Originally posted by cliffw: Mind boggling. Was I wrong thinking you had good sense ?
I’m a little flattered. Look at my actual claim; a developed nation being one that has an actual military that a militia would need to overcome. If you can find an example of this I’d be more than willing to look into it. I don’t mean to cite my own experiences, but I was in both Ramadi and Fallujah during OIF/OEF and I saw how quickly organized, supported forces will decimate a fortified militia. History backs up that capability difference.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: 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".
This raises two extremely good points: Both examples happen with pre-modern militaries, in developing (at the time) countries. That this can be effective in some circumstances isn’t in doubt. The Alamo would have been a hell of a lot different if Santa Ana had AC-130s, though.
The second is that the Americans defeated the British, but they did so with guerrilla tactics. Those exact same tactics have evolved and are still widely in use today as smaller forces counter larger militaries. American insurgents would almost certainly rely on those tactics as well, meaning that a far better choice of weapon to defend against government oppression would be the IED, which is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Mind boggling. Was I wrong thinking you had good sense ?
I didn't know squads of Marines were slaves.
They aren’t, but if you think they wouldn’t follow lawful orders to defend US cities during a violent insurgency you are not basing your opinion on historical precedent.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
I have not seen an elephant in a Cherry Tree. Have you ever seen an elephant buying toenail polish ?
Burden of proof. Ha. Say a lie enough times, it is proof.
Of course not. They get pedicures.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-17-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: 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.
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.
Clearly, I'm not understanding what you're asking. What I assumed from your post is that you were saying, citizens having guns, would never prevent a dictatorship in the country from occurring. Were you suggesting this? If not, then I apologize. I really have no idea then where you're going with tyranny and militias. I have no problem with "militias." I'm merely explaining to BingB / FredToast / Jim D. that in fact... the second amendment ensures that all citizens have the right to own weapons, and that it's in addition to having a well regulated militia (that the two are completely separate things).
If you're not disagreeing with any of this, then I'm completely confused on the direction, and kind of pissed because I spent at least 10 minutes typing all of that out, and clearly wasted my time.
You also left out Egypt and replaced it with Morocco. I've been to Egypt many times (when it was under Mubarack) and I wouldn't consider it a 3rd world country. There's a lot of wealth there, even if there's a lot of poverty too.
Either way, my point stands. If the Federal government decided within the span of a single presidential term, to begin confiscating guns, and turning the country into a despot / dictatorial government. I can ASSURE you the American people would react... and if certain states didn't themselves attempt to cede... the people would press on to fight back against the government. I absolutely would be one of those people that would support. Even if it was with my daughter's pink 22 rifle. That you think Americans WOULDN'T do this, is obtuse, in my opinion. I've had many neighbors, in both wealthy areas of San Antonio, and wealthy areas of Fort Lauderdale, whom have had WAY more guns than any normal person should probably have.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: 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:
Todd, you're killing me here. Where did you get this information from? The second picture in the first image is Devon Erickson. He is not trans, he just has funny hair. There was a second shooter, Alec McKinney, who is trans. That's not a picture of him; his hair isn't as funny, but that doesn't fit the narrative. The Uvalde shooter, Salvador Ramos, was not trans. There is no information about the Georgia school shooting perpetrators gender or sex, they also just have funny hair.
Even with my help you've identified 4 trans mass shooters. Given that there have been more than 3,000 mass shootings since 2013, that would be WAY less than 0.13% of the mass shootings since 1990, right? ...and the trans population makes up 0.6-0.7% of the population. Hoof, not quite the correlation you thought.
Clearly, I'm not understanding what you're asking. What I assumed from your post is that you were saying, citizens having guns, would never prevent a dictatorship in the country from occurring. Were you suggesting this? If not, then I apologize. I really have no idea then where you're going with tyranny and militias. I have no problem with "militias." I'm merely explaining to BingB / FredToast / Jim D. that in fact... the second amendment ensures that all citizens have the right to own weapons, and that it's in addition to having a well regulated militia (that the two are completely separate things).
If you're not disagreeing with any of this, then I'm completely confused on the direction, and kind of pissed because I spent at least 10 minutes typing all of that out, and clearly wasted my time.
You also left out Egypt and replaced it with Morocco. I've been to Egypt many times (when it was under Mubarack) and I wouldn't consider it a 3rd world country. There's a lot of wealth there, even if there's a lot of poverty too.
Egypt is in the same boat; it's worse off than it was before in terms of most freedoms except access to firearms, and access to firearms was not necessary for the changes that took place. They did most of that with protests and political pressure.
I'm saying that there hasn't been an armed uprising where the people take up arms and overthrow the government in a country with a modern military because those countries invariably use their military prowess to crush insurgencies. The paradigm has changed. Like I said earlier, the IED is a much more well-suited armament to your interpretation of the Second Amendment than small arms are, as it is much more useful in guerilla/ambush warfare, and that's the only way insurgents can challenge a modern military as a militia-level force. However, it isn't going to lead to any kind of military victory; at best it forces negotiations and political change that could have been achieved without mass killings.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Either way, my point stands. If the Federal government decided within the span of a single presidential term, to begin confiscating guns, and turning the country into a despot / dictatorial government. I can ASSURE you the American people would react... and if certain states didn't themselves attempt to cede... the people would press on to fight back against the government. I absolutely would be one of those people that would support. Even if it was with my daughter's pink 22 rifle. That you think Americans WOULDN'T do this, is obtuse, in my opinion. I've had many neighbors, in both wealthy areas of San Antonio, and wealthy areas of Fort Lauderdale, whom have had WAY more guns than any normal person should probably have.
I know lots of people with lots of guns. If 90% of them tried to use them in any kind of stressful situation they'd shoot themselves and anyone near them. Half of the rest would shut down and freeze the absolute instant they realized folks were shooting real rounds back at them. It takes a lot of training to respond in a less-than-self-destructive way in those situations, and most people can't do it.
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.
I read an NPR article that said it was an SKS which predated the AK design....
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...
Todd, there was nothing in my post that indicated any opinion on "gun control". Quit making things up.
I have expressed my opinion on gun ownership many times in this forum... but as is often the case, your recollection of what was stated is incorrect.
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 09-17-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: Egypt is in the same boat; it's worse off than it was before in terms of most freedoms except access to firearms, and access to firearms was not necessary for the changes that took place. They did most of that with protests and political pressure.
?
Explain to me how being better off, or worse off... has literally anything to do with this discussion?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm saying that there hasn't been an armed uprising where the people take up arms and overthrow the government in a country with a modern military because those countries invariably use their military prowess to crush insurgencies. The paradigm has changed. Like I said earlier, the IED is a much more well-suited armament to your interpretation of the Second Amendment than small arms are, as it is much more useful in guerilla/ambush warfare, and that's the only way insurgents can challenge a modern military as a militia-level force. However, it isn't going to lead to any kind of military victory; at best it forces negotiations and political change that could have been achieved without mass killings.
I know lots of people with lots of guns. If 90% of them tried to use them in any kind of stressful situation they'd shoot themselves and anyone near them. Half of the rest would shut down and freeze the absolute instant they realized folks were shooting real rounds back at them. It takes a lot of training to respond in a less-than-self-destructive way in those situations, and most people can't do it.
Ok, so now you are going back to what I thought you were trying to say. Why then did you even bring up militias? Like, what at all did that have to do with anything? What are you even going on about?
You're hypothesizing... literally, that's all you're doing. There have been many times in history that this has happened. And there are several in the Wikipedia article... and when you read that, you start making exceptions... must be a full moon, only on the third week of February, blah blah. These are nonsense arguments. Most people who own a ton of guns, have actually shot them. That's what they do.
Fear, or lack of fear, comes from experience. The overwhelming vast majority of the US military has never been shot at. And the people who have... well... they're the ones with the guns that have the experience that will be fighting this modern military. The United States would not use MQ9 reapers, or stealth bombers, or any of that other stuff.
Here's the difference... you're merely hypothesizing, suggesting that the world has completely changed, even though there have been many uprisings that have done just that (but you're selectively ignoring them). I'm basing my hypothesis on the fact that it's been done 1000s of times throughout history over the past 5,000 years.
What exactly does the U.S. "Modern" military have that they can use against their own civilians? Phone tapping? That's easy to get around. Drones? There are millions of drones in the U.S. that are privately owned... many of them can carry improvized explosive devices... which anyone with the Anarchist Cookbook (which is freely available online) can make bombs with. There are more guns, more people, more assets, and everyone has a car... which can also be used as a weapon.
Failed Trump 'assassin' Ryan Routh has been charged with dozens of offenses during a lifetime of petty crime – but doesn't appear to have spent a single day behind bars.
The 58-year-old misfit has been arrested for everything from felony larceny, to a hit and run, and brandishing a weapon of mass destruction, in his case a machine gun, DailyMail.com can reveal.
And yet time and time again, state records in his native North Carolina reveal he's escaped with probation or had his charges dismissed.
Routh has also been sued multiple times for failing to pay taxes, keep up with his rent or pay back debtors, according to a litany of civil suits.
The filings reveal the chaotic, lawless path Routh took through life before he ended up poking an AK-47 barrel though the fence of Trump's West Palm Beach golf course on Sunday allegedly to take aim at the former president.
In the most serious incident prior to this weekend he fled a traffic stop in December 2002 and barricaded himself inside his roofing firm with a fully automatic gun.
After giving himself up three hours later, Routh faced multiple charges, including possession of a weapon of mass destruction.
He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a minimum of 15 months in prison and 60 months probation.
However North Carolina Department of Adult Correction records suggest he never actually went to prison – and has no history of incarceration in the state where he spent almost all his life.
Dating back to 1989, Routh has been convicted of possessing stolen goods, carrying a concealed weapon and possessing a stolen vehicle.
He's chalked up dozens more misdemeanor arrests for writing bad checks, possession of controlled substances and for traffic offenses including speeding and driving without a license.
The 'wannabe hitman', most recently living in Hawaii, has also spent years being chased through the courts by a string of debtors.
These include the IRS to whom he was ordered to pay nearly $32,000 in back taxes in 2008.
Others include banks, businesses, and landlords suing Routh and his United Roofing firm in his native Guilford County.
In total the scruffy fanatic has been hit with a little over $160,000 in liens, judgments and small claims, according to state records.
Explain to me how being better off, or worse off... has literally anything to do with this discussion?
You said firearms were required to ensure other freedoms, then gave the Arab Spring as an example of when firearms were used to ensure those other freedoms. You then pointed out that I hadn't mentioned Egypt, and that it was a relatively developed country. During the Arab Spring, firearms played almost no role on the side of the protestors, making it a poor example for your initial point. After the Arab Spring, Egyptians ended up with less freedom of speech (and rights all around) -but a greater access to firearms- making it an even poorer example.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Ok, so now you are going back to what I thought you were trying to say. Why then did you even bring up militias? Like, what at all did that have to do with anything? What are you even going on about?
You're hypothesizing... literally, that's all you're doing. There have been many times in history that this has happened. And there are several in the Wikipedia article... and when you read that, you start making exceptions... must be a full moon, only on the third week of February, blah blah. These are nonsense arguments. Most people who own a ton of guns, have actually shot them. That's what they do.
I quoted what I had already said before you posted the Wikipedia article...literally quoted exactly the same words I had already used. You can go back and check...it's right there on the previous page.
I was never talking about 'any point in history'; that wouldn't make sense in the context of the point I'm making about modern military capability. There are exactly 0 examples in that Wikipedia article of a modern military being overthrown by an internal uprising of it's citizens (the criteria that would need to be met to show the Second Amendment still functions in the way you suggest). You claim there are examples in the article: Give one and I will add it to my signature along with a note stating the time and date I was ignorant about it's existence.
quote
Fear, or lack of fear, comes from experience. The overwhelming vast majority of the US military has never been shot at. And the people who have... well... they're the ones with the guns that have the experience that will be fighting this modern military. The United States would not use MQ9 reapers, or stealth bombers, or any of that other stuff.
Here's the difference... you're merely hypothesizing, suggesting that the world has completely changed, even though there have been many uprisings that have done just that (but you're selectively ignoring them). I'm basing my hypothesis on the fact that it's been done 1000s of times throughout history over the past 5,000 years.
What exactly does the U.S. "Modern" military have that they can use against their own civilians? Phone tapping? That's easy to get around. Drones? There are millions of drones in the U.S. that are privately owned... many of them can carry improvized explosive devices... which anyone with the Anarchist Cookbook (which is freely available online) can make bombs with. There are more guns, more people, more assets, and everyone has a car... which can also be used as a weapon.
Your argument is extremely short-sighted.
Yeah, I really don't see a large percentage of combat vets attacking their local government offices...at least not many that take their oaths or combat experience seriously.
Again, name this instance that meets the criteria I set out before you posted the Wikipedia article. I am asking for the actual name of a single instance rather than a vague insistence there must be one.
I quoted what I had already said before you posted the Wikipedia article...literally quoted exactly the same words I had already used. You can go back and check...it's right there on the previous page.
I was never talking about 'any point in history'; that wouldn't make sense in the context of the point I'm making about modern military capability. There are exactly 0 examples in that Wikipedia article of a modern military being overthrown by an internal uprising of it's citizens (the criteria that would need to be met to show the Second Amendment still functions in the way you suggest). You claim there are examples in the article: Give one and I will add it to my signature along with a note stating the time and date I was ignorant about it's existence.
Yeah, I really don't see a large percentage of combat vets attacking their local government offices...at least not many that take their oaths or combat experience seriously.
Again, name this instance that meets the criteria I set out before you posted the Wikipedia article. I am asking for the actual name of a single instance rather than a vague insistence there must be one.
Ok, I'm getting no where with you. Either I'm retarded, or you are. But you're conflating a lot of things, throwing out intentionally tangential comments, all of which add nothing to the point I'm making, or reinforce your argument. On Egypt... I was responding to the simple fact that you said there's been no countries overthrown by their populace because a modern military can basically dispatch them. Which is incorrect, there have been dozens over the past decade... regardless of whether they had guns. I emphasized that a military cannot withstand the full force of the populace, no matter how organized it is... because most militaries are designed to defend against intruders, or create an incursion. A country is not going to use big weapons against their own populace, because then it destroys itself.
And now you're saying this...
"Yeah, I really don't see a large percentage of combat vets attacking their local government offices...at least not many that take their oaths or combat experience seriously."
As spies, DoD civilians, and military, we take a modified version of the oath of office the President takes... and that's to defend and protect the constitution. You're now somehow suggesting that these people would be beholden to the dictatorship, in this hypothetical situation. Incorrect. They would almost all fight back against the dictatorship.
All of this is deflection. I'm not stupid, I know exactly what you're doing. The purpose of the second amendment, is to protect the first. YOUR OPINION is that it doesn't matter anymore today. YOUR OPINION is based on literally nothing other than conjecture. MY OPINION based on the facts of why the second amendment was created, emphasizes that this has happened many times in the past, and that we need to continue to protect the second amendment BECAUSE it keeps the government in check.
I'm going to be really happy in 6 weeks when we, as best as I can figure, President Trump will be reelected, and then... well, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to hold back not rubbing it in everyone's faces. I don't usually like to make people feel bad, but I don't think I'll turn the other cheek. I may really, really, really, enjoy making everyone here feel absolutely horrible. I might even amp up the rhetoric.
Citizens can not take on the military for one simple reason. Air support. Anyone who knows anything about military action will explain that air support rules. Combine the US military air support with their satellite imaging and no group of citizens would be able to move or organize or fight against anything.
I thought some of you guys here were supposed to have some sort of military background. You should know this.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-18-2024).]
No. it never happened. This is just another thing you made up in your head. Like the US having a budget surplus under Trump.
Once again, you are totally misrepresenting what I said... I never said we HAD a budget surplus under Trump. I said that half-way through the year, we were on our way to possibly having a budget surplus... primarily due to a lack of funding bills, we were just doing continuing resolutions, etc.
And yes, Randye has metaphorically pushed you into a corner, and then you change the subject and deflect. Which, to a person with a basic understanding of how these things work, it means you've conceded.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Citizens can not take on the military for one simple reason. Air support. Anyone who knows anything about military action will explain that air support rules. Combine the US military air support with their satellite imaging and no group of citizens would be able to move or organize or fight against anything.
I thought some of you guys here were supposed to have some sort of military background. You should know this.
Explain to me exactly what air support is going to do in a civil war, where the majority of the populace all over the country is uprising against a corrupted government? Are they going to bomb and destroy their own cities and towns? No... you might use Apache, A-10s, etc... to take out targets of opportunity. But they're not going to blow up city hall, when an entire town has decided it no longer wants to participate in a corrupted government.
A dictator wants to maintain the means of production, and an established means for a continuance of government while they're in charge... otherwise there's nothing to rule over. For one, you destroy things like the seat of local power, and it only further emboldens the cause for those trying to overthrow the government. Dictators live on propaganda and compliance. Any semi-logical person would clearly understand this... even if said dictator was crazy, they'd still have this concept.
Aircraft carriers, submarines, bombers... all things that are going to be totally useless.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Explain to me exactly what air support is going to do in a civil war, where the majority of the populace all over the country is uprising against a corrupted government? Are they going to bomb and destroy their own cities and towns? No... you might use Apache, A-10s, etc... to take out targets of opportunity. But they're not going to blow up city hall, when an entire town has decided it no longer wants to participate in a corrupted government. .
They will completely shut down all means of transportation and organization. Our government has detailed satellite surveillance of the entire country and thousands of helicopters, planes, and drones. There is not much resistance if the citizens can't gather or move.
I thought you were one of the guys here who is supposed to have military experience.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-18-2024).]
Direct quote from JD Vance: "I admire the president for calling for peace and calm. The rhetoric is out of control."
Direct quotes from Donald Trump: "America is going to hell." "The U.S. is becoming a third-world country." "If Biden wins, your Second Amendment is gone." "This will be the most rigged election in history." "Nancy Pelosi is trying to ruin our country." "The radical left is destroying America." "This is the destruction of America as we know it." "General Mark Milley should be executed for treason." "They should be executed for being disloyal." "You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength." “There will be no future under Comrade Kamala Harris, because she will take us into a Nuclear World War III!"
Originally posted by BingB: They will completely shut down all means of transportation and organization. Our government has detailed satellite surveillance of the entire country and thousands of helicopters, planes, and drones. There is not much resistance if the citizens can't gather or move.
I thought you were one of the guys here who is supposed to have military experience.
For one... you're assuming every military person, and every civilian will be on the Government's side. Second, despite what you see on TV, the United States does not have "detailed satellite surveillance" of our entire country. Under our current system of government, that's illegal, so we have not invested in such a capability. The way we get information is through a cooperation with the private sector where and when warrants are produced. You may be shocked to learn that Google has better surveillance technology than the United States government. Matter of fact, the satellites that Google uses for things like Google Maps, is actually privately owned. They were originally funded (totally unclassified) through a project called "In-Q-Tel" which is a means of spurring innovation in the private sector that CAN support the CIA and NSA.
The NRO, for example, does not control any satellites over the continental United States. The infrastructure simply doesn't exist for that, because it's never been the focus... BECAUSE of the 4th Amendment. Likewise, again... despite what you may see on TV or hear on the news from crazy sources, all the mobilization and logistics from groups like the DLA, are all for projecting power to the rest of the world. To be completely honest, if Canada or Mexico attacked us, we would be completely unprepared... and it would be devastating until we were able to mobilize our defenses.
You saw how successful 9/11 was. Have you read the 9/11 Commission report? I recommend it, particularly for the discussion points about NORAD. The only real big changes to come out of that Commission was the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence... which is supposed to act as a funnel for intelligence up to the president. It's largely been an abject failure. The president still gets briefed directly by the individual agencies in the morning stand-up, and ODNI has become more of a larger contract management organization. When James Clapper was criticized for lying about wiretapping... he wasn't actually lying... he just literally had no clue. So the whole inception of ODNI was pointless.
As for all the other more mobile assets like planes and helicopters. They're all currently engaged in campaigns that are focused on external threats in our projection of power. They're in our overseas military bases, on our carriers, and most of the pilots are in those locations as well. There are more planes than there are pilots, and most of the pilots are overseas. Anyway, the main point of me bringing up 9/11 is because we literally only had 2-4 fighter jets that we could even scramble (at the time) to intercept an already domestically located threat. That was one of the biggest problems... the fighter planes couldn't get to the passenger planes in time... otherwise, well... the outcomes would have been a little different.
Let's assume a hypothetical situation. If the country had an uprising that occurred in the span of a month... if you will. The government would not be prepared to counter it.
But, if it was something that was more gradual, and the government had the time to prepare, they'd have to reallocate those assets back to the United States, which would mean they'd lose position of authority in those countries, which is not something an aspiring dictator would want to do... so this is a largely unlikely scenario.
All foreign-orchestrated riots aside... spontaneous national public reactions and mobilizations do occur. Two recent examples... President Obama's announcement of the death of Osama Bin Laden. All over the country, people spilled out into the streets in celebration... it happened everywhere. Even my neighbors walked out in the cul-de-sac... literally every single one of them. There were spontaneous gatherings like New Years in every major city center. The same thing happened in Cuban-centric cities like Tampa, Miami, Houston, etc., when Fidel Castro's death was announced. So, if there was something to kick it off... this would be a thing, people could be mobilized.
Anyway, this will never happen in this country, at least not in my lifetime... because we have the right to bear arms, and this right, particularly in recent years has seen a new resurgence... even many liberals are starting to buy guns. And that right ensures... no... keeps in check, any individual who would even think of creating a dictatorship in this country. It would never be allowed.
Worth mentioning, I don't expect you to actually take anything I've said with any value... I'm responding more for anyone else who wants to read it, because having a discussion is not something you do... you're all about trying to win a discussion (argument) at all cost, no matter what it is. That's a personality thing, which again, I find fascinating... even if it's probably affected your relationships with people.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
And that is complete BS. Our deficit in 2019 was bigger than in 2018. We were behind from day one.
You just made that up and claimed it was true. I asked you repeatedly for some source to back up your claim and you refused.
Ok, you still don't apparently get it... which I think is intentional. I don't need to play this game with you.
Direct quote from JD Vance: "I admire the president for calling for peace and calm. The rhetoric is out of control."
Direct quotes from Donald Trump: "America is going to hell." "The U.S. is becoming a third-world country." "If Biden wins, your Second Amendment is gone." "This will be the most rigged election in history." "Nancy Pelosi is trying to ruin our country." "The radical left is destroying America." "This is the destruction of America as we know it." "General Mark Milley should be executed for treason." "They should be executed for being disloyal." "You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength." “There will be no future under Comrade Kamala Harris, because she will take us into a Nuclear World War III!"
All true statements to a very large percentage of the people
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Ok, I'm getting no where with you. Either I'm retarded, or you are. But you're conflating a lot of things, throwing out intentionally tangential comments, all of which add nothing to the point I'm making, or reinforce your argument. On Egypt... I was responding to the simple fact that you said there's been no countries overthrown by their populace because a modern military can basically dispatch them. Which is incorrect, there have been dozens over the past decade... regardless of whether they had guns. I emphasized that a military cannot withstand the full force of the populace, no matter how organized it is... because most militaries are designed to defend against intruders, or create an incursion. A country is not going to use big weapons against their own populace, because then it destroys itself.
You made a claim about the necessity of the second amendment. I've pointed out that your rationale has no basis in reality when applied contemporarily, at least not in any way that has manifested itself in a citable instance.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: As spies, DoD civilians, and military, we take a modified version of the oath of office the President takes... and that's to defend and protect the constitution. You're now somehow suggesting that these people would be beholden to the dictatorship, in this hypothetical situation. Incorrect. They would almost all fight back against the dictatorship.
All of this is deflection. I'm not stupid, I know exactly what you're doing. The purpose of the second amendment, is to protect the first. YOUR OPINION is that it doesn't matter anymore today. YOUR OPINION is based on literally nothing other than conjecture. MY OPINION based on the facts of why the second amendment was created, emphasizes that this has happened many times in the past, and that we need to continue to protect the second amendment BECAUSE it keeps the government in check.
You're including war veterans, right? If so, you seem to forget that "we" includes myself and large circle of war veterans and veteran families. You assume that all of us are politically homogenous enough to agree on what a dictatorship is, and when it would be time to shoot your local sheriff over it. You also assume that many of us wouldn't see trying to overthrow the US government based on partisan political ideology as an absolute violation of the oath you just mentioned.
I know what the purpose of the Second Amendment was when it was written. Despite you repeatedly capitalizing the word "opinion," I also never put forth a single opinion about it, and didn't say it "didn't matter" at any point. I let you know I disagree with your assertion that it still serves to protect the other rights, and pointed out that there is no actual evidence that it would function in the manner you assume. "This has happened many times in the past" is still an awfully bold claim when you haven't been able to come up with a single specific example.
I'm also not sure what conflation or conjecture I'm guilty of. If I ask for a specific example will you provide one?
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I'm going to be really happy in 6 weeks when we, as best as I can figure, President Trump will be reelected, and then... well, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to hold back not rubbing it in everyone's faces. I don't usually like to make people feel bad, but I don't think I'll turn the other cheek. I may really, really, really, enjoy making everyone here feel absolutely horrible. I might even amp up the rhetoric.
It wouldn't be my face you were rubbing it in. I called the election for Trump in this very thread, though I think developments since have made that a hasty call (Loomer alone might detract more than his response to the first assassination attempt bolstered him). I'll disagree with a lot of his policies, but I'm still convinced his rhetoric may be chemo for our cancer stricken system.
Originally posted by NewDustin: I’m a little flattered. Look at my actual claim; a developed nation being one that has an actual military that a militia would need to overcome. If you can find an example of this I’d be more than willing to look into it. I don’t mean to cite my own experiences, but I was in both Ramadi and Fallujah during OIF/OEF and I saw how quickly organized, supported forces will decimate a fortified militia. History backs up that capability difference.
NewDustin, thanks for your service in both Ramadi and Fallujah. My Son gave me some trinkets from Saddam Hussein's Baghdad palace.
Tell me about the Afghanistan militia taking over control of Afghanistan. Explain how the Taliban withstood the USSR's attempt to own Afghanistan. Your thoughts on Ukraine doing the same thing ? The odds were that Russians would own Ukraine in three days.
You proclaim that an uprising against the United State's government would fail. Yet seem to not be thinking about outside allies. The above examples, Afghanistan, Ukraine, had the help of the United States.
Our 13 original colonies had the help of England's arch enemy, France. Let's talk about the United States Civil War. The South had no army. Yet, came very close to winning independence. The Civil War, brother against brother, father against son, yada yada. To believe that a squadron of Marines do not have individual thoughts ... heh.
you're all about trying to win a discussion (argument) at all cost, no matter what it is. That's a personality thing, which again, I find fascinating... even if it's probably affected your relationships with people. .
You find it fascinating that I insist on people speaking the truth and not misinformation.
I find it fascinating that you will so casually accept any lie as long as it is what you want to be true.... even if it's probably affected your relationship with people.
I guess we are just different that way.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Ok, you still don't apparently get it... which I think is intentional. I don't need to play this game with you.
I get it just fine. You made up something in your head that is not true and I called you out on it.
For one... you're assuming every military person, and every civilian will be on the Government's side.
Actually, no. My original point was that we don't have to worry about defending ourselves from a Tyrant using the US military against citizens because the US military would not just blindly kill and imprison fellow citizens just for political power.
But if a group of citizens did attempt to rebel against the power of the government they would not be successful because technology outweighs manpower, especially with air support.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Second, despite what you see on TV, the United States does not have "detailed satellite surveillance" of our entire country.
I have no idea how many surveillances satellites the US government has over the United States, but it is more than the citizens would have. And the military would have massive surveillance capabilities through drones and systems like Wide Area Persistent Surveillance (also Wide Area Motion Imaging). Every private drone would be shot down immediately. So basically, it is not going to happen because US military are not going to attack their own people. But if a dictator was able to control the US military the citizens would not stand a chance.
There are actually many legitimate reasons for people to own guns. I think the whole argument gets thrown off the tracks when the extremists try to make it about war with the federal government.
Originally posted by cliffw: I sent/brought home all kinds of nonsense lol! I still have have scores of ballots, instructions, banners, and errata from the first democratic elections in Ramadi, as well as trinkets from the traveling store guy, and stuff I trader for from the interpreters, and the Uganda guards. Those guys had cool knives.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NewDustin: Tell me about the Afghanistan militia taking over control of Afghanistan. Explain how the Taliban withstood the USSR's attempt to own Afghanistan. Your thoughts on Ukraine doing the same thing ? The odds were that Russians would own Ukraine in three days.
My point is that the Second Amendment is insufficient to protect citizens' rights from a contemporary government with a modern military. IE, you aren't go to rise up against your government with hobby rifles. Ukraine/Russia seems a poor example of this, given it's two modern militaries fighting, one with a much large military and one with multiple nations supporting it. I don't really know much about the conflict in Afghanistan in terms of how it played out. I could look at see what I think, but I can speak to Iraq readily, which I believe is similar.
The militias' goals there were never to defeat us; that would have been impossible. Rather, they looked to influence our actions/drive us out by attrition and losses. That's what the Russians couldn't counter in Afghanistan, I believe. That's why one of our primary goals was to turn the private militias to our side. One of the big outcomes of Najaf was turning the 1920s Revolutionary Brigades to the Coalition forces side. We turned a large number of the rest of them to our side too, via concessions to their individual causes and support against common enemies.
The militias winning the conflict? Was never going to happen. Them forcing concessions via prolonged conflict? Yeah, absolutely.
quote
You proclaim that an uprising against the United State's government would fail. Yet seem to not be thinking about outside allies. The above examples, Afghanistan, Ukraine, had the help of the United States.
Our 13 original colonies had the help of England's arch enemy, France. Let's talk about the United States Civil War. The South had no army. Yet, came very close to winning independence. The Civil War, brother against brother, father against son, yada yada. To believe that a squadron of Marines do not have individual thoughts ... heh.
Do you think a succession effort would fail ?
I do think it would fail, and I think the best outcome the rebels could hope for would be a dissolution of the US as a federal entity rather than an overtaking of it. Again, though, the best weapons available to the militias are going to be IEDs and the second amendment does nothing to ensure access to high explosives.
The South had an Army, with experienced generals, developed logistics, and all the bells and whistles. The Civil War also occurred between two non-modern combatants, when the gulf between armament between what a civilian militia had and what a military had was not as massive as it is now.
As far as the roles allies would play, I'm not sure how to answer that without it being pure conjecture. As a potential dictatorship, are the alliances of the US still standing, or did they fail long ago? Did we form new ones with other repressive powers? I'm sure there would be influence on both sides, but I don't think we can look to a the Revolution -a time before airplanes- as an apples-to-apples logistics comparison.
Last point, and it's semantics: Marines don't come in squadrons. Also I wouldn't suggest they don't think for themselves; that's a key part of Marine Corps combat training.
Originally posted by BingB: There are actually many legitimate reasons for people to own guns.
I own a single shot, lever action Ithaca .22 that's barely three feet long. It was my grandpa's, and my dad and uncles taught us to shoot with it when we were kids. I got it when my grandpa passed. It hasn't been fired or maintained in 20 years, and I never plan to fire it again. It means the world to me.
You made a claim about the necessity of the second amendment. I've pointed out that your rationale has no basis in reality when applied contemporarily, at least not in any way that has manifested itself in a citable instance.
You're including war veterans, right? If so, you seem to forget that "we" includes myself and large circle of war veterans and veteran families. You assume that all of us are politically homogenous enough to agree on what a dictatorship is, and when it would be time to shoot your local sheriff over it. You also assume that many of us wouldn't see trying to overthrow the US government based on partisan political ideology as an absolute violation of the oath you just mentioned.
I know what the purpose of the Second Amendment was when it was written. Despite you repeatedly capitalizing the word "opinion," I also never put forth a single opinion about it, and didn't say it "didn't matter" at any point. I let you know I disagree with your assertion that it still serves to protect the other rights, and pointed out that there is no actual evidence that it would function in the manner you assume. "This has happened many times in the past" is still an awfully bold claim when you haven't been able to come up with a single specific example.
I'm also not sure what conflation or conjecture I'm guilty of. If I ask for a specific example will you provide one?
It wouldn't be my face you were rubbing it in. I called the election for Trump in this very thread, though I think developments since have made that a hasty call (Loomer alone might detract more than his response to the first assassination attempt bolstered him). I'll disagree with a lot of his policies, but I'm still convinced his rhetoric may be chemo for our cancer stricken system.
This is getting totally ridiculous, and you've wasted my time. I don't even know what you're arguing now. You are totally entitled to your opinion.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: This is getting totally ridiculous, and you've wasted my time. I don't even know what you're arguing now. You are totally entitled to your opinion.
It's only wasted if you don't consider how you could strengthen your stance from the exchange. I've done so already
It's only wasted if you don't consider how you could strengthen your stance from the exchange. I've done so already
"...strengthen your stance from the exchange."
You and I share a very different perspective on the world. A hypothetical dictatorship in the United States, and whether or not the modern military will crush the civilian population as a decision on whether or not we should even bother continue to owning guns ... is not something I generally think about, or an argument that I routinely get into with people. Your argument is quite basically, suggesting that we shouldn't have the right to bear arms because they won't do any good anyway. Which is completely absurd. Why should I even bother entertaining your fallacy? The fact that I even went down this rabbit hole with you speaks much more about how I've allowed myself to waste time on something so absurd. What possible good could come from this discussion?
