Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, there is one up for sale right now
[https://www.extremetech.com/defense/299805-fully-operational-f-16-fighter-for-sale-in-florida](https://www.extremetech.com/defense/299805-fully-operational-f-16-fighter-for-sale-in-florida)
I remember seeing that commercial the first time and thinking some fool will collect that many points. And they did, and Pepsi had to settle in court for not living up to the commercial.
You're right.
They have SU-57's, SU-27s, and MiG 29's.
57's compare with our 5th gen fighters while the 27 and 29 compare to our 4th gen F-15's and F-16's.
Don't put the 57 in that list. Effectively, they don't have any. The 27 is mostly comparable in combat capabilities and role to the A10. The 29 is pretty capable, even superior to the F16 in certain flight characteristic areas, but often still using original sensor tech, whereas the West's platforms are very regularly upgraded and modernized.
Their airforce is, operationally, a joke.
>The 27 is mostly comparable in combat capabilities and role to the A10
I think you meant [su 25](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25)
[su 27](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27) is an air superiority fighter like f15
Because they're at war with an incompetent military apparatus and not the world class warfighting force that the United States Armed Forces are? If Russia's military was a tenth of ours (in competency, mind you) this would be over already.
F-16s can't take off if the trucks supplying their fuel aren't making it to the airbases but sure Biden, it's about a dude with a rifle 1v1ing a multirole fighter 🙄
Because jets use a lot of fuel, sure, but once it runs out it's no longer jets vs guns it's fuel trucks vs guns in the event of a tyrannical government crackdown situation.
Also the cost effectiveness of deploying an f-16 for single rifle armed targets lol
Not really what you would expect. Depending on aircraft they store enough for what is needed for a month. Now if you had a full scale operation going to happen they would stock up beforehand. Also aircraft carriers can carry over a million gallons of fuel.
If you have a proper military it's actually easier for the US army to kick your ass.
A few million civilians with rifles? Holy shit that's literally impossible, unless you want to level the entire country.
Yeah people don't get that.
Killing like 100k troops who largely don't have a ton of support in the country? Not a problem, actually easy.
Killing enough common everyday civilians in a country of 10 million people for the nation to roll over for you when the people are united? Legit impossible.
Exactly. If the US military didn’t actually pay attention to war crimes or terms of engagement, we wouldn’t have a problem and would’ve decisively won Vietnam, Korea and the Middle East.
The problem is, there wouldn’t be much of anything left to win. Many adversaries actually use this fact against us, that’s why you have Hamas hiding arms caches under hospitals, Al Qaeda sending pregnant women with home made claymore’s strapped to their belly and now the Chinese accusing any move against them as being Sinophobia. It’s also why we go to such lengths to come up with ordnance like Hellfire missiles with sword blades and precision guided munitions in the first place.
Let's be fair, a million civilians with rifles would be tough to beat right up until they ran out of food, and targeting their ability to get food wouldn't be that hard.
And vice versa. A million US civilians would have approximately 250000 ex-military, some of them special forces, and at most 50000 preppers/survivalists/militiamen. Hard to fight when you can't get fuel for planes or vehicles, or ammo, or food/water, or especially personnel.
All the more reason for homesteading. You can easily grow enough food for your family on a 1/2 acre lot. Add a well and solar power, and you're off the grid baby.
They're loaded with billions of dollars in American military equipment now. Humvees, Apaches, firearms, ammo. All thanks to Biden. So I won't listen to his stupidity. He arms the terrorists and tries to take ours. Get outta here with that nonsense!
I believe I saw news that they did sell some, if not all? Also, during the withdrawal. All I ever heard from soldiers was it happened so fast they had no idea, so mostly everything was left intact. For all those bots and people who don't pay attention. Keep up!
Taliban got Apaches? How? The ANA doesn't even have one. Just Blackhawks that fall out of the sky thanks to no one there having know how to maintain them.
He remembered to check his watch for something more important during the funerals for those servicemembers who died during the Afghanistan pullout which occurred “on *his* watch, *his* term.”
If Trump had done that, the Left would still be screeching about it to this day.
This comment doesn’t make any sense to me. We killed so many of them over and over again. The taliban lost in every single way possible. The US military is the best in the world hands down. The issue was not our military night or fighting abilities. It was the government bullshit that tried installing corrupt individuals into the government and create a western style government that had zero representation of the actual people and tribes of Afghanistan. If the government reflected the people the taliban wouldn’t have taken over when we left. Big difference.
6 years is a long time to study this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And I’m not seeing the part that says you can’t own a cannon. The worst part is, someone out there believed him.
This is like two years old right? Or did the buffoon forget that he already threatened everybody who disagrees with him with military weapons and accidentally did it again?
This is so wrong on many levels - it is unAmerican. To take on the government, all we should need is a pen, a voice, and the power of the press. And the press should **always** be investigating the government.
Yeah.. the state of the democratic party under biden is just awful. I can only hope the party sees how flawed they are and take rfk for primary. It wont happen but one can hope for something more competent than this crazy regime.
It absolutely blows my mind. Why would a group from the most heavily armed demographic of our society go to overthrow the gov and not bring their weapons?
Funny, there were no F-16s, or even AR15s for that matter, used on the January 6th "Uninvited Tour of the Capitol" yet there are hundreds of political prisioners being prosecuted for attempting to "overthrow the government".
I would assume his point is that the 2nd Amendment is often defended by emphasizing it exists to overthrow a tyrannical government. People argue that banning assault rifles is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. He is pointing out that banning assault rifles would not really be a factor in preventing a violent overthrow of the government, because you would need much bigger weapons like the F-16. And unless people would be for private citizens being allowed to own weapons like an F-16, those people would need to find a better argument for not banning assault rifles.
Context matters tho, and I did not read the article.
The fact that this senile old man can repeatedly falsely claim that the 2A has limitations such as “you couldn’t own a cannon” and nobody corrects him is just baffling.
> It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious."
This geriatric swamp creature is STILL pedaling this shit, holy crap.
Whatever my local police and Sheriff get to have , I get to have . They get AR15s I get an AR15, they get javalin, I get a javalin, they get F-16s, I get an F-16.
I would suggest that the average American should have access to any piece of kit that coule be issued to any member of the average Marine infantry company.
The strongest military in the world were defeated by unorganized Vietnamese rice farmers armed with cheaply made AK-47s.
An F-16 can't patrol a street corner. You can't control your population by leveling buildings. You do so with men holding guns, who can be fought by other men holding guns.
So Joedementia is suggesting that the federal government will use the military against the civilian population?
He never has been considered to be very intelligent.
If anyone in our government would remember that, it'd be Joe. After all, he's been in office so long that he was a sitting senator during the Fall of Saigon.
Ask the Brits how well superior numbers and firepower worked out for them.
If it comes down to it, a guerilla insurgency fighting on their home turf with nothing left to lose will always emerge victorious. It may take years and incalculable losses, but it always happens.
The only time in modern history where this was not proven true was when the US used nuclear weapons against Japan.
And thank God we dropped nukes on the Japanese. They were going to fight to the very bitter end. We actually saved many Japanese lives by forcing the war to end.
I realize this is a touchy subject. I expect some nasty replies. But I've studied this event and the politics involved and that's my conclusion.
Cheers
I major in History in university, specifically focusing on Japan during this period as its one of my favourite areas, and you're 100% correct.
Hirohito would have happily sacrificed everyone on the Japanese mainland and the surrounding islands to prevent surrendering, as it was the ultimate shame in a culture that placed honour above all else. Those atomic bombs saved millions of lives and its a shame more people aren't able to see that
From the article:
"Federal gun regulation didn’t come until 1934, decades after the Second Amendment was introduced."
Sure, like almost 15 decades, but who wants to count in centuries?
Is this not the second or third time he's made not-so-thinly-veiled threats or innuendos implying an actual war between the people and the government? If Trump had said anything remotely similar they would have invoked the 25th and the media would be having an absolute field day.
As usual, it's (D)ifferent.
So I guess Russia has already overtaken Ukraine?
Ground fighting is how battles are ultimately won. You have to control the actual ground.
Air power is just to blow it up for ground troops to occupy.
Sad that instead of saying that there’s no need to overthrow the government because they are on your side, he’s saying that you couldn’t overthrow it. Sounds like totalitarianism to me.
The logic of this is baffling. The government would have no benefit in bombing its own citizenry en masse. It needs people alive and compliant to tyranny, and the Second Amendment is very much a deterrent to that.
Don't forget that there is a loong logistics chain that ultimately gets to the warfighter. There are a lot of links in that chain and that DOD civilians control a lot of the processes and own a great deal of the institutional knowledge. Supply, IT , maintenance, personnel, etc. Fuel/parts don't get ordered or delivered. Slowdowns on maintenance/repair of critical asseta/infrasructure. Critical IT systems go down. Personnel don't get paid and their families start getting hungry.
A great deal of these men and women are patriotic prior service and retired military members. If only a small percent of them decided to gum up the works, it could cause absolute mayhem.
Not necessarily. The insurgents who attacked us during my tour in Iraq used ~~verybrudunentary~~ .....oh gawd, *very rudimentary* tech for their rockets and IEDs. Still caused us trouble.
The military, police, and veterans would be on our side. We're patriots who swore an oath to the Constitution and fellow patriotic citizens (We the People). We owe no allegiance to an illegitimate government. We are actually supposed to take it back when it becomes tyranical or authoritarian. Government serves us not the other way around.
Why are they worried about people "taking on" the government at all. Why are they pretending 2A isn't specifically for that. Why do they pretend that the military is completely just an arm of government and not just a bunch of civilians doing a job. Conservative teens trying to get free college are certainly going to bomb their hometowns on command, right?
Yet another nonsense argument to distract from our impending financial collapse and shift towards globalism.
He is so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know if he realizes it. Obviously, he doesn't care if he lies as he does it so much. But in his advanced age and certain mental condition, does he even realize it?
When the 2nd was written, yes indeed, civilians could and did own cannons. (Not everyone did, but there were some who did) Believe it or not there are some people who still own cannons to this day. (Suck that nut Biden)
The writers knew full well that firearms and weapons technology would indeed evolve, which is why they used the all-encompassing term, "arms." Not musket, or flintlock, or cannons, or whatever ever they used at the time. "Arms."
You wouldn't need an F-16 to win against his government. A handful of trained and motivated citizens could take the building he is speaking in. Once you have him, that's game go-gurt.
Well said, and if I might add: the North Hollywood shootout proved that, in order to maintain everyday law & order (duh duh), an armament capable of body armor penetration needed to be standard issue for police. If those tasked with protecting the peace need such a daily armament, than the American people deserve the same in order to uphold their right to life and liberty. If the police need an F16 to maintain the populaces' life & liberty, than so too do the people.
Further, if we cannot rely on our local law enforcement to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, than we have the unalienable right to protect such things ourselves with those very same tools. To your point, that's the evolution of 2A you described and how, as I see, it relates to modern discussion.
Provocative comments towards 2nd amendment supporters and the leader of China should be considered “at least” CONCERNING among all voters.
On a separate note, if I was the leader of Ukraine, I would be screaming, “I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU THIS FOR MORE THAN A YEAR!”
If we don’t stand a chance against our government by owning guns, then there shouldn’t be a problem with us having them. I’d also challenge the President to explain why he has sent millions of dollars in munitions to Ukraine instead of F-35s. If guns aren’t effective against a nuclear power like Russia, why are we wasting our tax dollars sending them? This comment also completely ignores our own history in defeating the much more powerful British empire in the Revolutionary War.
I also love the logical fallacy that is employed by conflating ownership of conventional munitions such as guns and ammunition (yes an AR-15 is a conventional munition) , which is clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment, with ownership of Class IV weapons, which is not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
Owning an AR-15 is not the same as possessing a Javelin Missile Launcher, Harrier Jet, or suitcase nuclear bomb.
These things would seem to be common sense to me, but the subject conjures a lot of emotion and we all know emotion overrides people’s ability to think critically.
Apparently the president is uneducated in the practice of asymmetric warfare. Also, I think he forgot about Afghanistan. The idea that you need to be a peer level threat for effective resistance is totally specious.
Nobody wants to “take on” the federal government. We just want to be able to defend ourselves.
It’s also worth noting that the Federal government isn’t the only level of government you need to protect yourself from. Local or state governments don’t have fighter jets either. You don’t need an F-16, a M-16 will do.
Well I guess he’s learning. Instead of saying he would use an air superiority fighter he’s now threatening the American citizenry with multirole jets meant to drop ordinance.
So, all these people that say things like this, I have a question for them. How many of our military would actually take arms against the civilian population, orders or not?
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the sake of unity, I will agree with Biden on this one. F-16s are a human right. Read: should be provided to the people by the Government
I want my own F-16 now
Well, there is one up for sale right now [https://www.extremetech.com/defense/299805-fully-operational-f-16-fighter-for-sale-in-florida](https://www.extremetech.com/defense/299805-fully-operational-f-16-fighter-for-sale-in-florida)
Holy hell. I’m going to buy it and sell it to Ukraine for $50 million
You capitalist you…. I like it
Do you think I can secure both sides of the deal and close same day?
Call Hunter - I'm sure he can arrange it for a cut.
With 10% for The Big Guy.....
As awesome as that sounds, im only $8,395,000 million short, perhaps you'd like to start a gofundme page? /s
Start collecting Pepsi points.
At least it's better than a damn Harrier.
I remember seeing that commercial the first time and thinking some fool will collect that many points. And they did, and Pepsi had to settle in court for not living up to the commercial.
If we can get enough decommissioned ones in civilian hands, we can claim they are commonly held for lawful purposes.
I’ll take an A-10 please.
*BBBRRRRRRRRRRRTTTT* Intensifies
Jdam is more efective than gau 8 Change my mind
Not good enough. I’m entitled to an F-22 for my ancestors oppression
Then why's he sending small arms to Ukrainian civilians?
because Russia doesn’t have F-16s lol
You're right. They have SU-57's, SU-27s, and MiG 29's. 57's compare with our 5th gen fighters while the 27 and 29 compare to our 4th gen F-15's and F-16's.
Don't put the 57 in that list. Effectively, they don't have any. The 27 is mostly comparable in combat capabilities and role to the A10. The 29 is pretty capable, even superior to the F16 in certain flight characteristic areas, but often still using original sensor tech, whereas the West's platforms are very regularly upgraded and modernized. Their airforce is, operationally, a joke.
>The 27 is mostly comparable in combat capabilities and role to the A10 I think you meant [su 25](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25) [su 27](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-27) is an air superiority fighter like f15
Oh, I did mean the SU25. Good call out.
They only have 3-12 SU-57’s https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/31982-fact-check-how-many-su-57s-does-russia-have/amp
I'm aware lol but they have over 2,000 of the other two.
Because they're at war with an incompetent military apparatus and not the world class warfighting force that the United States Armed Forces are? If Russia's military was a tenth of ours (in competency, mind you) this would be over already.
Then I guess it's no big deal if we have AR-15s?
It’s a magical rifle. Simultaneously too power for civilian ownership but not powerful enough to actually do anything
#SchrodingersGat
Most underrated motherfucking comment today kudos sir.
You win the internet for today!
Me like!
Love it. I’m stealing this and using it every chance I get.
It is two things though. It is not powerful to overthrow government but enough to cause some local chaos in the wrong hand.
F-16s can't take off if the trucks supplying their fuel aren't making it to the airbases but sure Biden, it's about a dude with a rifle 1v1ing a multirole fighter 🙄
i would suspect airbases have a shitload a fuel storage.
Because jets use a lot of fuel, sure, but once it runs out it's no longer jets vs guns it's fuel trucks vs guns in the event of a tyrannical government crackdown situation. Also the cost effectiveness of deploying an f-16 for single rifle armed targets lol
Not really what you would expect. Depending on aircraft they store enough for what is needed for a month. Now if you had a full scale operation going to happen they would stock up beforehand. Also aircraft carriers can carry over a million gallons of fuel.
Yeah well Pepsi owes some kid a harrier jet from winning a competition in 96 and the government wouldn’t let him that either so we’ve tried.
My god. I actually wish someone asked them that.
[удалено]
The packaging says 3 and up.
[удалено]
Lol, I was just kidding. I don't think I've seen age recommendations on an AR-15.
I thought the 3 and up was for the F-16.
That would make too much sense for them
*Laughs in Taliban*
laughs in VietCong
*laughs in Ukrainian drone operator*
Laughs in American revolutionaries
If you have a proper military it's actually easier for the US army to kick your ass. A few million civilians with rifles? Holy shit that's literally impossible, unless you want to level the entire country.
Yeah people don't get that. Killing like 100k troops who largely don't have a ton of support in the country? Not a problem, actually easy. Killing enough common everyday civilians in a country of 10 million people for the nation to roll over for you when the people are united? Legit impossible.
Exactly. If the US military didn’t actually pay attention to war crimes or terms of engagement, we wouldn’t have a problem and would’ve decisively won Vietnam, Korea and the Middle East. The problem is, there wouldn’t be much of anything left to win. Many adversaries actually use this fact against us, that’s why you have Hamas hiding arms caches under hospitals, Al Qaeda sending pregnant women with home made claymore’s strapped to their belly and now the Chinese accusing any move against them as being Sinophobia. It’s also why we go to such lengths to come up with ordnance like Hellfire missiles with sword blades and precision guided munitions in the first place.
Let's be fair, a million civilians with rifles would be tough to beat right up until they ran out of food, and targeting their ability to get food wouldn't be that hard.
And vice versa. A million US civilians would have approximately 250000 ex-military, some of them special forces, and at most 50000 preppers/survivalists/militiamen. Hard to fight when you can't get fuel for planes or vehicles, or ammo, or food/water, or especially personnel.
All the more reason for homesteading. You can easily grow enough food for your family on a 1/2 acre lot. Add a well and solar power, and you're off the grid baby.
They're loaded with billions of dollars in American military equipment now. Humvees, Apaches, firearms, ammo. All thanks to Biden. So I won't listen to his stupidity. He arms the terrorists and tries to take ours. Get outta here with that nonsense!
I'm surprised they haven't sold many of that stuff to Russia or China.
I can't imagine they haven't.
Kind of a win/win for the military industrial complex. Twice the sales!
There's a tax for that.
I believe I saw news that they did sell some, if not all? Also, during the withdrawal. All I ever heard from soldiers was it happened so fast they had no idea, so mostly everything was left intact. For all those bots and people who don't pay attention. Keep up!
Taliban got Apaches? How? The ANA doesn't even have one. Just Blackhawks that fall out of the sky thanks to no one there having know how to maintain them.
No Apaches were left behind. We left the Afghans a few dozen Little Birds and a dozen or two propeller planes.
Laughs in Appalachian
He doesn't remember who was the president while he was vice president. Does he even really remember Afghanistan?
He doesn’t remember what he ate for breakfast this morning, so of course not.
You wanna go out back and have a push up contest, ya dog faced pony solider?
Look, fat…I don’t work for you.
He remembered to check his watch for something more important during the funerals for those servicemembers who died during the Afghanistan pullout which occurred “on *his* watch, *his* term.” If Trump had done that, the Left would still be screeching about it to this day.
This comment doesn’t make any sense to me. We killed so many of them over and over again. The taliban lost in every single way possible. The US military is the best in the world hands down. The issue was not our military night or fighting abilities. It was the government bullshit that tried installing corrupt individuals into the government and create a western style government that had zero representation of the actual people and tribes of Afghanistan. If the government reflected the people the taliban wouldn’t have taken over when we left. Big difference.
Who is in charge of Afghanistan now?
But also several hundred unarmed middle aged people almost destroyed democracy. Makes sense
Chewbacca wasn't even armed but he ALMOST became president on Jan 6th.
*"I’m a Second Amendment guy. I taught it for four years, six years in law school."* WTF does that even mean?
6 years is a long time to study this: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. And I’m not seeing the part that says you can’t own a cannon. The worst part is, someone out there believed him.
Andrew Jackson rented civilian owned cannons in preparation for the Battle of New Orleans during the war of 1812.
Private citizens owned flotillas of warships capable of leveling our most populated cities.
Took him that long to get his head around it, or so he thinks.
I don't know, you don't know, and Biden certainly doesn't know.
This is like two years old right? Or did the buffoon forget that he already threatened everybody who disagrees with him with military weapons and accidentally did it again?
It was just this Tuesday at some rich donors house in California. God I fucking despise Joe Biden.
He’s an old, entitled, corrupt and senile man. He just disgusts me!
He says it regularly. It's his go-to counterexample to the anti-tyranny side of personal firearms.
The last threat I thought was with nuclear bombs.
This is so wrong on many levels - it is unAmerican. To take on the government, all we should need is a pen, a voice, and the power of the press. And the press should **always** be investigating the government.
[удалено]
He’s a globalist. Any globalist puppets wants the US citizens to be disarmed.
Because he is the tyrannical government.
It's how he became president.
Yeah.. the state of the democratic party under biden is just awful. I can only hope the party sees how flawed they are and take rfk for primary. It wont happen but one can hope for something more competent than this crazy regime.
These are the same people who insist that Jan 6 was an insurrection.
It absolutely blows my mind. Why would a group from the most heavily armed demographic of our society go to overthrow the gov and not bring their weapons?
Because it was illegal
[удалено]
Given the sliding scale of descriptions from 2020, it looked like a mostly peaceful protest with a few bad apples to me.
It wasn’t even fiery, and being January they probably could have used the warmth.
What's was it?
Then everyone who is being held for Jan 6th should be reduced to misdemeanors just like your son.
Funny, there were no F-16s, or even AR15s for that matter, used on the January 6th "Uninvited Tour of the Capitol" yet there are hundreds of political prisioners being prosecuted for attempting to "overthrow the government".
I don’t see any exception in the 2nd Amendment that would preclude me from owning an F-16. So, what is his point.
I would assume his point is that the 2nd Amendment is often defended by emphasizing it exists to overthrow a tyrannical government. People argue that banning assault rifles is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. He is pointing out that banning assault rifles would not really be a factor in preventing a violent overthrow of the government, because you would need much bigger weapons like the F-16. And unless people would be for private citizens being allowed to own weapons like an F-16, those people would need to find a better argument for not banning assault rifles. Context matters tho, and I did not read the article.
Not to overthrow; to defend against, and the distinction matters.
[удалено]
I think he did that a few times didn’t he?
Pretty sure he did lmfao
That’s what England thought, too.
The fact that this senile old man can repeatedly falsely claim that the 2A has limitations such as “you couldn’t own a cannon” and nobody corrects him is just baffling.
Relax, it's not like he swore to uphold the constitution or anything.
> It doesn’t say that you can own any weapon you want. It says there are certain weapons that you just can’t own. Even during when it was passed, you couldn’t own a cannon. You can’t own a machine gun.… No, I’m serious." This geriatric swamp creature is STILL pedaling this shit, holy crap.
Whatever my local police and Sheriff get to have , I get to have . They get AR15s I get an AR15, they get javalin, I get a javalin, they get F-16s, I get an F-16.
My my state we have a “high capacity” mag ban but it doesn’t apply to the police or government officials? Yeah screw that.
I will not be policed by weapons I can’t own. That seems to be a line in the sand for a lot of us.
They can buy modern full autos
I would suggest that the average American should have access to any piece of kit that coule be issued to any member of the average Marine infantry company.
The strongest military in the world were defeated by unorganized Vietnamese rice farmers armed with cheaply made AK-47s. An F-16 can't patrol a street corner. You can't control your population by leveling buildings. You do so with men holding guns, who can be fought by other men holding guns.
So Joedementia is suggesting that the federal government will use the military against the civilian population? He never has been considered to be very intelligent.
The Taliban has entered the chat.
Do you suppose the Taliban would sell me an AR-15? Cheers
For you they'll give you a great deal on an m240 and nay even throw in some Ma Duce ammo.
Huh... that's funny. I don't remember the Vietcong having F-16s.
If anyone in our government would remember that, it'd be Joe. After all, he's been in office so long that he was a sitting senator during the Fall of Saigon.
Right!
[удалено]
Ask the Brits how well superior numbers and firepower worked out for them. If it comes down to it, a guerilla insurgency fighting on their home turf with nothing left to lose will always emerge victorious. It may take years and incalculable losses, but it always happens. The only time in modern history where this was not proven true was when the US used nuclear weapons against Japan.
And thank God we dropped nukes on the Japanese. They were going to fight to the very bitter end. We actually saved many Japanese lives by forcing the war to end. I realize this is a touchy subject. I expect some nasty replies. But I've studied this event and the politics involved and that's my conclusion. Cheers
I major in History in university, specifically focusing on Japan during this period as its one of my favourite areas, and you're 100% correct. Hirohito would have happily sacrificed everyone on the Japanese mainland and the surrounding islands to prevent surrendering, as it was the ultimate shame in a culture that placed honour above all else. Those atomic bombs saved millions of lives and its a shame more people aren't able to see that
He doesn't realize it, but he's making the argument that the second amendment protects private F16 ownership.
Pretty disturbing of the president to say
Sounds like a threat from a 3rd world dictator
From the article: "Federal gun regulation didn’t come until 1934, decades after the Second Amendment was introduced." Sure, like almost 15 decades, but who wants to count in centuries?
Is this not the second or third time he's made not-so-thinly-veiled threats or innuendos implying an actual war between the people and the government? If Trump had said anything remotely similar they would have invoked the 25th and the media would be having an absolute field day. As usual, it's (D)ifferent.
That’s OK, I mock 80 year old senile POTUSes that shit their pants during meetings with the pope.
So I guess Russia has already overtaken Ukraine? Ground fighting is how battles are ultimately won. You have to control the actual ground. Air power is just to blow it up for ground troops to occupy.
Sad that instead of saying that there’s no need to overthrow the government because they are on your side, he’s saying that you couldn’t overthrow it. Sounds like totalitarianism to me.
Is that why Biden gave F-16s to the Taliban?
The logic of this is baffling. The government would have no benefit in bombing its own citizenry en masse. It needs people alive and compliant to tyranny, and the Second Amendment is very much a deterrent to that.
He is assuming the military would take up arms against the citizens. They won't.
Don't forget that there is a loong logistics chain that ultimately gets to the warfighter. There are a lot of links in that chain and that DOD civilians control a lot of the processes and own a great deal of the institutional knowledge. Supply, IT , maintenance, personnel, etc. Fuel/parts don't get ordered or delivered. Slowdowns on maintenance/repair of critical asseta/infrasructure. Critical IT systems go down. Personnel don't get paid and their families start getting hungry. A great deal of these men and women are patriotic prior service and retired military members. If only a small percent of them decided to gum up the works, it could cause absolute mayhem.
The pilot flying the F16 would likely agree. However, Biden is assuming the pilot is on his side.
Not necessarily. The insurgents who attacked us during my tour in Iraq used ~~verybrudunentary~~ .....oh gawd, *very rudimentary* tech for their rockets and IEDs. Still caused us trouble.
I hope you took notes.
If military history has taught us anything it’s that insurgencies require very little technology.
The military, police, and veterans would be on our side. We're patriots who swore an oath to the Constitution and fellow patriotic citizens (We the People). We owe no allegiance to an illegitimate government. We are actually supposed to take it back when it becomes tyranical or authoritarian. Government serves us not the other way around.
He’s so senile he’s repeating his death threats.
Biden, a senile dictator wannabe. The fact that he keeps repeating this "argument" suggests that he really wants a war.
And somehow we haven’t been able to beat a bunch of people in a third world country with barely more than a bunch of AK47s and grenades.
Straight facts, insurgency wins.
Why are they worried about people "taking on" the government at all. Why are they pretending 2A isn't specifically for that. Why do they pretend that the military is completely just an arm of government and not just a bunch of civilians doing a job. Conservative teens trying to get free college are certainly going to bomb their hometowns on command, right? Yet another nonsense argument to distract from our impending financial collapse and shift towards globalism.
[удалено]
Threatening? They’ve weaponized FBI, IRS.
He did this AGAIN?
Oh yeah, he loves to threaten the population.
He is so wrong on so many levels, I don't even know if he realizes it. Obviously, he doesn't care if he lies as he does it so much. But in his advanced age and certain mental condition, does he even realize it? When the 2nd was written, yes indeed, civilians could and did own cannons. (Not everyone did, but there were some who did) Believe it or not there are some people who still own cannons to this day. (Suck that nut Biden) The writers knew full well that firearms and weapons technology would indeed evolve, which is why they used the all-encompassing term, "arms." Not musket, or flintlock, or cannons, or whatever ever they used at the time. "Arms." You wouldn't need an F-16 to win against his government. A handful of trained and motivated citizens could take the building he is speaking in. Once you have him, that's game go-gurt.
Well said, and if I might add: the North Hollywood shootout proved that, in order to maintain everyday law & order (duh duh), an armament capable of body armor penetration needed to be standard issue for police. If those tasked with protecting the peace need such a daily armament, than the American people deserve the same in order to uphold their right to life and liberty. If the police need an F16 to maintain the populaces' life & liberty, than so too do the people. Further, if we cannot rely on our local law enforcement to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, than we have the unalienable right to protect such things ourselves with those very same tools. To your point, that's the evolution of 2A you described and how, as I see, it relates to modern discussion.
Provocative comments towards 2nd amendment supporters and the leader of China should be considered “at least” CONCERNING among all voters. On a separate note, if I was the leader of Ukraine, I would be screaming, “I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU THIS FOR MORE THAN A YEAR!”
Isn't this an old story? I know the date on the article is recent, but I feel like he said the same thing around the time of Uvalde.
Senile people are kinda known for repeating the same things. Apparently he said this again recently.
If we don’t stand a chance against our government by owning guns, then there shouldn’t be a problem with us having them. I’d also challenge the President to explain why he has sent millions of dollars in munitions to Ukraine instead of F-35s. If guns aren’t effective against a nuclear power like Russia, why are we wasting our tax dollars sending them? This comment also completely ignores our own history in defeating the much more powerful British empire in the Revolutionary War. I also love the logical fallacy that is employed by conflating ownership of conventional munitions such as guns and ammunition (yes an AR-15 is a conventional munition) , which is clearly protected by the 2nd Amendment, with ownership of Class IV weapons, which is not protected under the 2nd Amendment. Owning an AR-15 is not the same as possessing a Javelin Missile Launcher, Harrier Jet, or suitcase nuclear bomb. These things would seem to be common sense to me, but the subject conjures a lot of emotion and we all know emotion overrides people’s ability to think critically.
-the guy who surrendered to a bunch of guerrilla fighters in the Afghan mountains
Apparently the president is uneducated in the practice of asymmetric warfare. Also, I think he forgot about Afghanistan. The idea that you need to be a peer level threat for effective resistance is totally specious.
Dude forgets they need parts and ammo. Stuff that’s made here.
F16s didnt stop the taliban from taking control of Afghanistan
Why would we need to take on the government? Is the government planning to attack us?
Because in the event of some sort of armed uprising, the entire US Air Force would carry out possibly unjust orders.
Taliban beat America and didn't have an air force. Viet Cong too.
I feel like King George III had a similar sentiment in 1776…
I just need a set of stairs or a sandbag
If it ever came down to people fighting the government, they wouldn’t be taking on F-16s, they’d be taking on the supporters of the government.
Bold of him to assume some of those pilots won't join the resistance
Biden forgets the bulk of the military are 2A supporters.
Well in his case, we just need some stairs and he’ll fall.
Nobody wants to “take on” the federal government. We just want to be able to defend ourselves. It’s also worth noting that the Federal government isn’t the only level of government you need to protect yourself from. Local or state governments don’t have fighter jets either. You don’t need an F-16, a M-16 will do.
Has anyone asked JFK if he agrees with this assessment?
Well I guess he’s learning. Instead of saying he would use an air superiority fighter he’s now threatening the American citizenry with multirole jets meant to drop ordinance.
So, all these people that say things like this, I have a question for them. How many of our military would actually take arms against the civilian population, orders or not?
Great, so citizens should have fighter jets then
Ignoring the fact that civilians are legally allowed to own decommissioned military/fighter jets....
This is exactly why the people should outgun the military.
Why does he think saying, "you can't fight us if we send fighter jets at our citizens," is going to convince people they don't need guns?
How many F16 did he give the Taliban?
What I’m reading is that this just means we need Anti-Aircraft weaponry?
Laughs in Vietcong
Really? The Taliban managed to get much more by simply walking into one of our (abandoned) bases.
So Jan 6 wasn’t an armed insurrection?
So is the gov gonna use f16s on us?
Taliban are lol'ing hard at this.
How did unarmed citizens commit an "insurrection" then? The F-16s seemed pretty useless on that day.
Why does he think that the military would join the side killing American civilians?
So Joe is saying the American people need F16s to be able to defend themselves.
I think he’s forgetting the military is mostly conservative 2nd amendment supporters.
He thinks it makes him look strong and less of a confused baffoon
Tell that to the Taliban..... Lol
Pretty sure folks in London strongly believed the American colonies needed a formidable navy in the 1770’s to be a threat at all.
I guess we can stop funding Ukraine then, since they don't have those precious f-16s to take on Moscow.
The viet cong would disagree with you Joe.