The typical libtard doesn't care to learn truth and facts, all they care about is being seen as a "good person" and being a good sheeple.
Thus, they only care about what the media tells them to care about. AR15s are scarier than other weapons because they're more militarily capable, and the liberal media puts them front and center every time a rare shooting with them occurs, so they loom large in the liberal mind.
Another thing about liberals is that they don't care about black-on-black crime. So right there, that deletes the vast majority of crime from their "giving a shit" attention span.
Now as for the liberal paymasters who define the Narrative and why THEY want "assault rifles" banned so hard, that's because they fear that the Right will overturn their nonviolent takeover of total political power and control in the US through their long march through the institutions, with a violent uprising, and they want to try to reduce the potential military power of said uprising so it could be more easily suppressed by their jackbooted police state.
Thus, they only care about what the media tells them to care about. AR15s are scarier than other weapons because they're more militarily capable, and the liberal media puts them front and center every time a rare shooting with them occurs, so they loom large in the liberal mind.
Did you catch that BBC once claimed that AR-15s have a firing rate that is something like 5 times that of a fully automatic AK-47? They're batshit crazy. It's all about whipping up their ignorant base in a psychotic frenzy.
Another thing about liberals is that they don't care about black-on-black crime
Not just that. They only care if the victim is higher on the Oppression Stack than the perp, or both are white (in which case it's proof that whites are bad).
Now as for the liberal paymasters who define the Narrative and why THEY want "assault rifles" banned so hard, that's because they fear that the Right will overturn their nonviolent takeover of total political power and control in the US through their long march through the institutions, with a violent uprising, and they want to try to reduce the potential military power of said uprising so it could be more easily suppressed by their jackbooted police state.
I don't think "assault rifles" are as much of a threat. Comparisons to Afghanistan aside, I don't see a scenario where the population can rebel against the most militarized government in human history.
It's more that they need an enemy. In Britain the police brags about confiscating potato peelers as "weapons". It's not in good faith, and once you do give in on ARs, they'll move on to the next target. Same as same-sex marriage was a stepping stone for troonery, which is a stepping stone for ..., which is ... (ad infinitum)
I don't see a scenario where the population can rebel against the most militarized government in human history.
The US military is extremely poorly suited and designed to fight an insurgency. An F-35 can't fight 100 civilian militia guys who can ambush a convoy and then melt away and become civilians long before air support arrives. The Reds would easily beat the "blue" US military in any kind of insurgency.
America has only recently started reorienting from Rumsfeld's "light footprint". There have been many tens of thousands of MRAPs (from about 0) but 0 new tanks (I don't mean newly produced tanks of old types, I mean there was nothing actually new since the M1A2 which is a 20th-century model).
The Abrams has been continually upgraded, with the M1A2 SEPv3 being deployed in 2020. The Trophy APS is being added. The SEPv4 is under development now.
It's inherently difficult to design a military to conduct a counter-insurgency in general unless you're prepared to engage in genocide to pacify the enemy. If you have to operate under "nice guy" rules like Americans do, it's an extremely difficult uphill battle that the US was only able to pull off in Iraq and Afghanistan because we were so superior to the insurgents there.
But now change the insurgents to Americans, many of them veterans, with 100x more money, resources, and firepower? The US military wouldn't have a chance. Simply because the insurgents would be civilians and safe from attack 99% of the time, and only convert to combat mode in limited ambush situations where expert veterans would know the military convoys to be vulnerable.
You'd have the Blues basically trapped in their bases, afraid to go out, needing to rely on heavily armed convoys which would get lit up with IEDs and Javelins and such constantly.
Well there won't be a revolution of a handful of cranks. At minimum, it would be essentially the Republicans divorcing from the Democrats, meaning a number of Red states seceding, and I'm talking about what would happen if the Blues tried to occupy a Red-majority area.
I don't think "assault rifles" are as much of a threat. Comparisons to Afghanistan aside, I don't see a scenario where the population can rebel against the most militarized government in human history.
A rebellion where the military stays unified and backs the government faces an uphill battle, yes. The rifles are absolutely useful in a scenario where the military splinters Syria style, which I could see happening if the parts of the military that aren't cucked defect in response to wokie abuses.
Same as same-sex marriage was a stepping stone for troonery, which is a stepping stone for ...
Kiddy diddling. You can say it here because Spez the tranny fucker can't censor this site.
A rebellion where the military stays unified and backs the government faces an uphill battle, yes. The rifles are absolutely useful in a scenario where the military splinters Syria style, which I could see happening if the parts of the military that aren't cucked defect in response to wokie abuses.
Like they say: the reason there are no coups in the US, is because the US has no American embassy.
The typical libtard doesn't care to learn truth and facts, all they care about is being seen as a "good person" and being a good sheeple.
Thus, they only care about what the media tells them to care about. AR15s are scarier than other weapons because they're more militarily capable, and the liberal media puts them front and center every time a rare shooting with them occurs, so they loom large in the liberal mind.
Another thing about liberals is that they don't care about black-on-black crime. So right there, that deletes the vast majority of crime from their "giving a shit" attention span.
Now as for the liberal paymasters who define the Narrative and why THEY want "assault rifles" banned so hard, that's because they fear that the Right will overturn their nonviolent takeover of total political power and control in the US through their long march through the institutions, with a violent uprising, and they want to try to reduce the potential military power of said uprising so it could be more easily suppressed by their jackbooted police state.
Did you catch that BBC once claimed that AR-15s have a firing rate that is something like 5 times that of a fully automatic AK-47? They're batshit crazy. It's all about whipping up their ignorant base in a psychotic frenzy.
Not just that. They only care if the victim is higher on the Oppression Stack than the perp, or both are white (in which case it's proof that whites are bad).
I don't think "assault rifles" are as much of a threat. Comparisons to Afghanistan aside, I don't see a scenario where the population can rebel against the most militarized government in human history.
It's more that they need an enemy. In Britain the police brags about confiscating potato peelers as "weapons". It's not in good faith, and once you do give in on ARs, they'll move on to the next target. Same as same-sex marriage was a stepping stone for troonery, which is a stepping stone for ..., which is ... (ad infinitum)
The US military is extremely poorly suited and designed to fight an insurgency. An F-35 can't fight 100 civilian militia guys who can ambush a convoy and then melt away and become civilians long before air support arrives. The Reds would easily beat the "blue" US military in any kind of insurgency.
America has only recently started reorienting from Rumsfeld's "light footprint". There have been many tens of thousands of MRAPs (from about 0) but 0 new tanks (I don't mean newly produced tanks of old types, I mean there was nothing actually new since the M1A2 which is a 20th-century model).
The Abrams has been continually upgraded, with the M1A2 SEPv3 being deployed in 2020. The Trophy APS is being added. The SEPv4 is under development now.
It's inherently difficult to design a military to conduct a counter-insurgency in general unless you're prepared to engage in genocide to pacify the enemy. If you have to operate under "nice guy" rules like Americans do, it's an extremely difficult uphill battle that the US was only able to pull off in Iraq and Afghanistan because we were so superior to the insurgents there.
But now change the insurgents to Americans, many of them veterans, with 100x more money, resources, and firepower? The US military wouldn't have a chance. Simply because the insurgents would be civilians and safe from attack 99% of the time, and only convert to combat mode in limited ambush situations where expert veterans would know the military convoys to be vulnerable.
You'd have the Blues basically trapped in their bases, afraid to go out, needing to rely on heavily armed convoys which would get lit up with IEDs and Javelins and such constantly.
If the reds unite and have support of the population, yes. I am thinking of more realistic scenarios.
Well there won't be a revolution of a handful of cranks. At minimum, it would be essentially the Republicans divorcing from the Democrats, meaning a number of Red states seceding, and I'm talking about what would happen if the Blues tried to occupy a Red-majority area.
A rebellion where the military stays unified and backs the government faces an uphill battle, yes. The rifles are absolutely useful in a scenario where the military splinters Syria style, which I could see happening if the parts of the military that aren't cucked defect in response to wokie abuses.
Kiddy diddling. You can say it here because Spez the tranny fucker can't censor this site.
Like they say: the reason there are no coups in the US, is because the US has no American embassy.