Probably closer to 10:1 or 15:1 in the cases that matter. But since the cases in fact wont willingly surrender the most likely outcome is a Ruby Ridge style stand off for most. Resulting in a body count that dooms national elections. Democrats aren’t stupid enough to endorse even for one term.
ok so extrapolate the rise in gun violence with YET MORE FIREARMS.
Man, I love the art and science of firearms and learning to use a new system. I thoroughly enjoyed the range while I was in the military and though I wasn’t infantry, took it seriously and appreciated the skill it takes to employ weapons of war to make war on our enemies.
Let’s look at the 2a: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
2a nutbags will tell you none of the first dozen words count. Look at the situation we have today. Help me make ‘more guns are the answer’ make sense man.
well your answer is nutbags if you live in the USA. sorry I had a retort to your uninformed / wildly delusional idea of an even more armed US being desirable. sorry if the points I presented prompted some kind of difficulty in your reasoning chum.
I see what you’re saying but, I feel like Milton and the ghouls would just come after the fact. Shock doctrine and all that jazz happens in the wreckage of the act.
I wonder if the pentagon has ran a simulation to quantify how many guns exactly.
Like hey, if x million of this class of people get armed, it would make things x levels of difficult to quash.
we already have far more guns that people in the US. How many guns does it take to reach the levels you’re talking about? 5 guns per person?
Probably closer to 10:1 or 15:1 in the cases that matter. But since the cases in fact wont willingly surrender the most likely outcome is a Ruby Ridge style stand off for most. Resulting in a body count that dooms national elections. Democrats aren’t stupid enough to endorse even for one term.
I don’t think 15:1 is needed, I think 10:1 or even 5:1 would be fine. The limiting factor then is just ammo
yeah that’s gonna help things. https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-violence-claimed-lives-5000-people-2024/story?id=107262776 sure man.
Probably at least 3, but evenly distributed among the population. Currently guns are concentrated in the hands of just a few people.
@Cryophilia @mojofrododojo 33% of the population?
Yeah, but also concentrated demographically and geographically.
ok so extrapolate the rise in gun violence with YET MORE FIREARMS.
Man, I love the art and science of firearms and learning to use a new system. I thoroughly enjoyed the range while I was in the military and though I wasn’t infantry, took it seriously and appreciated the skill it takes to employ weapons of war to make war on our enemies.
Let’s look at the 2a: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
2a nutbags will tell you none of the first dozen words count. Look at the situation we have today. Help me make ‘more guns are the answer’ make sense man.
Hey dude, you asked a question and I answered. That wasn’t an invitation to get on your soap box.
well your answer is nutbags if you live in the USA. sorry I had a retort to your uninformed / wildly delusional idea of an even more armed US being desirable. sorry if the points I presented prompted some kind of difficulty in your reasoning chum.
You people are unhinged.
so you got nothing to defend your premise but shit talk. loud and clear champ.
I never made a premise, I just answered the hypothetical question that you asked.
That feels like a CIA Chicago school question less DoD.
I see what you’re saying but, I feel like Milton and the ghouls would just come after the fact. Shock doctrine and all that jazz happens in the wreckage of the act.