4 ms·

The British gov't didn't have tanks in 1776. You'll need to start demanding the right to bear nuclear weapons if you want to throw off the U.S. gov't.

hga 13y ago
Did you know that there are things as anti-tank weapons, or that it's official US Army doctrine that an armored force that attacks a city will get its posterior kicked (they're useful in supporting infantry in urban warfare, and infantry close support is required to keep tanks safe from a lot of the former). And you're betraying more than you realize by focusing on weapons as a proxy for tactics; professionals focus on logistics, and I would hope its relevance in supporting armored forces in this context is obvious. As it was, I've read about, and am about to read a book that covers this, that after we chased the British out of Boston, when they returned in force and landed in New York we got a most unpleasant surprise from their new mobile artillery forces. We proceeded to lose very badly for quite some time. As for nuclear weapons, they're only relevant if you expect the government's response to be the nuking of opposition cities. If you think that's likely, you've certainly made the case that our government could get evil enough to require its (very careful) overthrow.
- OpieCunningham 13y ago
  And you're betraying more than you realize by focusing on weapons as a proxy for tactics; professionals focus on logistics Oh, ok then you shouldn't mind eliminating some types of weapons like assault rifles. Any revolutionary force attempting to throw off a tyrannical U.S. gov't will just use tactics and logistics. As for nuclear weapons, they're only relevant if you expect the government's response to be the nuking of opposition cities. Exactly. So nukes should be legal to own just as much as assault rifles. There is no other way to throw off the U.S. gov't. But only crazy people would think nukes should be legal - so that whole throw off the gov't argument is rubbish, and assault rifles won't help there either. to require its (very careful) overthrow My point was in fact that there is no such thing as an armed "very careful" overthrow of the U.S. gov't. Such a thing is complete nonsense, like unicorns.
mgarfias 13y ago
Like the Vietnamese had?
- OpieCunningham 13y ago
  If the Vietnamese were invading the U.S. and about to eliminate the U.S. gov't from existence, they would have been nuked.

hga 13y ago

Did you know that there are things as anti-tank weapons, or that it's official US Army doctrine that an armored force that attacks a city will get its posterior kicked (they're useful in supporting infantry in urban warfare, and infantry close support is required to keep tanks safe from a lot of the former). And you're betraying more than you realize by focusing on weapons as a proxy for tactics; professionals focus on logistics, and I would hope its relevance in supporting armored forces in this context is obvious. As it was, I've read about, and am about to read a book that covers this, that after we chased the British out of Boston, when they returned in force and landed in New York we got a most unpleasant surprise from their new mobile artillery forces. We proceeded to lose very badly for quite some time. As for nuclear weapons, they're only relevant if you expect the government's response to be the nuking of opposition cities. If you think that's likely, you've certainly made the case that our government could get evil enough to require its (very careful) overthrow.

OpieCunningham 13y ago
And you're betraying more than you realize by focusing on weapons as a proxy for tactics; professionals focus on logistics Oh, ok then you shouldn't mind eliminating some types of weapons like assault rifles. Any revolutionary force attempting to throw off a tyrannical U.S. gov't will just use tactics and logistics. As for nuclear weapons, they're only relevant if you expect the government's response to be the nuking of opposition cities. Exactly. So nukes should be legal to own just as much as assault rifles. There is no other way to throw off the U.S. gov't. But only crazy people would think nukes should be legal - so that whole throw off the gov't argument is rubbish, and assault rifles won't help there either. to require its (very careful) overthrow My point was in fact that there is no such thing as an armed "very careful" overthrow of the U.S. gov't. Such a thing is complete nonsense, like unicorns.

mgarfias 13y ago

Like the Vietnamese had?

OpieCunningham 13y ago
If the Vietnamese were invading the U.S. and about to eliminate the U.S. gov't from existence, they would have been nuked.