CALIFORNIA WILL NUKE FOR GUNS

In a nutshell.

Attached: You_need_assault_riflesxr.jpg (576x853, 173.82K)

Posadist gang, Posadist gang
Dolphins will win
Porks shall hang
Posadist gang

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (994x1000, 2.31M)

the government couldn't stop a one-eyed man and his senile friend in the mountains of afghanistan for a decade, or ho chi minh, or castro running a socialist republic miles from flordia, etc.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (876x584 316.31 KB, 918.95K)

yes that's right America has never lost a war against a lesser equipped poorly organized militia force before in it's history :^)

Attached: vietnamwarmemorial.jpg (2000x1334, 1.55M)

Taliban actually surrendered and it was rejected. USA plays a different game in Afghanistan.

Drones and mass surveillance didn't exist back then either.
Vietnam was also backed by the major communist powers, and the jungles provided a territorial advantage that doesn't apply to the vast majority of the US. Even then, the burgers only lost because the war was superfluous and it eventually became too much trouble (which does exemplify how retarded and dangerous they are, but that's beside the point) when they probably could have won if they were willing to waste ungodly sums of money/life and make the public hate the federal government to the point of communism becoming a popular view.

Most of the american public supported the Vietnam War.

you can't survey everything, everywhere, all the time. you can always dig burrows, hide in mountains, hills and trees, only coming out to make covert attacks. you act as if they have all the bases covered, when I guarentee they don't. even without guns you could write a book on hwo to fuck with their communications, economy and infrastructure

It was at first, but public opinion eventually shifted over time. A modest majority of Americans opposed the war near the end, largely because of personal experience with loved ones returning from combat as well as the feds failing to suppress media reports on how much of a shitshow it was, since the First Amendment prevented them from straight up censoring more than the occasional ambitious muckraker.

If you are organizing anything even remotely threatening to the US, it will eventually notice. It's not like going off-the-grid innawoods with some friends. Defense or insurrection requires a lot of shit to be bought and moved around, and the sheer cost will leave one hell of a paper trail.
The alphabets can also use modern communication to character assassinate inconvenient people.
Real military resistance is far from impossible, but it will either require outside help, or for a significant number of US personnel to rebel. If this happens, civilian gun ownership is a moot point when weapons and equipment can be provided.
It's how the Soviets helped foreign communist movements, for example. "These guys are cool, let's ship 'em an assload of our famously well-made arms."

Not really. It allows civilians to have a high degree of training in usage of firearms. Civilian Firearms are also useful in assassinations.

You know rival powers would be hopping on board to split the US up if it ever started having major civil unrest, even without the USSR these days.

The US has a load of mountains, forests, and swamps that aren't exactly friendly territory for an army, but the military has the advantage of having trained in them.

I realise there are difficulties and challenges to be overcome, my main point is that it isn't impossible, and the government isn't an impenetrable monolith.

Attached: 60547070100395640360no.jpg (640x360, 156.24K)

Attached: 4d7892f29e0feda8831f34c35f32e2aa3e5a6a4bf8102b47854348a5f059f513.png (843x664 629.21 KB, 896.93K)

A high degree? Gun ownership is common, but combat expertise is not.

Like I said, revolution is possible, I just strongly doubt how many guns are currently owned by citizens will make much difference when there will be foreign powers jumping at the opportunity to assist. Bullshit like ignores how France and Spain were vital to winning the Revolutionary War.
Not even arguing for GC here, only pointing out what I think is a retarded way to argue in favor of it.

How many howitzers, stealth bombers, C-130s, and aircraft carriers loaded with figher planes do you own?

technology doesnt matter. Look at al queda, the viet cong, and houthies in yemen. All the tech in the world hasnt stopped them

shiggy

Everyone seems to be ignoring the obvious. The tea partiers cannot win against a unified US government. Full stop. There's nothing else to debate here.

That is because you cannot effectively fight against insurgencies using asymmetrical warfare without going to full fascist and getting rid off rules regulating warfare. However if there was ever an domestic uprising in the US I don`t doubt for a second that they would not go full Sherman tier of demoralization campaign.

And you thought entryism couldn't work.

Attached: putin.jpg (500x334, 98.08K)

Any American Civil War in the 21st century would probably involve large amounts of cyber warfare and absolutely no one talks about this. Everyone thinks in terms of it being a 20th century revolution like shit hasn't obviously changed.

both sides are morons and think its gonna be like people lined up on a field shooting at each other.
Nope.
It would be more like the mexican drug war. Kidnappings, assassinations, cyber war, diffrent gangs fighting each other, one of them eventually infiltrating the entire government

The gun nut fears the nuke.

Attached: Bill_Wilson-0.jpg (716x768, 78.82K)

zizek thinks you can revolution with just a few thousand people

Highly unlikely since Mexican government is only trying to wage war against cartels but not its own people. Historically we have dealt with rebellious populations by hands of western powers have usually been concentration camps and isolating the rebels from their kin. Government if it wanted to could easily just cut off any rebellious region`s access to water,electricity and food supplies. Air forces in addition to artillery could easily wipe out any attempts at breakout from cities or heavily forested regions. These surrounded and cut off populations would start starving after the first 1-3 days of siege depending on how well equipped stores and such are. All resistance could be starved out within matter of month or two.

what makes you think the millitary would take those orders? It all goes so easily in your fantasies until the rednecks blow up the hoover dam and flood the entier south west killing millions

Because military exists as enforces of state violence against enemies internal and external. Every single day police officers use their powers against their own citizenry be it arrests or direct violence without them getting quizy about the morality of it all.

Sure the uprising could have few initial successes but after curfew and freedom of movement for non-government functionaries is going to get limited I doubt that such tactics would be useful. Terror tactics go both ways, reason why the concentration camps in south-Africa were so useful in quelling the rebellion of Boors was because if government holds your family hostage you are less willing to fight against it, unless you are willing to sacrifice every single member of your family, every friend and associate just for the rebellion.

...

Look, gun nuts are cookoo, but what the fuck is this liberal thread?

Attached: IMG_20180301_030633.jpg (1200x1200, 146.4K)

Where did the socialist revolutions in the 20th century occur? Did they occur in industrialised bourgeois countries?

Which proves my point that when in crisis, first world countries tend towards fascism. Nobody died in those meek protests. Right in your article it tells you the result of those protests ended up in greater consolidation of power for the Gaullist party.

1) The Russian Empire was an industrial capitalist power
2) All countries are “bourgeois”. The bourgeoisie are a class, they aren’t bound to any country or group of counties.

In these examples the rebels had a superpower to back them up covertly against the other superpower.

The kind of training blobs who drag themselves to the firing range every now and then is negligible. If you want proles trained for warfighting, nothing beats conscription, or forming an actual paramilitary organization.

For example?

Well, controlling cell phone network is important. So is internet access. But I don't see either as "cyber warfare".

Given that even UN had started mumbling something about US being third-world shithole, I think your argument needs a bit more substance.

Revolutionary situation automatically presupposes that nation also tends toward fascism (as success of Revolution is never certain).

Welcome to /nuleftypol/, infested with red(dit) liberals.

Posadist caucus is gaining ground in the DNC
Shit's getting lit

Thats funny because the americans got all of those things from the french and wouldn't have been able to do shit without it.

You only need three. Head of the army, head of the navy, and head of the air force.

Yes, Nuke Murricunt please.

...

no they didn't. there were enough british weapons already in the colonies for them to use.

A better question is whether there was ever any evidence on the contrary

The french gave some 4 billion dollars in todays money on the american revolution sending all kinds of help from war ships to supplies on top of directly assisting with armies and started a war togheter with spain against the british to distract them. Americans wouldn't have been able to do shit with out all that help. Learn your history faggot.

Because class conscious bourgeois Dems know that they can trick their prole supporters into disarming themselves. They don't actually care about banning guns. The point is to make owning a gun immoral, so that "woke" proles give up their guns for the sake of "progress". That way, when the contradictions can't support themselves anymore, the only people with guns will be the far-right and the government. It's a perfectly sound strategic choice.

that's really cool but it doesn't change the fact that they were using weapons already present in the colonies and fought half the war without the french. but blah blah blah the great satan could never have… ect.

that's because they ARE unified with the US government.

You're missing the fact that sympathetic elements within the US government tend to keep the kid gloves on and look the other way to protect rightwingers. Tea party, III%, proud boys, and other such groups do not face nearly the same level of opposition as even the most tame leftwing groups.

Not really, events like Waco, Ruby Ridge and the OKC bombing show that there are contradictions between the US government and these types of movements although Waco was less political and more religious nuttery it shared some common elements with the far-right militia movements of the time

Be that as it may, we're doing ourselves a disservice if we think that the government is unified behind them. There are elements within the government that support right-wing nuts but there are also elements that see these forces as destabilizing and contrary to the actual practice of governing a multi-ethnic world empire.

The mainstream media can't seem to get enough of trashing Trump–why? It's because the majority of capitalists who own those outlets see him as more damaging than helpful to US interests.

We can say that there were elements in the US government that were not opposed to slavery or fascism, so why did the US government go to war with slavery and fascism? It has to do with the contradictions that drove the US bourgeoisie into these conflicts.

I'll modify my earlier statement: I don't believe that the tea partiers could win even with a split US government. Those factions of the government that remained loyal would still be extremely powerful and the majority of the public would not support these far-rightists.

So jack shit

It would’ve just taken longer.

I'm pretty sure this is a shitposting thread.

Again, I'm against gun control, but those teafaggots are delusional as fuck.

Yes, the US lost to a bunch of vietnamese farmers. The difference is, the average gun nut of the tea party weights like 350 lb and would probably die from a stroke if they ever tried to move their fatasses from the goddamn couch. Not to mention that the US has both nukes and drones, so even if they were athletic as fuck (which they aren't) and are armed with actual assault rifles (which the overpriced piece of shit ar-15 is NOT), they wouldn't even last a week.

An entire country wouldn't even stand a chance against the US military, why a bunch of lardasses would?

That's my whole point.

americunts really are that desillusioned

It's because the majority of capitalists who own those outlets see him as more damaging than helpful to US interests.

So you can occupy cities with aircraft?

The funny thing about arguing that drones make armed insurrection impossible is that, at least in the US, you actually have something akin to easy access to the drone pilots, the military openly talks about how most of the drone pilots are all stationed in a base near Las Vegas.

this