What is the broader relevance of Ayn Rand for society?

[Trader666]

But max e douche thinks we need guns to fight the government. The government has nukes and Apache helicopters. To extend his "logic" that means we the people should have them too. If we don't, it's absurd to think we can fight the US military. Basically his argument is just more brain dead righty gun nut "logic".

Idiot. If it ever did come down to an all-out war pitting the U.S. military against the people, the military could barely prevail over a state. NO WAY could they take the entire country, not even close. Why? Because you don't "own" or even control terrain for very long without sufficient boots on the ground and the military doesn't have even a tiny fraction of the people it would take. Not only that but once on the ground in that capacity, they're highly vulnerable and if every American civilian with a gun became an insurgent, the U.S. military would suffer an epic defeat.

 

[Trader666]

You don't see to get it, obviously. If the government tried to, say, put all of the people into "re-education camps" or whatnot, they couldn't. The people would revolt, and the people are armed. Nukes and all your silly examples have nothing to do with it.

Exactly.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Exactly.

Sometimes I marvel at the vast chasm between the left and common sense, that this stuff needs to be explained.

 

[Trader666]

If you’re gonna be reasonable… NEVER bring up Bazookas, Tanks, or Nukes.

Like one of the corollaries to Godwin's law where the one who first brings up Hitler or Nazis loses the debate

 

[futurecurrents]

Idiot. If it ever did come down to an all-out war pitting the U.S. military against the people, the military could barely prevail over a state. NO WAY could they take the entire country, not even close. Why? Because you don't "own" or even control terrain for very long without sufficient boots on the ground and the military doesn't have even a tiny fraction of the people it would take. Not only that but once on the ground in that capacity, they're highly vulnerable and if every American civilian with a gun became an insurgent, the U.S. military would suffer an epic defeat.

So, you're saying that the gun owning citizens can beat the US military machine. Wow, you're even more stupid than I thought. And that's pretty fucking stupid. You wear an upside down name tag don't you?

 

[Scataphagos]

This from a guy who regularly engages in sex acts with his gay brother.

Apparently FC believes supporters of the Constitution are "right wing nut-jobs".

 

[Ricter]

Ayn Rand will, so long as she's still read (see: Horatio Alger), continue to awaken individualism in some youth. Hopefully, readers, as they mature, will be able to incorporate some realism into their vision.

 

[fhl]

Ayn Rand will, so long as she's still read (see: Horatio Alger), continue to awaken individualism in some youth. Hopefully, readers, as they mature, will be able to incorporate some realism into their vision.

yeah, you and every other commie hopes so

because communism is so mature

 

[Trader666]

So, you're saying that the gun owning citizens can beat the US military machine.

Add asymmetric warfare and military history to the long list of things you know absolutely nothing about.

Ask your mommy to get you some picture books on it. Then tell us how a little over a million people, many of whom are support pukes, will defeat over 200 million potential insurgents spread out over nearly 4 million square miles.

On top of being batshit crazy you're hopelessly ignorant and stupid.

 

[Lucrum]

So, you're saying that the gun owning citizens can beat the US military machine....

A common anti-gun nut talking point. Completely devoid of both history and common sense.