Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#37 - huntertde ONLINE (02/13/2013) [-]
Yep, because when the tanks start rolling, your 9mm is going to make all the difference.
Yep, because when the tanks start rolling, your 9mm is going to make all the difference.
#99 to #37 - anonymous (02/14/2013) [-]
Driven by volunteer soldiers? Good luck motivating those volunteer troops to blow up their family homes, retard.
User avatar #56 to #37 - snickerstheif (02/13/2013) [-]
Implying ******* sand ******* aren't doing that right now
#57 to #56 - novus ONLINE (02/13/2013) [-]
Our military has quite a bit of experience with urban warfare thanks to these past few wars. I don't think an AR15's gonna matter whatsoever should it come to citizens vs military
User avatar #66 to #57 - snickerstheif (02/14/2013) [-]
Something tells me you have not heard of a place called Vietnam. Also YOU CANNOT CONTROL AN ENTIRE COUNTRY AND IT'S PEOPLE WITH TANKS OR JETS OR BATTLESHIPS OR ANY OF THAT **** .

A FIGHTER JET CANNOT STAND ON STREET CORNERS AND ENFORCE NO-ASSEMBLY EDICTS. A FIGHTER JET CANNOT KICK DOWN YOUR DOOR AT 3AM AND SEARCH YOUR HOUSE FOR CONTRABAND.

POLICE ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN A POLICE STATE.

AND NO MATTER HOW MANY POLICE YOU HAVE, THEY ARE ALWAYSE OUT-NUMBERED BY THE PEOPLE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S VITAL FOR YOUR POLICE TO HAVE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS AND YOUR PEOPLE TO HAVE NOTHING BUT THEIR LIMP DICKS.
#92 to #66 - anonymous (02/14/2013) [-]
Tanks worked quite well for the Chinese until everybody found out about it
User avatar #95 to #92 - snickerstheif (02/14/2013) [-]
shut up and go read AAR's from a war that your grandpappy didn't fight. Tanks are useful on hard targets (i.e tanks, bunkers, static emplacements) not people. Not insurgents.
#117 to #95 - novus ONLINE (02/15/2013) [-]
Anti personnel armor is quite efficient at eliminating infantry, and homes would offer no protection.

And I agree with you that the military would never be able to control a country the size of the US, there are simply too many people. That being said, a semiautomatic AR15 is not going to be any more effective than a non-AR semiautomatic rifle. In fact, for home invasions as you mention, a shotgun will be the best weapon.

The whole argument is meaningless, because you're arguing that guns like AR15's would somehow give commando groups a tactical edge, when in reality the type of gun used is almost a non-issue; the military would never be able to control the country.
User avatar #38 to #37 - patrickmiller (02/13/2013) [-]
It's about making the government afraid so that they won't pass laws the harm our liberties not about the actual action of fighting the government, besides nothing says the army will side with the government......
User avatar #40 to #38 - lordlolland (02/13/2013) [-]
If nothing says the army will side with the government then who are you going to fight? Senators?
User avatar #47 to #40 - keiishiyama (02/13/2013) [-]
The army is sworn to protect citizens. To fight against us would be a disrespect to the people and to their promise, and at that point, they are murderers, not soldiers.
User avatar #43 to #40 - patrickmiller (02/13/2013) [-]
No one if we're lucky it's just to keep the government mindful that we will protect our rights if we need to so that it never comes to anything like that
If they're to scared of us to pass laws that hurt our freedoms then we will never have reason to fight anyone.
User avatar #44 to #43 - lordlolland (02/13/2013) [-]
You know, we have social democrats, socialists, communists and such in our parliament and weapon laws that means you can barely have a pocket knife, and guess what: No tyranny.

If you don't plan to hurt someone you don't need a gun.
User avatar #45 to #44 - patrickmiller (02/13/2013) [-]
We're are you from England were they have camera's watching everyone 24 hours a day, yeah sounds like you real have no tyranny there....
 Friends (0)