Pages

Thursday, February 7, 2013

A CNN Prog Proposes "Tanks Roll Over" Gun Owners' "Stupid Heads"; I Respond

Courtesy: Matt Bracken
Over on CNN.com today, in the comments section of a story on Chris Kyle's murderer, a panty-waist commie-lib by the handle DrXyM had this nugget of... wisdom:
Hoho. I love it when some gun nut thinks their pop gun keeps the government in check. If their government were an actual tyranny, then it would be a trivial matter to remove such a person, e.g. just drive a tank through their house and right over their stupid head.
My response (additions after the fact in [brackets]):
Dr Know-It-All: 
That tank driver has to go to the bathroom sometime. He has to go home, or go fornicate with his girlfriend, or go drink beer after putting in a hard day murdering the likes of my gun-owning friends. 
[Friends, by the way, who are exercising a Constitutionally-protected right.]
While that tanker's pants are down, my "little pop gun" (actually, an AR-10 in .308) can "pop" a little hole in that oath-breaking tank driver's head, thus preventing him from murdering anyone else. And, my little "pop gun" can perforate his oath-breaking commanding officer's head, as well. 
You people want to goad the government to "drive a tank through" our houses "and right over" our "stupid" heads? 
You have no idea what kind of HELL you bring down on yourself and the government should you accomplish your goal. How many millions are you willing to have dead to accomplish your goal? Are you willing to drive that tank yourself, you coward?
I'm telling you, regardless of what happens with the gun bans, we are in a Cold Civil War.

UPDATE!  Thanks Mike Vanderboegh for linking!  And thanks for reminding us: no more free Wacos.


16 comments:

  1. The tank itself runs out of fuel eventually. And boy oh boy, does an M1 ever suck fuel. signed Ex-Petroleum Supply Specialist 77F

    ReplyDelete
  2. Right, David. They gotta get gas eventually...

    ReplyDelete
  3. The same folk who say that lightly armed irregulars in the US cannot defeat the US military are the ones also saying that the US military cannot defeat lightly armed irregulars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  4. there is allegedly a Chinese saying, "You can conquer a country from horseback, but you can't rule it from horseback." Eventually the cops, tax collectors, regulators, etc., have to get off their horses/out of their tanks/out among the people, and they're vulnerable then. Don't take on a tank head-to-head -- you'll lose. Take on the driver/bureaucrat/cop/etc. when he's not armored.

    ReplyDelete
  5. More importantly, we can ignore the tank driver and just "pop" the reporter who encouraged them in the first place. Clinton's ROE meets 4GW.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right, Phelps. It was Clinton's ROE in Bosnia to target media as legit targets, wasn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When in a target rich environment prioritization of targets is a must. Start with the decision makers, the politicians, bureaucrats and propaganda mouthpieces, then the war won't be so much fun for them.

      Delete
    2. Exactly right. When those that start the war are faced with the reality of the blood and the fire, they won't be so eager to continue.

      Delete
  7. In Iraq and Afghanistan coalition troops have numerical superiority over the insurgents. A conservative estimate puts the number of gun owners in the U.S. at over 120 MILLION. If only 1% of gun owners participate in an insurrection, that would give the insurgents rough parity with the entirety of DOD. The pointy end of the spear is a small percentage of the total number of members of the armed forces. Thus the actual odds would be heavily in favor of the insurgents. If three percent of gun owners participate in the insurrection, the troops on the front lines could find themselves facing upwards of 15-to-one odds. Factor in the fact that many combat veterans have separated and have joined militia groups, and you have insurgents that have been trained in current tactics. It would not be a cakewalk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, I remember reading about the first years of the machine guns in European battles. It didn't take long for "overwhelm them with cannon fodder" to become an obviously useless tactic. What good is a gun if you're a mile away from the guy shooting at you - from a robot? I guess the 2nd amendment covers HERF guns or similar ideas?

      Delete
    2. Your figures didn't take into account the many (my brother, for one), who would not execute an illegal order. 15-to-1 is optimistic at best. From those I know and served with, I suspect many on the pointy end of the .mil spear are significantly opposed to such nonsense from .gov leadership.

      The only thing that evens the odds for .gov is the entire population of LEO who are all walking around in full kit. It is hard for me to remember the last time I saw a LEO not in at least body armor. How many promotion-chasing oathbreakers are there? I hope fewer than I suspect.

      Delete
  8. Now, look, people. This crazy notion that any amount of us could actually take on the government and win, is ridiculous. It's nothing more than something like the plot of a bad movie. Next, you'll be telling us that one mentally-disturbed guy could make the police department of an entire major city crap their pants with panic.

    Oh, wait...! ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Queue the movies about 1 guy that they can't identify picking off an entire county full of twitchy-fingered, heavily-armed men, one-by-one. Because they didn't see it coming and didn't have the brains to follow each other around in unmarked vehicles or a helicopter. Actually, I believe that's practically the plot of the movie Rampage? Not going to spoil the ending but man that guy was sick to do that (on top of the crime spree).

      Delete
  9. Great point, Wraith. In fact, I think that whole LAPD situation is actually backfiring on whoever thought up the "anti-gun rogue cop" scenario.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still got the Dillinger ending, though. Only an idiot would go all Cowboy Movie and have a 1-on-1 with someone that is obviously not entirely incompetent in the field of killing people in the wannabe Dirty Harry's line of work.

      Delete