http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=cBnOi2-7QyI Watch tanks get owned. Tanks are sitting ducks if they aren't moving or don't have infantry for support.
News Flash - large metal targets are "sitting ducks" if they hold still, have no infantry support and if you happen to be equipped to deal with them... What does this prove?
Waste of explosives. Save that for bridges and overpasses. Sooner or later the meatheads have to exit the tank. Be there and pop them in the head when they do. The "pops' won't draw the attention of the rest of the armored division either. If that's a concern the threads on the end of the bolt action solve that problem too. PST..PST..PST and go have a beer (or hit of brown-over there)
Sorry, but the Second Amendment only protects your right to have firearms, and only firearms that you can carry. It doesn't support your right to own or use bombs. Let's not use our vote; let's use guns... because guns always bring peace.
actually you are wrong you are allowed to own cannons. in fact until the late 1800s most private merchants armed themselves with cannons for self defense. It was privateers during the war of 1812 that nearly crippled the British shipping industry.
It would actually probably be easier to make an anti-tank weapon than a rifle. A rifle has to be finely made for accuracy, that' not necessarily the case for a closer range anti-tank weapon filled with explosives. Personally, I think society would still get along just fine if dynamite were sold on the shelves in convenience stores. But I will concede it might not be the best idea.
Complete lie, but nice job of turning military video of foreign tanks being destroyed into a liberal second amendment whine.
An occupying military force cannot secure an area without actual soldiers on the ground, not unless the area is completely flat and open. These soldiers are potentially vulnerable to small arms. Guerilla forces have fought off much better equipped government armies in numerous places throughout the world in the twentieth century. Do I even have to mention Viet Nam? Combine guerilla forces with a little air power assistance provided by an outside country, and you have a very effective fighting force. There is no way that tanks and planes alone could be able to occupy urban areas without completely obliterating it. And even this takes much time, as was demonstrated during the second world war in conflicts between the Germans and Russians. Delaying the advancement of enemy forces could make the difference between winning and losing. And also, if the enemy completely destroys the infrastructure in the occupied region, they cannot use it. This can stretch the enemy's supply lines quite thin.
I guess you can fight tanks if the tanks are dumb enough to enter an urban environment without adequate protection from infantry screens.
