The would be gun grabbers position all shot to hell

So it doesn't matter whether it was a tank or some other armored vehicle. Disarming people makes them less able to resist tyranny.

I believe that was the point of the OP.

 

Hahahahaha...nice spin. You know damn well if you already knew it wasn't a tank you would have said so. It wasn't till you were informed it wasn't a tank that you changed your tune. Hahahahahahaha

 

His point was also that if they had guns they could defend themselves against a tank, which you agreed is a silly premise.

 

The OP said that if they had guns they could defend themselves against a tank?

"Now we have been taught TWO lessons by Venezuela!!!!! First we learn that socialism destroys a country. Second we can see how a gun grabbing government can kill citizens any time they want to. Just look at the video from Venezuela of the government tanks running over people and killing them. They are being killed and they have no way to shoot back!!!
It proves the old truth that people with guns are citizens, and people without guns are slaves and pawns of the government.

That people is why the need the 2nd amendment, and applied full force."

Where does he say that if they had guns they could defend themselves against a tank?

 

Which still doesn't distinguish what type of arms.

Try harder next time.

 

What would shooting at a tank do? As you agreed, nothing. That's all I was trying to say.

 

You gather what info you can find and then take out the tank unit commander sitting behind their desk. Whatever they do to you, always do worse to them.

 

Cliven Bundy and his followers were found not guilty in a court of law, even after pointing firearms at federal agents. Rather it was the united states federal government and its individual agents that were taken to task in a court of law for the unprofessional nature of its actions.

 

At least one governmental individual in the sate of California has advocated utilizing nuclear weaponry against firearm owners who resist confiscation efforts.

 

Wow, you had to tell us that shooting a tank would be ineffective. You needed to let everyone know that?

And, contrary to what you said, the OP never said that if they had guns they could defend themselves against a tank.

So why waste the keystrokes?

 

What is not understood by many, is that the so-called "war zone" in the united states is largely limited to several specific cities, while the rest of the country is largely devoid of such levels of violence. The city of Chicago alone, has more murders than all the other cities in the state of Illinois combined.

 

The primary armaments of any particular tank, however, would indeed be vulnerable to incoming small arms fire. Even the best fully-automatic firearms are rendered useless by a rifle bullet striking and penetrating the main body. The main armament is entirely useless against individuals, as they are far more mobile and maneuverable than any particular tank.

 

Sorry man, thought you were another poster, I was rapid firing. My point was that "arms" means weapons generally. It doesn't mean small arms only etc.

 

Swalwell? Yes he has, but he's not the US gov entire, and he's never getting within 10 feet of the football so I didn't account for that far outlier.

 

Where did I say I was telling everyone? Why do you feel the need to make things up? I said I was letting the person who I replied to know. So there’s that.
The OP in fact did imply guns would have helped to defend against the “tank”

 

If it came down to it I think we’d work well together.

 

The Taliban not having the the sophisticated weaponry as the United States, and trillions of dollars, has still fought the most powerful military in the history of man, and held the US to a standstill after 18 years of war. So you were saying?

 

You didn't say. You did. You told everyone. You posted your opinions in a public forum. You were, by definition, telling everyone.

Which was great, because nobody knew before you told us that a rifle can't penetrate a tank. Thank God you let us all know.

Oh, backtracking now. Before your words were "he said". Now you've backtracked to "he implied".

Why did you even post in this thread in the first place?

 

I never thought it was a tank, I saw the headlines before I logged in to PF

 

Thanks for posting. It shows in pictures what so many on the left simply dont understand or just plain deny.

 

Well better than making a big deal about it being a tank

 

Doesn't matter, if people aren't educated enough to know the difference even if they're armed. By arming them it could simply result in them shooting one another because they cant differentiate between a civilian or a soldier!

 

Not backtracking at all. Fine, he said. He did say it.
All you have now is to just keep attacking me. Unlike you I can take it. Attack away.

 

Hahaha...sure thing

 

I'm not attacking you. I'm just engaging in a political forum.

I do wonder why you felt the need to tell everyone that a rifle was ineffective against a tank. Obviously everyone knows this. So why chime in with a worthless comment.

But can we agree that it is better for the citizenry to be armed rather than disarmed?