I never really got people making fun of gun owners who are doing it in defense of the government, cause "guns don't work against tanks" or whatever. But the point to me seems that this makes the government *need* tanks; it increases the *cost* of winning, which is good.
Conversation
Replying to
This is exactly correct.
Without civilian guns men in suits walk up to you bs say "Sir, please come with me" and that's it & no one knows.
With civilian guns they are planning tactile maneuvers and trying to improve loss ratios while the world watches on TV.
1
2
34
Show replies
It increases the cost in the most minuscule way - vanishingly small. Pointless.
5
7
It increases the cost exponentially
Quote Tweet
Replying to @Aella_Girl
This is exactly correct.
Without civilian guns men in suits walk up to you bs say "Sir, please come with me" and that's it & no one knows.
With civilian guns they are planning tactile maneuvers and trying to improve loss ratios while the world watches on TV.
2
11
Replying to
Not tanks. One single drone can destroy every AR-15 owner in the country. It's a silly defense of gun ownership.
14
14
Show replies
Replying to
Plus the psychological cost of soldiers having to mow over the country they signed up to defend. I don't think they'd all be on board with that..
2
3
Show replies
Replying to
Might be the worst take I’ve seen in awhile tbh. And I have nothing against guns in general.
Replying to
Also they wouldnt kill everyone, then theyd have no one to rule over. You’d need boots on the ground to keep such a large population in check.
8
