He just says what he hears others say, there's not much brainpower left up there - meaning he was recently in a meeting where someone was talking about nuking Americans
Honestly wouldn't surprise me at all if they attempted to use nukes. These people are the definition of nihilistic cold-blooded satanic pieces of shit. Even if they don't really understand the rather low viability of nukes in a civil war, I think they'd rather just try to burn the world as much as they can before even thinking about giving up power.
Glass is a very feminine substance, helping the USA glass its own country would I'm sure help them Build Back Better Feminine. They'd have that excuse.
Exactly. "Your terms are acceptable, clearly the 2A means citizens can have uninfringed access to F-15s and nukes so they can ensure the security of a free State."
I doubt it's even illegal to have an F-15. It's just that the AF owns most of them and won't sell them to you, and the manufacturers only produce them under contract and won't sell to you either.
(actually just looked it up and you can buy old jetfighters online)
Even defensive systems. I remember a long time ago the Israelis wanted to put anti-missile flares onto their airliners in case some Jihadi with a Stinger wants to blow one up, and half the world flipped their shit and threatened to ban them from their airports.
Considering brand new f15-Es run around the 138 million mark and the jet fuels it burns through is not cheap. The couple of thousand in bs Destructive Device tax stamps is probably the cheapest cost associated for a civilian to own one with the weapons.
Would the aircraft count as one DD, or would the ATF demand a stamp for every pylon?
Someone should write tech branch and ask what is the controlled part on a F15.
And then what, rule over a pile of lifeless radioactive smoldering ruins?
Not to mention irradiated farmland that would be completely useless for growing anything other than mutated wildlife that glows in the dark. As much as the Blue states bitch and moan about the Red states, they need us more than we need them, because food has to come from somewhere. They think that their food magically appears in their nearest bodega or grocery store out of some mythical infinite distribution center. Their rooftop chicken coops and community gardens aren't going to fill the millions of people in urban areas. If the supply chain to the cities stops, they're fucked.
The Viet Cong and the Taliban didn't need nuclear weapons to fend off the US military in their homelands.
Truth. Which is why they're pulling so hard to keep anything even remotely close to an AR15 out of the hands of the general populace - a good gunsmith can modify those to go burst or auto without breaking a sweat. The Taliban and the VC kept our soldiers at bay with AKs and guerrilla tactics, and there's no reason why the same wouldn't work on our home soil if push came to shove.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment about LARPing. Hell, the illiberal liberals have been fantasizing about using drone strikes on the general right-of-Mao populace for years now, so escalating it to nuking the general populace is the next fantasy step.
I highly doubt anyone other than the useful idiots on the low tier of wokeness pyramid think that anyone is actually going to plant trees to do carbon offsets. If anything, they're more about letting the big companies in the US burn the fuel and then slap them with offset taxes, all while ignoring the clouds of smog in the air and garbage in the water over in China and India.
Ah this is the other side of the cognitive dissonance argument for gun control where the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply for weapons of war like tanks and fighter jets that in their mind are the only way to win wars and that small arms like the AR-15 family are useless yet they are considered weapons of war in their eyes producing Schrodingers AR- it is a weapon of war and not a weapon of war at the same time
Though I agree nukes are useless in a civil war because you’ll fuck up and irradiate half of the land you need for your woke survivors and means to sustain them.
Nukes are not useless in a civil war. They just turn it into an uncivil war.
The term "civil war" carries a lot of baggage, but do you think some random jagoff white half-Frenchman from New York actually had any real bonds or ties to some random black regiment south Texas 3rd generation freeman?
No. They were fighting to kill the other side. It's fun to ascribe nobility to war, but not really. A civil war is a rival nation taking form inside your own nation. It is the same as if you were to go to war with a completely different nation that shares significant borders. And a nuke holds the same purpose as it always did: It's a "surrender the fuck now, or you're all dead" button.
The goal of a civil war is not to take (or re-take, depending on perspective) land, it's to remove the threat of the other side interfering with your new (or existent, on the other side) nation. The land would be nice, of course, but you're not warring for a land grab, you're warring to kill as many of them as possible until they surrender all their ruling rights to you. That's what civil war is.
The problem is, using nukes would fuck up both sides. People of both sides would die. Clearly the one controlling the nukes would, or at least should know this. It's not like nukes would know which people are on what side and discriminately kill.
The left won't get any real benefits from using nukes. They would lose tons of followers quick if that were to happen, and it would accelerate a potential uprising response against them.
There exist many who are unironically akin to Farquaad of Shrek. "Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice that I am willing to make." Some of those people are also known to be in positions of power. Some of them have, on record, in the past, called drone strikes on US citizens.
Justified droning or not aside, there are people in power who do not view the plebs as having value as living people, who are demented, insane, or psychopathic, who believe that ruling through fear is the right way to go.
Also, you're getting some baggage mixed up: A civil war is not an insurrection. They're different events. You seem to be arguing on nuking an insurrection or a riot, not a civil war. Battle lines have not been drawn, territory not declared/claimed. That is not a civil war.
In the US civil war, there were people in the North, and in the South, who objected to the rules and decisions of their respective leaderships. There were even turncoats! But the North's army didn't check for dissident views before marching through a city in the south. The South's army didn't verify political views before firing on an encampment in the north. It wasn't an insurrection, it was a war, and if you were in the enemy's territory, you were the enemy. That makes it easy to call a bombing run on the area. How do you know which side they are? They're not your territory, and you didn't order any troops to march there. Thus, they're ALL enemies. Even ones sympathetic to your cause. Because it's war. And war sucks.
"Salute the marines"
He just says what he hears others say, there's not much brainpower left up there - meaning he was recently in a meeting where someone was talking about nuking Americans
Exactly this. Nobody's going to use nukes, it's just tired old anti-gun rhetoric. Biden has no room in his outdated brain for the latest NPC updates.
Honestly wouldn't surprise me at all if they attempted to use nukes. These people are the definition of nihilistic cold-blooded satanic pieces of shit. Even if they don't really understand the rather low viability of nukes in a civil war, I think they'd rather just try to burn the world as much as they can before even thinking about giving up power.
I certainly wouldn't have believed it before this year, but seeing today's military makes me not so sure.
Yeah, the "rebuild in a more feminine way" types will save us.
Even they know nukes bad.
Hell, Russia's automatic response system would probably trigger a response.
I think most countries would. Anyone crazy enough to launch a nuke targeting their own border would have no problem launching them at every one else
Glass is a very feminine substance, helping the USA glass its own country would I'm sure help them Build Back Better Feminine. They'd have that excuse.
Exactly. "Your terms are acceptable, clearly the 2A means citizens can have uninfringed access to F-15s and nukes so they can ensure the security of a free State."
I doubt it's even illegal to have an F-15. It's just that the AF owns most of them and won't sell them to you, and the manufacturers only produce them under contract and won't sell to you either.
(actually just looked it up and you can buy old jetfighters online)
FAA has a thing about armed civilian aircraft. I don't remember if it came up, but I think they frown upon general weapon systems and radars as well.
A civilian bought a harrier a while back, but he was a prior serviceman who used to fly it and all weapon systems were removed
Even defensive systems. I remember a long time ago the Israelis wanted to put anti-missile flares onto their airliners in case some Jihadi with a Stinger wants to blow one up, and half the world flipped their shit and threatened to ban them from their airports.
Yeah but you have to register every AMRAAM with the ATF as a Destructive Device and pay for a $200 tax stamp. Who can afford that?
Considering brand new f15-Es run around the 138 million mark and the jet fuels it burns through is not cheap. The couple of thousand in bs Destructive Device tax stamps is probably the cheapest cost associated for a civilian to own one with the weapons.
Would the aircraft count as one DD, or would the ATF demand a stamp for every pylon? Someone should write tech branch and ask what is the controlled part on a F15.
Lee Harvey Oswald didnt need any of that.
Yet another example of why you can't politick your way out of socialist tyranny.
There’s only two ways socialist governments fall: internal collapse, or violent upheaval.
Not to mention irradiated farmland that would be completely useless for growing anything other than mutated wildlife that glows in the dark. As much as the Blue states bitch and moan about the Red states, they need us more than we need them, because food has to come from somewhere. They think that their food magically appears in their nearest bodega or grocery store out of some mythical infinite distribution center. Their rooftop chicken coops and community gardens aren't going to fill the millions of people in urban areas. If the supply chain to the cities stops, they're fucked.
Truth. Which is why they're pulling so hard to keep anything even remotely close to an AR15 out of the hands of the general populace - a good gunsmith can modify those to go burst or auto without breaking a sweat. The Taliban and the VC kept our soldiers at bay with AKs and guerrilla tactics, and there's no reason why the same wouldn't work on our home soil if push came to shove.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the comment about LARPing. Hell, the illiberal liberals have been fantasizing about using drone strikes on the general right-of-Mao populace for years now, so escalating it to nuking the general populace is the next fantasy step.
They think it all comes from California.
Apparently they think its LA county growing all that food and not the deep red rural counties.
Hmmm "Idaho Potatoes"... Heh, "I dah hoe", must be San Fran potatoes!
They dream of genociding all of the flyover states and probably turning it all into co2 offsetting carbon capture forest.
I highly doubt anyone other than the useful idiots on the low tier of wokeness pyramid think that anyone is actually going to plant trees to do carbon offsets. If anything, they're more about letting the big companies in the US burn the fuel and then slap them with offset taxes, all while ignoring the clouds of smog in the air and garbage in the water over in China and India.
The message being sent is the elites would rather burn the world down than give up any power.
Which makes it feel like it may be impossible to win against them without it being a pyrrhic victory at the end, unfortunately.
Ah this is the other side of the cognitive dissonance argument for gun control where the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply for weapons of war like tanks and fighter jets that in their mind are the only way to win wars and that small arms like the AR-15 family are useless yet they are considered weapons of war in their eyes producing Schrodingers AR- it is a weapon of war and not a weapon of war at the same time
Though I agree nukes are useless in a civil war because you’ll fuck up and irradiate half of the land you need for your woke survivors and means to sustain them.
Nukes are not useless in a civil war. They just turn it into an uncivil war.
The term "civil war" carries a lot of baggage, but do you think some random jagoff white half-Frenchman from New York actually had any real bonds or ties to some random black regiment south Texas 3rd generation freeman?
No. They were fighting to kill the other side. It's fun to ascribe nobility to war, but not really. A civil war is a rival nation taking form inside your own nation. It is the same as if you were to go to war with a completely different nation that shares significant borders. And a nuke holds the same purpose as it always did: It's a "surrender the fuck now, or you're all dead" button.
The goal of a civil war is not to take (or re-take, depending on perspective) land, it's to remove the threat of the other side interfering with your new (or existent, on the other side) nation. The land would be nice, of course, but you're not warring for a land grab, you're warring to kill as many of them as possible until they surrender all their ruling rights to you. That's what civil war is.
The problem is, using nukes would fuck up both sides. People of both sides would die. Clearly the one controlling the nukes would, or at least should know this. It's not like nukes would know which people are on what side and discriminately kill.
The left won't get any real benefits from using nukes. They would lose tons of followers quick if that were to happen, and it would accelerate a potential uprising response against them.
There exist many who are unironically akin to Farquaad of Shrek. "Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice that I am willing to make." Some of those people are also known to be in positions of power. Some of them have, on record, in the past, called drone strikes on US citizens.
Justified droning or not aside, there are people in power who do not view the plebs as having value as living people, who are demented, insane, or psychopathic, who believe that ruling through fear is the right way to go.
Also, you're getting some baggage mixed up: A civil war is not an insurrection. They're different events. You seem to be arguing on nuking an insurrection or a riot, not a civil war. Battle lines have not been drawn, territory not declared/claimed. That is not a civil war.
In the US civil war, there were people in the North, and in the South, who objected to the rules and decisions of their respective leaderships. There were even turncoats! But the North's army didn't check for dissident views before marching through a city in the south. The South's army didn't verify political views before firing on an encampment in the north. It wasn't an insurrection, it was a war, and if you were in the enemy's territory, you were the enemy. That makes it easy to call a bombing run on the area. How do you know which side they are? They're not your territory, and you didn't order any troops to march there. Thus, they're ALL enemies. Even ones sympathetic to your cause. Because it's war. And war sucks.
Why can't he build dams like the USSR did?
So is he saying that f-15s and suit case nukes are about to go on the market?
There hasn't. Aside from tests, no country has used a nuclear weapon since the USA at the end of WWII.
Take the story of David and Goliath but remove all the Jew stuff.
I'd rather die standing than live kneeling. -Larry the Cucumber
Anyone seen Valkyrie? The one with Tom Cruise.
Its just grandstanding. Everyone is well aware the USA hasnt won a war in 70 years.