You are being too literal
There are plenty of unmanned drones + weapons... a Tomahawk missile just needs a launching point and a target, its GPS and automatic controls will do the rest. The idea that the only way the govt can attack people is through sending troops on the ground to engage in hand to hand combat with bayonets is fukking retarded
in the end if they want to occupy an armed population they have to send in troops, a tomahawk missile is useless against an armed population
well i agree its possible for a government official sitting in washington to give an order to attack a city but i dont see how that same official would stop thousands of civilians from running up in his office and killing him, thats my point, an armed population will be a threat that can only be handled by armed troops on the ground
an armed population cant stop a particular attack but it will make the government official reconsider
Its no less realistic than the possibility of the govt sending the army to fire on its citizens, but you used that remote possibilty as justification for the 2nd amendment
its not probable that the government will fire on its own cities, but its not impossible
what i mean by not realistic wasnt referring to the possibility, which is remote, but that its simply not a viable strategy to attack a city using unmanned planes, the only way to occupy or pacify a city of armed people would be by sending in troops, you can destroy a city but you cant conquer a city using unmanned weapons
Tell that to the folks being attacked by drones. Tell that to the victims of Hiroshima + Nagasaki. Tell that to the victims of 9/11. You can crush everything with 70 year old technology. You ever heard of the Cold War?
the reason why the us uses drones is because its not capable of conquering those places on the ground, or its not interested in occupying those places
so using drones is bad counter argument against the second amendment, if the government is using drones that means its not capable of conquering the city or territory itself
the second amendment is to prevent a foreign force or an enemy from conquering or occupying your territory
the japanese population was unarmed, that is why all the US had to do was drop a couple of atomic bombs to conquer japan, you can drop a bomb on every american city and you would still not be able to control us territory without dealing with the armed population
what about 9/11? what did they conquer with 9/11?
If each soldier has weapons that can kill 3,000 people at a time what does it matter how they are outnumbered
In the goofy doomsday scenario you presented why the fukk do you think the army or the govt would play by old military etiquette? If they wanted to crush the American people why would they waste their time playing on a field they could lose on? If you really think a couple of handguns and assault rifles are enough to go up against tanks and GPS guided missiles you're a full blown retard
that is an absolutely awful military analysis, and i dont even know where you get that number from, it matters very much if they are outnumbered, how trained they are, how loyal they are and overall moral etc etc, but overall its hard to see how 1 million people can conquer 300 million armed people
its not a couple of handgun and assault rifles, the us is completely awash with guns, and its actually quite easy to go against tanks and guided missiles especially if you have the overwhelming numbers on your side
he wasn't responding to your video
that's what the video was referring to, your talking points and pictures.......do yourself a favor and watch the video...and I mean that with sincerity............
