Originally posted by Patrick: It should horrify everyone... but apparently it's just another one of the many (attempted) shootings taking place every day in the States. The American public appears to have become desensitized to these events.
As much as I can't stand Trump, I sure as hell don't wish for him to be shot. It would end up being a convenient excuse for absolute chaos to break out in the US.
I agree about the gun violence, and violence in general. Even as it declines, we have stupid high violent crime rates.
I think the issue with shooting Trump would be more existential, though. A huge part of what makes our democracy "special" is it's resilience. Throughout history all over the world, folks lose elections then grab the nearest military branch for some junta action and the resulting dictatorship. It's damn near everyone else at this point.
While I believe our government needs to regularly optimized, that should be done through controlled, stabilized political institutions. Trump did an excellent job of pointing out how poor our track record of actually doing that is, and his follow through has been a stress test of how robust our institutions remain. The rise in political violence, identity politics, and faction..this is us failing that test in real time.
It should horrify everyone... but apparently it's just another one of the many (attempted) shootings taking place every day in the States. The American public appears to have become desensitized to these events.
I suppose if there's ever a place where talking about gun control is appropriate, this is the sub forum for it... hahah. I respect your right to have an opinion on it, but you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this, and furthermore, this is something I'll never view from your perspective. It's incredibly important to understand WHY we have a second amendment. It is literally to ensure the protection of the FIRST amendment... against the threat of the U.S. Government taking it away.
Have no misunderstanding about it... the reason we have the right to bare arms, is as a threat to the government if they get out of line. As citizens, it becomes the very last means of defense against a corrupted government. And yes... I know the old argument that Joe Biden said... "We have F-16s," sure. An armed populace would overrun local, state, and Federal government within days.
There is likely no one on here that's held a clearance with caveats as high as I have. I've even been through much of your country's places as well (collateral). I understand what's at stake. But understand that from beginning to end, Federalist Papers to recent Supreme Court rulings... the entire foundation of our society exists because we have both the 1st and 2nd amendment. The first to say what we think, and the second to protect that, and all subsequent rights.
The problem we have today, is mental illness... not guns. Taking away our guns does not solve the mental illness problem, it merely takes away the rights of people who legally and lawfully should have them. When I was growing up in the mid-90s in Northern Virginia... as in, D.C. metro area (not like in the sticks... I was a mile from a subway stop). We had plenty of kids who had pickup trucks with shotguns and rifles in the back window. It was a common thing, and people would leave their guns in their trucks during school hours, in teh school parking lot. No one thought twice about it. It wasn't even something that you thought about when you saw it.
Today, the entire school would be in lockdown if someone even mentions there's a gun in a car. What changed all of a sudden?
Originally posted by NewDustin: This guy was going to take a shot from 400 yards with a rifle that has an effective range of 380 yards to a point target. Even if he hadn't doofed around like a complete moron until the secret service shot him up, he was never going to make any shot he took.
Point to point is straight line of sight. The iron sights on an AK do not have enough arc adjustment for shots over about 350 yards. The 7.62x39 cartridge will kill at a much, much longer distance. The weapon used by the shooter had a scope mounted, so the iron sights were not in use.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Have no misunderstanding about it... the reason we have the right to bare arms, is as a threat to the government if they get out of line. As citizens, it becomes the very last means of defense against a corrupted government. And yes... I know the old argument that Joe Biden said... "We have F-16s," sure. An armed populace would overrun local, state, and Federal government within days.
At no time in the last 50 years has any developed nation successfully defended itself from tyranny with the use of militias. Hell, it might be the last 100. Sure you have uprisings in impoverished, unstable countries, but that is not the same and I've yet to see one result in the cessation of tyranny. Most people do not understand the gulf of difference between an infantry unit with 4,000 hours of practice working as a team vs an untrained group of civilian "militia." It would amaze you how quickly squads of Marines will roll through buildings absolutely filled with insurgents. The average American town is not going to churn out nearly the number combatants and military grade weapons than the multiple-government-backed, unified, insurgents who had months to fortify in Fallujah did. It took the combined forces 6 days to break the insurgency there.
quote
The entire foundation of our society exists because we have both the 1st and 2nd amendment. The first to say what we think, and the second to protect that, and all subsequent rights.
Can you cite any example in the last 100 years where any country’s freedom of speech was inhibited, then subsequently liberated by its own citizens via the use of firearms? I can think of a good number of violent rebellions, but they generally don’t end with expanded freedoms. Maybe the Cubans and Liberians would disagree, though.
Alternatively, I can cite multiple countries with similar freedom of speech guarantees to ours but with significantly more restrictive gun laws (here’s looking at you Canada, Norway, Germany, New Zealand, the UK, Japan, Australia, Finland and the Netherlands!). I don’t think it follows that one requires the other.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Today, the entire school would be in lockdown if someone even mentions there's a gun in a car. What changed all of a sudden?
In the late 90's, after you were out of school, there was an incident at a high school in Columbine, Colorado.
Originally posted by cliffw: Never ? Would bet your life on 20 yards ?
Of course not. I didn't mean to suggest Trump wasn't in danger, rather that we are extremely lucky they haven't gotten further.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Point to point is straight line of sight. The iron sights on an AK do not have enough arc adjustment for shots over about 350 yards. The 7.62x39 cartridge will kill at a much, much longer distance. The weapon used by the shooter had a scope mounted, so the iron sights were not in use.
It's incredibly important to understand WHY we have a second amendment. It is literally to ensure the protection of the FIRST amendment... against the threat of the U.S. Government taking it away.
You do not know the meaning of the word "literally".
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that the Federal Government had access to an armed militia because they did not have a standing army. And it was not intended to aid treason. In fact, as discussed in Federalist Paper #29 one reason for the federal government to have access to a well-armed militia would be to put down insurrections. In addition to insurrection against the federal government these would include disputes between states, disputes between factions within a State.
There was no need for a militia to oppose the federal government because the federal government had no army or forces of any sort. The Founding Fathers intentionally denied the federal government the power of its own army to protect the citizens from a tyrant. Since the federal government had no forces there was no need for an armed militia to protect against the federal government.
I have many family members who have served in the military. It always angers me when people claim that US military would just follow a tyrant and kill or enslave fellow citizens. Here is what Hamilton had to say about the claim that a tyrant would be able to order citizens (militia or army) to enslave or kill fellow citizens for political power
"Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of chagrined incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs."
No matter how much I detest Donald Trump, the last thing I want to see is him get assassinated. His hard core followers (NOT all Republicans) would go crazy. It would get ugly.
Then he would become a martyr instead of a convicted-felon con-man loser.
While I agree that a 7.62x39 is not a good choice for that distance, a skilled shooter could kill a man at that distance, as the bullet still packs enough energy at that range. It would be a difficult shot at that distance even for a skilled shooter.
As a round decreases in speed, the drag from wind resistance increase,...
That is false and it is not what she said. Wind resistance increases at the square of the increase in velocity and the drag coefficient is constant, based on the shape of the projectile. The Cd can change once the projectile becomes unstable and presents a different profile to the air.
She also said that the trajectory is part of a circle. It is not. Ballistic trajectory is parabolic.
Can you cite any example in the last 100 years where any country’s freedom of speech was inhibited, then subsequently liberated by its own citizens via the use of firearms? I can think of a good number of violent rebellions, but they generally don’t end with expanded freedoms. Maybe the Cubans and Liberians would disagree, though.
Can you cite any example in the last 100 years, where any government became a dictatorship, in a land where there were 100+ more million guns in civilian ownership than there were actual people living in the country?
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
You do not know the meaning of the word "literally".
I do actually... and everything you wrote however, is completely retarded and totally wrong. You did this same thing almost a year ago, and you were beaten down with actual facts... not your nonsense bullshit information. Your completely asinine statement about it being solely for a militia has been so completely and thoroughly debunked. There are numerous, numerous citations in the Federalist papers, and even comments by our founders after the fact, all of which reiterate what I said. To that point, we've had generations of Supreme Courts that have ruled 100% opposite of what your totally moronic and retarded comment.
While I completely and totally understand the use of the word literally, you seem to be completely ignorant of facts, and forget nearly everything that you've already argued about multiple times already.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: In the late 90's, after you were out of school, there was an incident at a high school in Columbine, Colorado.
Since then there have been many more.
Yeah... I remember that. It seems that almost all of them have been radical leftists that suffered from mental illness... almost all of them trans, to be accurate:
... and let's not forget this guy from two weeks ago... also trans:
That is false and it is not what she said. Wind resistance increases at the square of the increase in velocity and the drag coefficient is constant, based on the shape of the projectile. The Cd can change once the projectile becomes unstable and presents a different profile to the air.
I did say that wrong! As the speed drops the impact of the drag increases. The point still being the round becomes more unstable as the speed drops.
Originally posted by olejoedad: While I agree that a 7.62x39 is not a good choice for that distance, a skilled shooter could kill a man at that distance, as the bullet still packs enough energy at that range. It would be a difficult shot at that distance even for a skilled shooter.
I agree that a bullet at that range would still have enough kinetic energy to kill someone. At that distance, however, skill does not matter. The whole point of an "effective range" is that you could affix the rifle to a solid base, mathematically determine the best positioning of the rifle, fire it perfectly, and still drop an inconsistent grouping; it's no longer effective at that range.
Can you cite any example in the last 100 years, where any government became a dictatorship, in a land where there were 100+ more million guns in civilian ownership than there were actual people living in the country?
Elephants paint their toenails red so that they can hide in cherry trees. My proof? Ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?
I do actually... and everything you wrote however, is completely retarded and totally wrong. You did this same thing almost a year ago, and you were beaten down with actual facts... not your nonsense bullshit information. Your completely asinine statement about it being solely for a militia has been so completely and thoroughly debunked. There are numerous, numerous citations in the Federalist papers, and even comments by our founders after the fact, all of which reiterate what I said. To that point, we've had generations of Supreme Courts that have ruled 100% opposite of what your totally moronic and retarded comment.
While I completely and totally understand the use of the word literally, you seem to be completely ignorant of facts, and forget nearly everything that you've already argued about multiple times already.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but if I am wrong post something to support your claim that the 2nd Amendment was written just to protect the first Amendment rights against our own government. You won't be able to post anything like that because it does not exist.
I agree with the Heller decision which held that the right to bear arms extends beyond the members of as militia. But that does not prove that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to support treason against the federal government. As I have already pointed out Hamilton and other Founding Fathers supported a militia to help the federal government put down insurrections not incite them.
Every historical argument about the government disarming its citizens involves a government that had its own armed forces. The Founding Fathers denied the federal government a standing army to prevent its use against the citizens. And they also understood how difficult it would be for a tyrant to order US citizens (either in a militia or an army) to kil and enslave fellow citizens.
The ruling in Heller is the law, but Alito's rambling dicta is meaningless and not controlling. The SCOTUS agrees with the rule regarding the right to bear arms being seperate from membership in a militia, but they don't all agree with Alito's historical analysis.
I suppose if there's ever a place where talking about gun control is appropriate, this is the sub forum for it... hahah. I respect your right to have an opinion on it, but you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this, and furthermore, this is something I'll never view from your perspective.
I wasn't aware that I had expressed any opinion one way or another on "gun control" in my post that you were responding to (copied below).
Todd, if you wish to ramble on about your precious guns, please don't use me as an excuse to do so.
It should horrify everyone... but apparently it's just another one of the many (attempted) shootings taking place every day in the States. The American public appears to have become desensitized to these events.
As much as I can't stand Trump, I sure as hell don't wish for him to be shot. It would end up being a convenient excuse for absolute chaos to break out in the US.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-16-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: I have no idea what you are talking about, but if I am wrong post something to support your claim that the 2nd Amendment was written just to protect the first Amendment rights against our own government. You won't be able to post anything like that because it does not exist.
I agree with the Heller decision which held that the right to bear arms extends beyond the members of as militia. But that does not prove that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to support treason against the federal government. As I have already pointed out Hamilton and other Founding Fathers supported a militia to help the federal government put down insurrections not incite them.
Every historical argument about the government disarming its citizens involves a government that had its own armed forces. The Founding Fathers denied the federal government a standing army to prevent its use against the citizens. And they also understood how difficult it would be for a tyrant to order US citizens (either in a militia or an army) to kil and enslave fellow citizens.
The ruling in Heller is the law, but Alito's rambling dicta is meaningless and not controlling. The SCOTUS agrees with the rule regarding the right to bear arms being seperate from membership in a militia, but they don't all agree with Alito's historical analysis.
I'm not reading this... it's not worth my time. There are hundreds of websites for you to educate yourself that give mountains of evidence and reinforcement to the point that the 2nd amendment isn't just about a militia. These are evidenced in the Supreme Court cases. I know you are quite bad at English and grammar. I see it every day. This explains to me why you do not understand the significance of a comma.
Your personal opinion is just that. You absolutely have the right to not like the law the way it is. But I also have the right to view your opinion as unimportant.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick:
...apparently it's just another one of the many (attempted) shootings taking place every day in the States. The American public appears to have become desensitized to these events.
This would constitute opinion... particularly the part of being desensitized. I would maybe agree with it, but this is very obviously written because of your distaste for America's gun ownership... which you've expressed before.
But please let me know if you'd like to go into your opinions on U.S. gun policy, because I have a few opinions to share about Canada's laws.
You quoted yourself, so I had no idea you were talking to me.
Here's what you said:
"At no time in the last 50 years has any developed nation successfully defended itself from tyranny with the use of militias. Hell, it might be the last 100. Sure you have uprisings in impoverished, unstable countries, but that is not the same and I've yet to see one result in the cessation of tyranny. Most people do not understand the gulf of difference between an infantry unit with 4,000 hours of practice working as a team vs an untrained group of civilian "militia." It would amaze you how quickly squads of Marines will roll through buildings absolutely filled with insurgents. The average American town is not going to churn out nearly the number combatants and military grade weapons than the multiple-government-backed, unified, insurgents who had months to fortify in Fallujah did. It took the combined forces 6 days to break the insurgency there."
Respectfully, this is incredibly ignorant. For one... the vast majority of Marines are conservative, pro-gun ownership, and would not support a dictatorship. Despite all the fun talk about Trump being a dictator... everyone here knows that it's not really the Republicans who want that. You cannot claim Republicans want smaller government (and be upset by it) and then in the same breath say they want to have a dictatorship when they're literally calling for the dismantling of the Federal police force, and much of the intelligence community. So, unless you are very, very confused... this is just nonsense.
Most of them failed, but many of them succeeded. Remember the Arab Spring? In just that single year, four countries fell, and the leaders were deposed:
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen
... and to that point, they did it with sticks, rocks, and gardening tools. But really to emphasize what most of those coups didn't succeed, is because the governments prohibited gun ownership... or, they slowly eroded away and confiscated the ability to own guns, so only the military had them.
Everything you said is flawed.
The military force is in decline right now (in the U.S.)... we all recognize that. But even at their current numbers, they have 2,079,142 active and reserve-duty soldiers. Keep in mind that roughly only ~500k of these people even know how to handle a weapon. Sure, almost all of them have gone through basic weapons training. But this includes pregnant desk clerks, to cyber security professionals, to all the people working at CSS, NRO, NGA, DIA, DISA, etc... none of whom will ever fire a weapon except for the 4-day weapons training and qualifying with a 9mm and M4 rifle.
Now, there are over 430 million guns in the United States. And there are over 320 million people living in the United States. How many of those soldiers do you think are willing to stick with the government under a dictatorship? Even if it was split on party lines... Democrats support the dictatorship, Republicans do not... almost all of the guns are owned by Republicans, and the majority of the military are conservative or Republican. Certainly... those who have actually fighting experience are. There have been NUMEROUS polls from 2009 through 2020, and they all are exactly the same... 28-29% identify as Democrat, and 48-52% identify as Republican (the rest do not identify as any political party).
But regardless of all that. There has never been a country, ever before in the history of this world, where the civilian population has been more armed than the United States is right now. It doesn't matter of those 500k soldiers assumed a combat roll... there's absolutely no way they can overcome an entire force of 100+ million people (assuming only the fighting-aged men fight). There is just absolutely no way. Cities would be taken over within days. As great as the U.S. military is global logistics... our ability to project power, there's literally no way they can mobilize the military to defend the country.
Anyway, you're comparing apples to oranges. There's never been a country before in history that's been armed the way American civilians are.
Originally posted by NewDustin: At no time in the last 50 years has any developed nation successfully defended itself from tyranny with the use of militias. Hell, it might be the last 100. Sure you have uprisings in impoverished, unstable countries, but that is not the same and I've yet to see one result in the cessation of tyranny.
Mind boggling. Was I wrong thinking you had good sense ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Most people do not understand the gulf of difference between an infantry unit with 4,000 hours of practice working as a team vs an untrained group of civilian "militia."
The desire to be alive is powerful. Most people I know would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.
Most people never ever thought the rag tag British colonies in America would kick British azz, and end, ..., what was your phrase, ... "the cessation of tyranny." The British were a world wide power.
Most people never ever thought that the rag tag Texians would kick Santa Anna azz. Santa Anna, known as "the Napoleon of the West".
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: It would amaze you how quickly squads of Marines will roll through buildings absolutely filled with insurgents. The average American town is not going to churn out nearly the number combatants and military grade weapons than the multiple-government-backed, unified, insurgents who had months to fortify in Fallujah did. It took the combined forces 6 days to break the insurgency there.
Mind boggling. Was I wrong thinking you had good sense ?
Originally posted by NewDustin: Elephants paint their toenails red so that they can hide in cherry trees. My proof? Ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm not reading this... it's not worth my time. There are hundreds of websites for you to educate yourself that give mountains of evidence and reinforcement to the point that the 2nd amendment isn't just about a militia.
Here is a little tip. Never respond to something you did not read. It just makes you look foolish. If you had read it you would know that I said this
quote
Originally posted by BingB:I agree with the Heller decision which held that the right to bear arms extends beyond the members of as militia..
Another example of how you think you have magical powers to read people minds. You don't. You just keep embarrassing yourself with these claims.
Originally posted by BingB: Here is a little tip. Never respond to something you did not read. It just makes you look foolish. If you had read it you would know that I said this
Another example of how you think you have magical powers to read people minds. You don't. You just keep embarrassing yourself with these claims.
Respectfully, I didn't read it, because I view the vast majority of what you say as unimportant. That sentiment still hasn't changed.
... and let's not forget this guy from two weeks ago... also trans:
Wait... what?
Where did that come from? Serious question. That is fairly local to me (and several friends live just minutes from Apalachee) and I haven't heard that. At all.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 09-17-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Respectfully, I didn't read it, because I view the vast majority of what you say as unimportant. That sentiment still hasn't changed.
Don't bother. He puts a pile of crap on the floor, doesn't read it himself, expects you to dig through it to find things that supports his argument, when you do read his source and find things are not as he said, he claims victory because you read it.
Don't take anything he posts as factual and don't bother reading any of his sources. It is all part of the game he plays.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Don't take anything he posts as factual and don't bother reading any of his sources.
This is the most brainwashed comment I have ever seen here. Anyone who tells you not to read something is trying to brainwash you. If they really want to protect you they will point out exactly what is wrong or incorrect. And you will notice that no one ever does that to me around here. They keep making general remarks about the things I say being false, but it is impossible for them to post anything to back up their claims on any specific point.
Why should anyone who wants to know the truth be afraid to read something? I 100% agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there, but the only way to fight that is to read MORE not LESS.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Respectfully, I didn't read it, because I view the vast majority of what you say as unimportant. That sentiment still hasn't changed.
And the problem with thinking like that is that you end up saying a lot of things that are not true.
But for some reason that does not bother you. Most people are embarrassed to make a claim that is false, but you seem strangely proud of it.
Where did that come from? Serious question. That is fairly local to me (and several friends live just minutes from Apalachee) and I haven't heard that. At all.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: Don't bother. He puts a pile of crap on the floor, doesn't read it himself, expects you to dig through it to find things that supports his argument, when you do read his source and find things are not as he said, he claims victory because you read it.
Don't take anything he posts as factual and don't bother reading any of his sources. It is all part of the game he plays.
When he was pushed into a corner by Randye about a year ago... he made the comment that the only reason why he's here is to troll. But let's be totally honest... he does absolutely nothing anywhere else on the forum. So, I'll take him at his word. He's not mentally well. Any grown adult that would create multiple fake accounts, with a fake name, and a totally fake background / story to go along with it... that's sociopathy.
When he was pushed into a corner by Randye about a year ago... he made the comment that the only reason why he's here is to troll. But let's be totally honest... he does absolutely nothing anywhere else on the forum. So, I'll take him at his word. He's not mentally well. Any grown adult that would create multiple fake accounts, with a fake name, and a totally fake background / story to go along with it... that's sociopathy.
you can see the sociopathy ?
Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.
sound far more like the rump's M O with his many many crimes his greed his contempt for others his lying his cheating his rapes and his minions who ape his manners aka the trolls for trump 1-6 criminals and those who lie for them
randye who you claim pushed someone into a corner ? that sound like Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, and ignores the rights and feelings of others. far more then any liberal here
randye who you claim pushed someone into a corner ? that sound like Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, and ignores the rights and feelings of others.
Hah... that's metaphorical. He didn't physically push anyone into a corner.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: When he was pushed into a corner by Randye about a year ago... he made the comment that the only reason why he's here is to troll.
This never happened.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
. he does absolutely nothing anywhere else on the forum.
You recently posted in a thread I started about Cryogenic treatment for transmissions.
Why do you think you can just make stuff up out of thin air and claim it is true?
You are the one acting like a sociopath. You are obsessed with me. You make more post in this forum attacking me than you do discussing politics or religion. It is creepy.
Originally posted by BingB: You recently posted in a thread I started about Cryogenic treatment for transmissions.
Why do you think you can just make stuff up out of thin air and claim it is true?
You are the one acting like a sociopath. You are obsessed with me. You make more post in this forum attacking me than you do discussing politics or religion. It is creepy.
Yes... and the Pontiac G6 wing thread as well. Both pointless posts for which you literally had no intention of ever doing anything with it. After you were banned as FredToast, you created another account, in which you used an e-mail that was almost identical to the first name... for that, you were banned again. Then you came back immediately 1 week later... and went STRAIGHT to the P&R section, re-joining all the same threads, and continuing on the conversation. Instead of being an old-timey small-town defense attorney, now you were a high school history teacher.
Your post about cryogenic treatment for transmissions... respectfully, you have a totally stock Fiero. You've literally done nothing to it. You don't even know how to work on your own car, let alone plan on having your transmission cryogenically treated. It was obvious to most of us that it was a "what can I post to pretend like I contribute elsewhere."
I do find you psychologically fascinating. That a grown man would create multiple accounts, after getting banned... and keep coming back so that he can argue politics with a grand total of 4 regulars, and a few stragglers. It's absolutely a case study for psychology. Respectfully, I find you fascinating in a way that you would not view as beneficial. I'm curious what makes someone like you do the weird stuff you do. As in... what you get out of it? Yes... I know you'll go on and say that you're a freedom fighter for justice, and then use the "facts" word again like a dozen times. But you and I both know that's not really what's going on here.
What you refer to as an obsession... I'm constantly on a quest for knowledge, for things that interest me. To be frank... I may even decide to go back to school again (I'm getting the itch now that my law degree is finished), and getting a psychology degree so I can properly understand and diagnose people such as yourself.
Going a bit further... my personality type (based on the Myers-Briggs rating system), is ENFJ. I first learned this during my psychological profiling when I worked for the government. It was contingent on my employment, along with my full-scope polygraph. I recently took the psychological examination again, and still... ENFJ. You can look it up if you're interested, but it should help you understand "who I am." I'm about as frank as you're going to get. I'm 100% clear on my intentions... there's no hidden meaning. I find your behavior, and your obsession with fighting politics on an obscure car forum, to be truly something worth studying. To the point that you've created literally three accounts to be allowed to continue to do so... it's fascinating.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: You quoted yourself, so I had no idea you were talking to me.
Yeah, I used "edit" to copy everything over because "quote" is only capturing the last bit of each post, then I messed up putting it back together. That is actually a quote from you.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Respectfully, this is incredibly ignorant. For one... the vast majority of Marines are conservative, pro-gun ownership, and would not support a dictatorship. Despite all the fun talk about Trump being a dictator... everyone here knows that it's not really the Republicans who want that. You cannot claim Republicans want smaller government (and be upset by it) and then in the same breath say they want to have a dictatorship when they're literally calling for the dismantling of the Federal police force, and much of the intelligence community. So, unless you are very, very confused... this is just nonsense.
The political affiliation of Marines has nothing to do with this. If an armed insurgent group attacked major US cities, the military would be issued lawful orders to act in their defense, and they would follow them. Saying that believing so is ignorant, based on confusion, and nonsense is wild. It might not be specifically the Marines - that example was meant to point out that even large scale rebellion would have no chance- but the Federal government has not shied away from the use of force on rebellious citizens.
I also do not believe Republicans want a dictator, or that Trump would actually be one, and do not think wanting to dismantle federal resources for political gain/retribution is necessarily anti-dictator. I'm not sure why you're assuming that.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Second of all, there have been MANY countries that overthrew their government. There's a whole Wikipedia list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi..._attempts_by_country
Most of them failed, but many of them succeeded. Remember the Arab Spring? In just that single year, four countries fell, and the leaders were deposed:
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen
... and to that point, they did it with sticks, rocks, and gardening tools. But really to emphasize what most of those coups didn't succeed, is because the governments prohibited gun ownership... or, they slowly eroded away and confiscated the ability to own guns, so only the military had them.
I never said "there has not been a coup attempt," nor "no country has been overthrown." I said "At no time in the last 50 years has any developed nation successfully defended itself from tyranny with the use of militias." There is not a single entry on that entire list that meets that criteria. If you feel differently, please name the conflict you think does.
Similarly, the Arab Spring does not have the support for your stance that you seem to think it does, even if let you assume that when I said "developed nations" I meant "Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and Sudan."
Nearly all of the Arab Spring countries had significantly more strict gun control laws than the US to begin with. The only country with even close to what we have is the Yemenis. In the majority of cases victory was largely predicated on foreign military intervention (including in Yemen), and in every single case -except one- the countries ended up worse off in terms of democratic representation and freedom of speech. The sole exception to that is Tunisia, where firearms and militias played almost no role. Most of the countries ended up increased firearm proliferation, though, if not the accompanying freedom those firearms would ostensibly guarantee.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The military force is in decline right now (in the U.S.)... we all recognize that. But even at their current numbers, they have 2,079,142 active and reserve-duty soldiers. Keep in mind that roughly only ~500k of these people even know how to handle a weapon. Sure, almost all of them have gone through basic weapons training. But this includes pregnant desk clerks, to cyber security professionals, to all the people working at CSS, NRO, NGA, DIA, DISA, etc... none of whom will ever fire a weapon except for the 4-day weapons training and qualifying with a 9mm and M4 rifle.
Now, there are over 430 million guns in the United States. And there are over 320 million people living in the United States. How many of those soldiers do you think are willing to stick with the government under a dictatorship? Even if it was split on party lines... Democrats support the dictatorship, Republicans do not... almost all of the guns are owned by Republicans, and the majority of the military are conservative or Republican. Certainly... those who have actually fighting experience are. There have been NUMEROUS polls from 2009 through 2020, and they all are exactly the same... 28-29% identify as Democrat, and 48-52% identify as Republican (the rest do not identify as any political party).
But regardless of all that. There has never been a country, ever before in the history of this world, where the civilian population has been more armed than the United States is right now. It doesn't matter of those 500k soldiers assumed a combat roll... there's absolutely no way they can overcome an entire force of 100+ million people (assuming only the fighting-aged men fight). There is just absolutely no way. Cities would be taken over within days. As great as the U.S. military is global logistics... our ability to project power, there's literally no way they can mobilize the military to defend the country.
Anyway, you're comparing apples to oranges. There's never been a country before in history that's been armed the way American civilians are.
Assuming that 100+ million people are going to suddenly and simultaneously decide on violent resistance, form organized/supported groups, shoot their local government representatives, and march against a better armed, better-supported, and better-trained military has no basis in history or rationality. Similarly, conjecture that the military would join the junta is just as baseless as assuming they would simply stand by during widespread insurgent attacks on US soil. Unless there's some attribution I'm missing, this just seems like fanciful intuition. Insurgencies are messy, poorly coordinated, and almost universally influenced by foreign militaries/funding.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-17-2024).]
As to the comment concerning the distance of the shot, Trump was playing the 5th hole when the Secret Service responded to the threat.
If the threat had not been detected, the 6th green is immediately adjacent to the shooters position.
To clarify for those who don't understand, it would have been a very close range shot.
Agreed. Again, my point is NOT that Trump wasn't in serious danger. My point is that everyone is extremely lucky that these haven't been successful, and there have been plentiful opportunities for them to have been so. A 30-06 is just as easy to sneak around as an AK, and making a shot at 400 yards is much more trivial.
