The would be gun grabbers position all shot to hell

Millions of Americans had guns at the time of the Kent State massacre. None of them prevented the massacre from occurring.

 

What did the Afgani soldiers do with their AK-47's to the Russians and American troops?

 

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but between the two of us, I've seen more enemy tanks than you.

 

Name those on campus.

 

Their AK-47's did nothing to tanks, I can tell you that.

 

I'm calling bullshit on that considering I served with an Armored Division.

 

Plenty of gun owners were on hand with their guns at Matewan, didn't stop the massacre.

 

Their AK-47's held the Russians at bay for 9 years and eventually drove the Russians out. The US has done little better.
We can take up the conflict in Viet Nam another time.

 

No, landmines, RPG's, Milan ATGM's, and Stinger missiles held the Russians at bay and drove them off. Against the US, its mostly been RPG's and IED's.

 

Yeah, anywhere near Medina Ridge?

 

Nope, Baghdad, Al Qut, and Diwaniyah.

But by all means, tell us the tales of tanks being killed with rifles.

 

Oh and by the way, as another poster suggested, please remember you're talking about Venezulan armored Yugo's.

These things aren't even as capable as a type 69.

 

Yet any tank in the world built after 1938 is capable of shrugging off rifle caliber bullets.

 

I never claimed a tank could be defeated with a rifle, but you don't need to defeat a tank to defeat the enemy.

You certainly can't defeat the enemy empty handed.

To claim you can't win by creating an illogical scenario is something you presented, not me.

 

Yeah but you can give them one hell of a headache.

The vehicles in Venezuela could easily be defeated by rifles.

 

The OP is specifically talking about using civilian small arms to stop a tank from running over people. I see now that you are trying to deflect to unrelated bullshit.

 

definition of arm..."supply or provide with weapons."

"arm" doesn't distinguish what type of weapons.

 

That's "arm" as a verb, not as a noun.

But basic English comprehension is a little to ask for from Trump supporters.

 

Look like a tank to you..

 

Oh sorry....armored vehicle. Good thing we cleared that up. BTW....have you chastised the OP for calling it a tank?

 

After looking at the history of civil wars where both sides had plenty of arms, I can honestly say "better off" is a very ambiguous claim.

Would the American southern States have been better off if they didn't have arms? Probably.
Would the South Vietnamese been better off if they didn't have arms? Maybe.
Are the Libyans better off because both sides were armed? Toss up.

Will more Venezuelans survive a long term peaceful revolution then would survive a bloody civil war where both sides are armed? Probably.

 

Study some history of non conventional warfare.

 

Now you are being silly. Nobody said a rifle is more powerful than a tank. YOU made the silly point that your tanks will win wars against citizens with far more troops with powerful weapons. My point being that is bullshit. ref. the American revolution.

 

The thread has proved that American knowledge of Venezuela is as poor as their knowledge of the empirical evidence into gun control.

The ease that Americans buy their government's propaganda is the biggest threat!

 

Let's be real - if the British had seriously committed their armed forces against the colonists, we would have been colonists for a few more decades. It wasn't really a "win" by the colonists with guns as much as geography. The Atlantic Ocean won the war - not the amount of guns the colonists had.