-14 votes

What Are You Going To Do With Your "Assault Rifles" When The Government Has Nuclear Weapons?

There is much controversy regarding the possible prohibition of the misnomer "assault" weapons by the Federal government, but it is little more than a waste of time, as the 2nd amendment was long ago corrupted and nullified.

If there was a true, violent revolution against the Federal Government of the United States, which is equipped with state of the art military technology, the revolutionaries would be immeasurably outgunned due to longstanding prohibitions of weapons. Civilians are prohibited from having the same nuclear weapons as the government, or the weapons technology used on an Apache helicopter, or whatever else state of the art technology the government is using. Hell, you can't even buy enough fertilizer to make a powerful clandestine bomb. It is illegal for you and legal for the government.

Here is a thought scenario to ponder...

Say there is a true revolution against the government, and the revolutionaries seize a small city, let's say my hometown of Akron, OH. The revolutionaries are equipped with assault rifles and handguns and the other weapons you can legally purchase at a gun show. What would the Federal government have to do to squash the rebellion?

All they would do is announce to the rebels controlling Akron that a neutrino bomb would be dropped at a given time, and anyone who doesn't surrender and leave the city will be nuked. What good would those assault weapons be?

I think people are missing the big picture on the entire gun debate. It should be about civilians having access to the same weapons as the government. Forget this talk about "assault rifles," I think nuclear weapons (and any other weapon the government has access to) should be legal for civilian possession (as long as they don't use it other than for self-defense).



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It is legal under the Constitution

However what you fail to understand is there is no use for such a weapon except to kill innocents, we have no use for nukes, except to hold/dismantle and to prevent others from using them.

Missiles, anti-air, heavy artillery citizens should start acquiring, as this is part of your 2nd amendment defined right.

"The sword and every other terrible implement of the soldier is the birthright of every American"

In regards to an argument of whether or not the US gov. would USE a nuke inside the US, its highly unlikely. The whole system they hold is kept up by deception of "the greater good"

They know there are certain things they can't do, or risk losing the blind followers.

tasmlab's picture

Not all lost

It is a sticking point, and, really, when they want to disarm the population the piece of paper that is the constitution can be swept away.

But if the fog remains long enough where the govt doesn't quite know where and how many weapons are scattered about, they should have a hard time sending American troops after their own American families and neighbors. They'll have to use foreign mercenaries.

And let's hope that the Oathkeepers and others commandeer part of the military for the good guys.

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

War?

Hey,

The government will not use nukes or biological weapons not without great consequences and risk. If you have not noticed the government still needs people to do work, if they didn't we would already be dead. They don't want to destroy the world or it would of already been done. Too much blow back. Biological weapons could not be contained. It would be the black plague all over again where it killed off most of the poor and the elites/nobles had to actually work. The only time weapons that can potentially destroy everything is used is when someone is losing the war. That would mean we were winning the war, which were not.

Everyone dies, it's just a matter of how and when. Rather die on your feet or live on your knees as slaves, your choice.

Why couldn't we win the Vietnam or Afghanistan wars?

Because when the resistance is coming from everywhere then you can't just drop a nuke.

If the US government decides to attack American citizens who don't agree with them (unlikely in my opinion yet I'm still prepared) then there will not be an Akron, OH gathering. There will be "rebels" all over the country and the government will never find everyone.

At the end of the day the government is made up of individuals, and individuals do not want to get shot. Rifles, shotguns, and handguns will be effective weapons against these government agents.

The Government won't resort to Nukes

It has much more subtle methods at it's command. A contagious biological agent could easily be introduced into a metropolitan area to disable it's occupants with a minimum of lethal casualties. It's hard to wield your AR if you can't wander far from a toilet or keep down chow. My advice when TSHTF is to avoid urban areas, keep to the back roads or trails under cover of trees and travel by night. I really don't think it will be the military moving on the populace, it appears to me the myriad alphabet agencies with the shaved headed steroid afflicted wannbes will be the ones to spearhead the plan. Our own little Brownshirt coup.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

Energy weapons

can be lethal or just zombify the population (that and SSRI's would
explain a lot).

Depressing, but better to know about than not:

http://conspirazine.com/2011/06/17/this-covert-electromagnet...

http://www.tuberose.com/Cell_Phones.html

My concern are the crowd

control weapons.

Makes civilian weapons moot.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Are you kidding? Thynq more owtsyd the boques

The government may HAVE better weapons now, but we have numbers, technology and creativity.

What's the big bad government going to do if we took some teenager's quad-copter with remote viewing, attached a tiny rocket-bomb (to get through a window) and a canister of chlorine gas for emptying out some government facility? I'm NOT suggesting to do so but literally millions of those type of ideas will come out of the woodwork when the S really HTF!

A bomb or other sophisticated weapon

A bomb or other sophisticated weapon can't kill an individual any more than a gun can.

nudge

I would suggest that the better choice is to object to the government having nuclear weapons (and eliminate that situation) rather than support individual ownership of the same weapons. These are "collective weapons" at a much different level than firearms. It might be that people would voluntarily agree to maintain some level of firearms industry, and sacrifice some portion of their environment for it. The same is not true of nuclear arms. Eliminate collective violence and you eliminate intrusion into the nucleus---both atomic and biological.

But to address the question of your heading more directly (and perhaps practically): The government *does* have nuclear weapons, and my response (and the one I suggest) is to learn to use all weapons to which I have access, and learn to use them as well as I can. The most important of those is the mind. The man is the ultimate weapon.

but here's the thing. i

but here's the thing. i sincerely doubt that anyone who is in the nuclear program would blindly follow an order to nuke (insert town/city here) it's already been shown that only close to 10% would blindly follow an order to invade america let alone take that kind of action.

your point, however is well taken.

99% of the time, if you're

99% of the time, if you're posing a threat, somebody from the govt will confront you with a gun, not a nuclear weapon.

"Bikes still work"

I saw a post a discussion I think here on DP several years ago about this topic.

Someone replied "Bikes still work." That has always stuck with me and given me perspective.

In other words, metaphorically speaking, the government has a fleet of Ferraris. OK. But it's true. Bikes still work. They might be lower tech, slower, require more effort, whatever, but they can still get you to where you want to go, right?

SteveMT's picture

Come on. Where have you been? Get up to speed.

We already have what we need. Don't worry about this anymore.

Los Alamos Missing Plutonium for 150 Nuclear Bombs
Watchdog groups claim 765 kilograms unaccounted for
August 16, 2004
The beleaguered Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is unable to account for 765 kilograms of plutonium -- enough to make 150 nuclear weapons -- according to a letter from nuclear watchdog groups to LANL Director G. Peter Nanos.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/missingplu...

Wow.

This to me is one more reason why nuclear weapons, theoretically, should be legal for private civilians.

Thanks to the disgusting incompetence of the government, Americans might need freaking private nuke owning citizens one day to defend the country.

They won't use nukes

For the same reason they already haven't. It destroys the resources they one day plan to control.

I'm not saying they will. You guys are taking this too literally

I'm not making a prediction, I'm giving a scenario regarding the right to bear arms like "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is to the freedom of speech.

You make it sound easy for

You make it sound easy for the government, but they've been in Afghanistan for over 10 years now and they've yet to defeat those people!

Dude it's a hypothetical scenario. Hypothetical.

I'm not writing the sequel to the Art of War here. Obviously this scenario is extremely improbable.

I'm trying to make the point that the media and libertarians alike are debating endlessly about assault weapons, and I agree with the pro-freedom side, but I'm frustrated that people are ignoring that the right to bear arms doesn't peak there.

This is a philosophical question, not one of practicality.

to be fair

I'm not sure defeating the Afghan people is the objective

They are controlling the resources. They do not care one bit

about some nomadic goat herders and people living at a subsistence level that pose absolutely no threat to anyone.

Scientific American recently featured a story about Afghanistan having an estimated over 1 trillion dollars in rare minerals needed for high end electronics. And don't forget the poppy fields we need to supply heroin to the inner cities to keep the incarceration of marginalized people and the entire prison complex growing to feed the CIA, FBI and other cash rich gangs to do whatever they want around the globe.

This is an area the corporations and military industrial complex can completely rape without anyone being able to do a thing about it.

beephree

the problem with your post

if our guns were useless they would already have enslaved us openly. no need to go through the process of gun bans and confiscations. for this fact alone I am hopeful we can achieve victory if we organize effectively. There are many times more of us than them

First, I believe that at

First, I believe that at least 50% of our troops would refuse to kill american citizens. Second, it would not be a conventional war. The viet cong put up on heck of a fight without nukes. The people in afganistan kicked the soviet union out of their country and we have not been able to wipe out the taliban after 11 years..There have been successfull revolutions in tunisia, egypt, and lybia in just the last few years. The british thought that they could whip our ass in 1776 too and how did that work out

If our troops are abroad...

...on the border or away from their homes, the US might need Mexicans, Canadian, or other "blue helmet" troops to keep the order in American cities.

Would they have the same qualms about firing on Americans?

We have a precedent here. The American Civil War.

Americans, generally speaking, had no problem killing each other only 150 years ago.

My post is extremely hypothetical and mostly philosophical, but a similar scenario has happened on American soil before.

Dont be ridiculous....the

Dont be ridiculous....the government knows very well they cant nuke their own people. To do so would be to draw a clear dividing line between the people and the government...instead of a small percentage rebelling they would have 100% and would lose that war no matter what they did...they would no longer have the consent of the people....sure they could drop more nukes...but then what? They rule over a nuclear wasteland? Besides..if they start nuking inside the country thats a direct invitation for foreign invasion.

I think we all get your point…

I too wish we were able to have what the “government” has to remain on equal ground, but the 2nd Amendment falls short in this regard… Escalating an arms race in America now would be futile.

@Katniss Everdeen… Don’t forget the infamous “neutron” bomb option. It takes out “life” with minimal damage to infrastructure: http://bit.ly/4bs3ON

@JackieK… You are correct that our armed forces, unless under mind control, would not nuke a U.S. city, but remember that the “known” number of mercenary troops actually equals (or more likely exceeds) the number of military troops currently deployed. They do not need our soldiers any more, especially since they are waking up!

@sreams… We just saw an effort from several states to secede. That in itself is the kind of defiance that would warrant “our owners” taking some action against that state and/or group who are probably within a close proximity to each other. And “what would the world say to that”? Nothing. We’ve been doing this to entire countries regardless of what the “world” has had to say about it. There is no one left out there who will even give us the time of day. We’re on our own…

We only have a small clue of what “our owners” have in their arsenal which will take US out while preserving the spoils for their new world (ex., directed energy weapons, “DEW”). Don’t forget all the underground shelters/bases that exist for them, too. Heck, there maybe generations down there who don’t even know WE exist UP here! And anyone who has been regularly and consistently vaccinated in recent years may have a time bomb ticking in them as we speak—-how does one explain all the hype of forcing vaccines on us?? No nukes needed in this more probable (biological) scenario… (Start detoxing now with fresh organic fruits and vegetables and supplements.)

Voted up for provocative discussion...

Hug everyone in your family today and everyday and tell them how much you love them. Love is our true weapon no matter what is stacked against us… Peace to you all.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -John Quincy Adams

Obviously our government

Obviously our government wouldn't drop nukes on the America people. "They" live here too.

You're on my banned list now.

yes but

even with all this tech, we still have trouble in Afghanistan against people with 50 year old rifles and 4 legged animals for transportation. We're still there waging war.

The Russians were also more advanced and they got their but wooped. (granted with CIA help).

Not saying we should be waging war on our gov, but if we have to draw our line in the sand doesn't mean we don't have a chance.

how exactly does one use a nuke in self

defence?