222
Valid. (media.patriots.win)
posted ago by Americanapplepie ago by Americanapplepie +222 / -0
Comments (20)
sorted by:
16
fskfsk 16 points ago +16 / -0

The insurgents with AK-47s also win because of the rules of engagement.

Example: An insurgent fires at US soldiers, puts his gun down, and runs and hides in a village. Now US soldiers can't do anything, because they're only legally allowed to shoot the person who fired at them. They ask the villagers who did the shooting, they all saw nothing. What a real ruler would do in that situation is murder the entire village because they're accomplices. If you do that a couple of times, the next time the villagers either tell you who did it, or they don't let them hide in the village.

9
DeepWinter 9 points ago +9 / -0

Take out an entire town in America, however, and that rebel spirit starts to flare up and instead of the next town cucking they might all join the shooter to begin with.

2
YouNeedVPN 2 points ago +3 / -1

Does it? Does it really?

Did you notice literally every major city last summer?

2
fskfsk 2 points ago +2 / -0

The riots only worked because the police in Democrat cities were following cucked rules of engagement. They were usually told to ignore rioters, and even when they did make arrests, Soros DAs just released them.

Change the rules of engagement so that police can use live ammunition during riots and looting, and see how long they last.

2
YouNeedVPN 2 points ago +2 / -0

Democrats (police and rioters) burned cities, and they're was no patriotic pushback.

1
Konsaki 1 point ago +1 / -0

Let the blue cities burn. Doesn't affect me much in my red county.

1
DeepWinter 1 point ago +1 / -0
  1. Wasn’t the government doing the ground pounding.

  2. The libs attacked themselves. Those who burned, looted, and murdered did it to their own, who coward in fear of being called racist.

  3. All attempts to pull that sort of shit in patriot towns were met with glorious beat downs by the townsfolk.

So yes, it did. Fuck off, faggot!

1
Dialectic 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol. A long time ago I posted the actual military strategy to defeat Islam and secure our nation from foreign Islamic threats. Doesn’t matter though. Our military is preoccupied with sucking tranny dick.

You’re more or less correct

9
kanabiis 9 points ago +9 / -0

The idea that nukes are superior to small arms is only pushed by morons who don't have a clue about firearms.

Tanks, fighters and battleships will be useless in any US civil war. The vast majority of them will be commandeered by their operators and used against the US military. This is not some kind of conjecture, there are dozens of white papers written by military think tanks that say that very thing.

Many years ago I read a post on Reddit that had a link to a white paper by Rand Corp or Janes Defense, or Global Defense Group one of those big think tanks that predicted that between 45 and 70% of the military enlisted ranks would desert and take the equipment they were trained on with them.

I have been trying for the last 15 minutes to find that PDF but it seems to have been memory holed, or I'm not using the right search terms. Either way I know it exists out there.

An American second civil war would be a disaster.

1
Cryptops 1 point ago +1 / -0

Iv seen documentaries about government think tanks researching the result of an American revolution against the government, the government lost in every single scenario

5
Cali_Republican 5 points ago +5 / -0

Atleast I got fertilizer.

4
loooooof 4 points ago +4 / -0

TRUTH.

4
NazisWereSocialist 4 points ago +4 / -0

It’s a nuclear option, I’d rather live in the post apocalypse than under tyranny.

4
DeepWinter 4 points ago +4 / -0

I read this with Cary Elwes' voice in my head, you warthog faced buffoon. 😂

4
Americanapplepie [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

😂 laying paralyzed in Princess Bride. Classic.

3
coldbrewcovfefe2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Guns aren't even that effective for mass murder. Like, If I was a sadboi enraged faggoid, I could kill way more people with bombs, chemical gasses, and fire accelerants that I can easily source and make.

soak some Styrofoam in gasoline and you have napalm.

Bleach and Ammonia in a bucket and you have a lethal dose of chlorine gas.

We all saw how effect pressure cooker bombs were in Boston. Fertilizer is responsible for the largest domestic bombing in us history.

Gun bans are a power grab by authoritarian dictators always and only. Any other excuse is just trying to hide that fact and couch the gun grab in emotional appeal.

2
YouNeedVPN 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think you greatly underestimate the power of drones.

You don't need police on street corners if your rules of engagement allow drones to indiscriminately fire upon wrong doers.

The USA didn't lose on the middle east because meatsacks had rifles. The USA lost because the rules of engagement doesn't allow victory.

1
Americanapplepie [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m not OP on this Chan post but I understand what you’re saying and agree to a certain extent.

2
thetenman 2 points ago +2 / -0

No gun matters because there are not enough citizens willing to take the risk to actually fight back. If there were that energy would be more effective elsewhere. In the end all the guns in the world will not change the outcome of what is coming. The only thing that can save us is solidarity among men who are willing to risk their comfortable life to free their people. Without that the second amendment is useless. Stop cooming to revolutionary fantasies start organizing with like minded men that can protect you and yours, because our enemies are coming for us and if we are not ready when they do we will lose and our people will be eliminated.

2
EvilGuy 2 points ago +2 / -0

I mean if they are not effective why is the government so scared of us owning them? They couldn't give less of a fuck about gun crime or anything like that.

Oppose whatever your enemy wants you to do just on general principles.

2
SimPilot 2 points ago +2 / -0

Drone operators have families and live among us. ...just saying.