> There’s 84,000,000 private gun owners and 400,000,000 guns. The government’s strength is 800,000 police, 1,400,000 military, and 800,000 reserves. They can’t control a nation this size all at once. Only the major metropolitan areas will be secured.
Yes anons the military can’t possibly win by themselves, that’s why they would use millions of civilian collaborators and then 50-100 million people who would join militias to fight on the side of the military and the government. Not to mention if they so desired they could call in reinforcements from NATO or Five Eyes countries. You simply can’t defeat the military and the loyalist militias who would be better funded and better armed by the government. Did you guys really think you would only be fighting the government and the military only? You would have to defeat them and half the country who would side with them. In the slim chance you guys win you would rule over a shell of a country that would need to bend the knee to foreign powers almost immediately. >inb4 Afghanistan >inb4 Vietnam It’s almost like you all have the same argument. You never mention Iraq, Isis, and all the other times the military won with overwhelming power. >inb4 the US military will never shoot their fellow civilian It’s almost like you guys forgot they did just that during the first civil war and they still won the war
>70% of blacks on public assistance >60% of hispanics on public assistance yeah i'm thinking you're going to have some real logistical problems feeding an army of useless illiterate monkeys
Liam Nguyen
inb4 Russia They would be too busy with Ukraine and can’t do anything drastic without alarming Nato in Europe >inb4 China They would be kept in checked by Japan and Taiwan alone It’s literally hopeless anons, no one will save us, no one will come to save us
Justin Martin
As a gun owner myself, there's nothing more cringe than second amendment retards LARPing as future "warriors" against the government.
Imagine unironically wanting to fight against the country that gave you the rights to (1) own guns and (2) publicly speak about how much you hate the government.
Feds are career bureaucrats. They fight each other in their politics too. Those that are smart and White are actually our allies. They should pretend to be against Any Forums alt right or domestic trsts.
Lincoln Sullivan
Post your real flag.
Jose Allen
>Gave you rights Tell me you suck cock without telling me you suck cock.
>Did you goys know you don't just get to kill the government, but also a rag-tag militia of kikes, niggers, spics, trannies, faggots, and losers?! Why are you trying to sell me on Civil War 2?
Juan Bailey
Solid bait. Well executed
Hudson Scott
>50-100 million people who would join militias to fight on the side of the military and the government
Okay, now I'm suspecting you're one of us, have always been one of us, and are just a super-genius shitposter.
Brandon Long
Pretty obvious.
Christian Bennett
Hey, don't insult people that suck cocks by comparing them to this tripfag.
James Ramirez
>gave you the rights
Those rights were earned by men who killed enough British government people to force them to come to the table. Literally, raw force and body count forced the outcome. And then those same men made sure free speech and the right to bear arms were explicitly enumerated so they could never be taken again except through an extremely elaborate and almost impossible constitutional amendment process.
Aaron Powell
"Rights are not protected by law, but by the citizen's willingness to use Violence against the authorities when they are not respected."
We often talk about rights. In fact, George Carlin had his own routine concerning rights, where he questioned the legitimacy of rights as an idea and eventually came to the conclusion that either you have all rights, or you have no rights at all. His explanation was mostly aimed at being humorous, but I think it is important to examine what rights are and why we have them, or rather why a government would feel inclined to let us have them. I propose the following answers:
Michael Myers
Rights aren't granted you fucking beta. We the people fought for and secured those rights, and gave ourselves the means to protect them.
Brayden Johnson
1. Rights are what the citizens of a nation are entitled to as long as they follow the conditions following those rights, namely following the law. It is not laws which dictate what rights citizens have, but their rights which dictate what laws are possible.
2. the reason a government would rather let its citizens have rights is to avoid violent convict. Violence is undesirable because of the inevitable destruction it brings and so by knowing what the government is not allowed to do unless it wants to face a violent uprising from its citizens, Violence can be averted. They are essentially a way to have "civil discourse" if you will.
Let us examine the first answer I give, namely that rights are what citizens are entitled to as long as they follow the law, and that laws are designed around rights, not the other way around. Foremost, a citizen who follows the law should expect his rights to be respected. And even if there is an accusation against him, certain rights also protect him in that they allow him to have a proper defense and the such. Without rights, citizens would essentially be constantly at the mercy of their government. They would have no official power to oppose the authority in any way.
Ryan Lewis
However, as long as they have rights, and they are respected, then the citizens are capable of defending themselves against potentially abusive authorities. Likewise, this is why it is not laws which should determine what rights you possess, but rather the rights you have which should determine what laws can be created. If laws can change rights, then the government can decide which rights you have, and they are essentially meaningless. On the other hand, if laws must be designed around predetermined rights, then the government does not have the power to create laws which violate your rights.
Yet all this is meaningless unless the citizenship is willing to enforce its rights.
So we reach the most important point I am making here, which is the necessity of the citizenship's willingness to engage in Violence if the government denies its rights.
Sebastian Cruz
You see, one must ask himself what forces the government to respect rights in the first place. If they ignore them, if they trample them, what ill will befall them? Who will stop them? the answer here is simple:the citizenship must stop them, and the only means by which they can achieve it is through Violence.Some foolish souls may claim that merely electing a new government will change things, but voting is in itself a right and if a government is willing to remove one right, it will not hesitate to remove another.And if one party does not suffer dire consequences for attacking the rights of the citizenship, then the other parties have no incentive to restore those rights. Thus, paradoxically, it is Violence which gives rise to rights. And rights arise and are respected in order to avoid Violence.
Governments themselves have an incentive to respect rights. As said, Violence is destructive and it is far more efficient to arrive at a peaceful solution, which involves respecting the rights of the citizenship. Though it could ignore said rights, this would be at an undesirable cost. Or rather, it should be, which brings me to my ultimate point.
This is why everything is going wrong with the west right now. This is the root cause of all the issues which we are faced with: Governments are not respecting their citizens' rights, yet these citizens are unwilling to use Violence to defend themselves. Rather, they sit back and grumble quietly, telling themselves that it's preferable to lose those rights than to engage in Violence.
It is not.
Christian Davis
It is unacceptable for any man who believes that he has any rights to allow these abuses to take place. Though it is important to make sure that rights have been violated before taking action so as to make sure one is righteous, once it is truly determined that a citizen's rights are not being respected, it is the duty of all to rise up and oppose their government. Those who sit down and begrudgingly accept these repeated outrages are no better than slaves and deserve no better fate than slaves.
And so, remember this, and plan accordingly. Once your government thinks they can take away your rights, it is time to hold on to them as tight as possible with one hand while thrusting your spear with the other. Otherwise, you are nothing but a slave and deserve to be treated as such.
Jace Peterson
we're not going to fight the military. we're going to fight your children and families while you're off playing zogbot.
Hunter Gutierrez
You made this exact thread last night, bot
Anthony Cook
Milfag here. Just wanna chime in and say that around 75% of that 1.4m in the military are in non-combat MOS's and abiut 60% of reserves are non-combat MOS's. Re-do that math and you can understand why the government is scared of its citizens. Ths military is starved for manpower.
Nathan Wood
FPBP
Adam Wood
>50-100million Lazy
Asher Clark
If you pay really close attention, you can tell what the people that pay for the bots & shills are planning by the content the bots & shills post.
Jeremiah Cook
The feds who write the bot scripts are used to posting on reddit.
Police are not loyal and only stick around for a paycheck as long as they dont have to hard shit and get to sit on their ass in a cruisee and occasionaly give out a ticket. When shtf alot of these cops will leave the force and join their families and friends. Most armed forced would do the same. There is no loyalty anymore and the government knows this.
Xavier Cooper
>You would have to defeat them and half the country who would side with them. In the slim chance you guys win you would rule over a shell of a country that would need to bend the knee to foreign powers almost immediately. Thats the same for you. Our best chance is leave you with a broken country and see you try to rebuild with less whites
Christian Allen
Deservedly so, how much diversity and homo training do you guys recieve?
Kayden Murphy
Violence is the pillar on which all societies are built and its repression is tantamount to societal collapse.
For societies to function, there must be a set of agreed upon rules, which we call laws, to govern all individuals which comprise them. Without those rules to abide by, individuals would likely work against each other and societies would collapse. Even assuming the good will of the individuals comprising a society, having laws allows us to determine the point at which a dysfunctional individual must be stopped by force.
Of course, laws are simply words. Spoken words or words on paper, but only words. Laws gain power through their enforcement, and enforcement is only possible through Violence or the implied threat of Violence. As an example, a man may pay off a speeding ticket because he thinks it's the right thing to do, but what stops him from deciding he doesn't feel like paying it is the threat of being forcefully taken to jail.
Cameron Roberts
And once in jail, what keeps him behaved is the threat of further confinement, which is achieved through Violence. Thus, without Violence, laws cannot be enforced. If laws cannot be enforced, the laws mean nothing. If the laws mean nothing, then nothing stops individuals from acting against the well-being of that society. And if nothing stops individuals from acting against the well being of society, then the society will eventually collapse. It will take longer in societies where individuals are responsible, but it will happen eventually. What keeps the predatory, the sociopathic, from gaining full power over individuals aiming to make society function, is the threat of Violence against them.
Thus, the notion that "Violence is never the answer" is a laughable one.We teach(or rather, our governments teach)our children that Violence is wrong, that they must never use it no matter what. the aim of this is to create a society of slaves who will never protect themselves when abused. It is slave morality and we must emancipate ourselves from it.
Yes, Violence is acceptable, in certain conditions.It may not be desirable, but it becomes acceptable - nay,necessary- if one hopes to have a complex and functional society. Otherwise, what you have is merely a parody of a society, a human organization which does not work for the good and improvement of humanity, but for the glory of its sociopathic leaders.
Michael Ward
This, in essence, is the reason behind the west's continued descent into decadence. If the decent, righteous folks who constitute the majority of mankind refuse to engage in Violence, then dysfunctional individuals won't hesitate to take what they want by force. Over time, this will allow them to gain positions of power where they will weaken the laws even further and allow even more dysfunctionals into positions of power until we reach a point where the common folk are dominated by a handful of psychopaths, refusing to defend themselves as they believe Violence is wrong while letting Violence be used to dominate them.
Once such a point is reached, the less intelligent brutes will begin using Violence not because they want freedom from the dominating castes, but merely because no one is stopping them. the decent folk refuse to use Violence to stop them while those in charge don't care. Worse, those in charge now hesitate to use Violence to stop the brutes because it might set a precedent, teach the decent folks that Violence is indeed the answer. This is how we wind up with riots all over the place and eventually, either when someone sees an opportunity to seize power or the decent folks finally have enough, civil war. Once the civil war blows over, people with power and the will to enforce laws will create their new state, with new laws, but none can tell if these laws will be the kind which allow a civilized society.
In conclusion, it is my belief that to prevent a total societal failure of the west, it is imperative to teach Violence to people again. Teach them how to do it, when to do it, why they should do it.
==Remember that it is not a prayer which will keep the darkness at bay, but a sword.==
>Rights are what the citizens of a nation are entitled to as long as they follow the conditions If a right can be taken away it is not a right.
Jeremiah Scott
It is a big assumption that all cops and military are on their side.
Julian Wilson
Everything you said is BS. Everyone here, especially you, knows it. Your masters who created this situation will be fine and you will get your paycheck , but the odds that you and your family do not make it out of this alive are significantly above zero, and increasing all the time.
Michael Allen
yeah this OP post smells like fed shit to me. I'm no expert but I don't imagine some gay civil war, I imagine defectors from the military by white men if that were to happen, making OP's claim almost irrelevant
