zones and areas at peace. People intent on killing will get available weapons and develop tactics for those weapons. In war zones, people armed with crowbars will pull up railroad rails, sabotage roads and industry. They don't go directly at manned tanks, they make it difficult for the enemy to use the tanks. People with guns will make it uncomfortable for their enemy to poke their heads outside. People with bombs will bring down buildings on the enemy and their tanks. A small group which successfully curtails or stops the resupply of food, fuel, and spare parts can shut down or limit the use of tanks and airplanes. Likewise, in peace time, murderers will use whatever is at hand. If no guns are available, then they'll use a knife, club, fire, etc. Overall murder rates do not go down with gun bans, the method used may change however. England is a great example, in the 1960s, England's murder rate was in the 0.6-0.8/100,000 range. They pass gun control in 1967, and murder rate went up over 50%. They pass more laws in the late 1990s, and it goes up another 15%. It did dip after they hired more police in the mid 2000s, but it's never been back to the levels of the mid-1960s. You can make the argument that the increased murder rate isn't due to gun control, but there is zero argument that gun control saves lives. If a U.S. president did decide to turn the military on Americans in large scale, there would likely be mass desertions-particularly among combat arms personnel, as they tend to be conservative leaning. Sure, the Army would still have a bunch of supply sergeants and personnel clerks, but they aren't going to be doing shit. Of course, any of us who have served knew combat arms folks who leaned left. So, yeah, those people might be willing to stack up on an American's house, or drive an Abrams down Main Street. But, there won't be many of them. So, yeah, let (shudder) President Sanders order the 82nd ABN DIV to enforce Federal gun laws in an American city. He'd better hope the members of the 123rd Mess Kit Repair BN (ABN) are up for the fight and that they are successful in the first couple of days. After the supplies they brought with them run out, they won't be getting any more of anything else. The civil war showed no winners. The government will fail, and the opposition will lose in an eventual bloodbath. Foreign powers will give some support to both sides, and will wait on the sidelines like vultures picking at the remains. Much of the US troop strength was overseas and not a factor. The government pulled what they could stateside, but couldn't pull everyone in because of China, Soviet Union, Middle East, and other enemies. Strikes by the government which involved artillery, tanks and airplanes usually made things worse for the government. Innocents were killed and caused more grass roots resistance. An errant bomb could kill a relative of someone assigned to security for the President, or other leader, turning them from protection into an assassination risk. Area weapons such as bombs and missiles typically were a public relations nightmare for the government. The rebels tended to strike specific military targets which didn't carry the same risk of collateral damage. Much of the militia effort would be similar to the French Resistance. Make the troops nervous about going outside. Never let them be completely comfortable. Make them wonder if everyone they meet might kill them. Even if you don't stop them, it really slows down work when people are afraid of snipers and booby traps. Federal elections were over. If a politician was pro-fed government, campaigning was fatal. If they weren't pro-fed government, they were determined to be a risk and not allowed travel to a location where they could be a risk to the pro-fed government officials. Looking at where the US military was deployed, the nuclear weapons and military bases were located in red states. The navy could control the coasts, but most of the coast was probably going to be pre-fed government. Technology has changed this, but at that time, most stateside troops were surrounded by people likely to be fighting against the Federal Government. Their families were in those communities. The rebels had all sorts of military equipment because of defectors brought the equipment with them. The defectors also sabotaged the equipment left for the government. |
|
What makes her think that if this thing goes hot, you'll be using your AR against people with tanks and aircraft?
|
|
Hasn't this stupid woman heard of cop-killer bullets? They can go right through body armor and tank hulls, and can bring down high-flying aircraft with a single shot. Especially if shot out of a shrouded barrel. And even if they don't have those, everyone knows a quadcopter will bring down a jet plane. Duh.
|
|
By the time jets and tanks are being used against the American people, they've already lost.
Ask her how she thinks it will play out on the evening news or on YouTube when footage of Illinois NG tanks are firing on homes somewhere in Montana. That worked out real well in Waco. Imagine the above x100 |
|
Quoted:
Well, if the AR15 is no match, or threat, to the government/military weapons why do the dims/libs/progs/socialists want to take them away from us so bad? View Quote “They are ineffective toys, we have nooks!” Also the left: “They are WMDs, baby killing death machines, hi capacity babnana clip ghost guns!” |
|
Quoted:
I've heard this crap multiple times in recent years and it drives me absolutely crazy. Had a co-worker (liberal as hell) tell me this exact thing the other day at work - "gun owners think they can defeat anything with a rifle - how effective is that rifle going to be against tanks and aircraft?" I reminded her of all the insurgencies throughout history where poor farmers with only small arms kept major military powers on their toes for years and years. I told her, "the last time I checked, the Taliban doesn't have tanks or aircraft either - they wear rags, have little to no transportation, and still (with only small arms) - they haven't been defeated or given up." She had no response to that and walked away. Anyone else encounter this bullshit logic from the left? View Quote There is a long tail to support either. In a civil war those pilots also have family and need transport, grocery shopping, schools, movies etc. My rifle is what I use to fight my way to my tank (that used to be yours). |
|
I don't know. He's hung up on that True Colors song by Cyndi Lauper or something.
|
|
Quoted:
By the time jets and tanks are being used against the American people, they've already lost. Ask her how she thinks it will play out on the evening news or on YouTube when footage of Illinois NG tanks are firing on homes somewhere in Montana. That worked out real well in Waco. Imagine the above x100 View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I've heard this crap multiple times in recent years and it drives me absolutely crazy. Had a co-worker (liberal as hell) tell me this exact thing the other day at work - "gun owners think they can defeat anything with a rifle - how effective is that rifle going to be against tanks and aircraft?" I reminded her of all the insurgencies throughout history where poor farmers with only small arms kept major military powers on their toes for years and years. I told her, "the last time I checked, the Taliban doesn't have tanks or aircraft either - they wear rags, have little to no transportation, and still (with only small arms) - they haven't been defeated or given up." She had no response to that and walked away. Anyone else encounter this bullshit logic from the left? View Quote People that say these things are ill equipped for rational discussion. |
|
Quoted:
Want me to show you how to disable an F-15 on the ramp with a rifle? Three shots will tie it up for days, or permanently with enough precision in the shot. But that should not be the target, it's the revolutionary and tyrannical politicians that believe they will hide in their offices. A day or two without power and communication will soften them up. View Quote This Civil War won’t happen. The Leftists are bigger wet-dreamers than we are. They believe, in their heart of hearts that they can just order the Police and Military to do their bidding, and it will be done. Even if they read this whole thread and post it on DU, they will go on believing that, after a few gun owners are rounded up, the rest of us will willingly turn in our weapons. Even that dipshit working for Sanders calling for violence didn’t see the potential for resistance (the Left has NO idea what real resistance means). He said (between F-bombs) some right wingers would have to be re-educated. They are simply too arrogant to consider, to plan for or to broach the subject of “what happens if the right doesn’t do what we think they will?”. If they ever decide to kick off the violence in a non-deep Blue city, they are going to find out how wrong they have been. That’s when, IMO, it will get dangerous for us. They’re likely to backpedal, say their sorry then figure they need to eradicate that 100 million people. That keeps me up at night. TC |
|
Quoted:
I've heard this crap multiple times in recent years and it drives me absolutely crazy. Had a co-worker (liberal as hell) tell me this exact thing the other day at work - "gun owners think they can defeat anything with a rifle - how effective is that rifle going to be against tanks and aircraft?" I reminded her of all the insurgencies throughout history where poor farmers with only small arms kept major military powers on their toes for years and years. I told her, "the last time I checked, the Taliban doesn't have tanks or aircraft either - they wear rags, have little to no transportation, and still (with only small arms) - they haven't been defeated or given up." She had no response to that and walked away. Anyone else encounter this bullshit logic from the left? View Quote The Washington Post is famous for truly ignorant comments making it into the paper. You can also explain to her that the rural countryside where her water, food, and electricity come from is not going to supply her if Civil Ear II breaks out. Most larger cities would have major blackouts with only a few lines feeding them being disrupted. Transformers are NOT armored items, and a decent size bolt action (say .30-06) can easily make a mess of them. All those heat exchangers on the outside are made of rather thin metal. Let alone that the water delivery lines need electricity and are usually protected by o more than a eight foot chain link fence at each pump station or access point. NYC uses massive reservoirs and tunnels (some are real engineering feats) to get water from the Northern part of the state of NY. |
|
we don't need to hurt tankers or pilots it is a waste.
WE NEED TO HURT POLITICIANS |
|
Quoted:
Want me to show you how to disable an F-15 on the ramp with a rifle? Three shots will tie it up for days, or permanently with enough precision in the shot. But that should not be the target, it's the revolutionary and tyrannical politicians that believe they will hide in their offices. A day or two without power and communication will soften them up. View Quote Coffee cup holder Cigarette tray High-Def Stereo system No pilot will fly then. |
|
|
Quoted: When I was in college in the early 1980s, we war-gamed a US-Soviet nuclear war. Afterwards because we had a lot of the necessary information, we did a quick US civil war. While a lot has changed since then, I doubt the overall theories would fall apart. Also, the war gaming was conducted as an academic exercise, only the professor had actual military experience, so please excuse ideas which seem like a Hollywood script. BTW, this was done before the movie "Red Dawn" was made. The civil war showed no winners. The government will fail, and the opposition will lose in an eventual bloodbath. Foreign powers will give some support to both sides, and will wait on the sidelines like vultures picking at the remains. Much of the US troop strength was overseas and not a factor. The government pulled what they could stateside, but couldn't pull everyone in because of China, Soviet Union, Middle East, and other enemies. Strikes by the government which involved artillery, tanks and airplanes usually made things worse for the government. Innocents were killed and caused more grass roots resistance. An errant bomb could kill a relative of someone assigned to security for the President, or other leader, turning them from protection into an assassination risk. Area weapons such as bombs and missiles typically were a public relations nightmare for the government. The rebels tended to strike specific military targets which didn't carry the same risk of collateral damage. Much of the militia effort would be similar to the French Resistance. Make the troops nervous about going outside. Never let them be completely comfortable. Make them wonder if everyone they meet might kill them. Even if you don't stop them, it really slows down work when people are afraid of snipers and booby traps. Federal elections were over. If a politician was pro-fed government, campaigning was fatal. If they weren't pro-fed government, they were determined to be a risk and not allowed travel to a location where they could be a risk to the pro-fed government officials. Looking at where the US military was deployed, the nuclear weapons and military bases were located in red states. The navy could control the coasts, but most of the coast was probably going to be pre-fed government. Technology has changed this, but at that time, most stateside troops were surrounded by people likely to be fighting against the Federal Government. Their families were in those communities. The rebels had all sorts of military equipment because of defectors brought the equipment with them. The defectors also sabotaged the equipment left for the government. View Quote |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.