Trump Thread 2.0

[z31maniac]

the Afghani's have had some pretty good success doing just that nearly continuously for the last 40 years or so, faced against the 2 largest and well equipped regular military's in the world....

You're ignoring what I said regarding how few troops we sent and the rules of engagement.

[mrsleeve]

This made no sense, gather your thoughts and try again.

US citizens haven't tried to rise up against the government in modern times. I'm sorry you can't see the distinction in training and weapons from 250 years ago to now.

Yes it makes prefect sense, you are attempting to quantify firearms owner ship to involvement with a formalized Milita... This is not the 1st time you and others have attempted this line of thought.

Next look at the the direction that the LEO community has been going down the last few years, and its a discussion we have had in the past. The military is no different most are good people with good intentions and will not follow unlawful orders to fire on the very people they have sworn to protect.

No there has been little need to, "rise up" 250 years ago the best equipped, trained, disciplined and battle hardened military in the world was defeated by farmers and trappers most of which had very little to military training until the French got involved to train them.
You keep pointing to advancements in tech, and 250 years ago the patriots had BETTER firearms technology than the British Regulars they faced off against. If there were an event that would require the citizenry to defend them selves, it will take boots on the ground clearing real estate this is how it will have to be done to preserve the assets on the ground. Large regular armies have a very hard time clearing out dissidents in and around population centers look to our forays into the sandboxes the last couple of decades for the proof in that puddings even in modern times with modern technology.

As I will say again, arms laying peacefully in safes, closet's, and the hands of the general population ensures this "rise up scenario" will likely NEVER happen. Those weapons are FAR more powerful in existence in the hands of free men, and being used for more "recreational purposes" than if they were to be taken up in anger. As they are in this state they are the biggest Check on Govt accumulation of power, and deterrent to others with nefarious intent against others, more so than any law of ink and paper ever could possibly be.

You're ignoring what I said regarding how few troops we sent and the rules of engagement.

Yes the Russians were holding back so much.. The Russians had something like 5/8 of a million men cycle through with well over 100k on station most of the time, and their R.O.E. were certainly not as crippling, like how we have hamstrung our forces in our attempt to control the area.

[Wschnitz]

It also ignores the effect of a Fundamentalist Religion as a driver. I find it highly unlikely your average US Christian would rise up to fight their government rolling through their town with Tanks.

Especially with the downward trend in belief in Religion in the first place. It would take a powerful unifying message to get people to rally, something I don't see happening when the government already has show its a joke how easy it is to divide us.

[z31maniac]

If we went in full bore, with everything we have, it would be Desert Storm all over again....how many DAYS did that take?

Our current bullshit is to keep our military there under the guise of "safety" and justifing the Patriot Act, endless defense spending, etc.

You know this.

[cale]

Sure, people have handguns and rifles, think you can shoot the drone, tank, F-22 with a handgun and do anything? You can't.

Will to fight is speculation.

The tanks and F-22's that require ludicrous logistic chains to support, of which are ran by Americans, who you need to convince to fight against their own people. What is an air superiority fighter having to do with guerrilla warfare exactly? I think you greatly overestimate the people in uniform who'd stick around, and the usefulness of complex equipment in a prolonged guerrilla scenario on home soil. Hell, they'd be out of fuel in a matter of days.

The will to fight isn't speculative at all, morale and true passion to see victory keeps the fight going. For the select few who actually follow the orders of the even more select few who stuck around to issue them, watching their buddies die while trying to conquer their own country would put a stop to things real quick.

[z31maniac]

Again, your take on this is pure speculation, just as mine is.

We are trying to speak for the 1 million plus service members and what they would do in that situation.

But you're proving my point about 2A being moot in modern society.

[cale]

But you're proving my point about 2A being moot in modern society.

How is me arguing for the ability for the American civilian population to wage an effective guerrilla war against the military, proving your point? Civilian firearm ownership as a result of 2A would be the crux in their capabilities.

[R3Z3N]

So what I hear the anti gun nut say is:
We don't think we have a chance because DRONES

So you instead give up. You will wipe their asses without gloves when asked.

Venezuelans gave up their guns...the latest history under our noses and you think it better to try security at the expense of freedom at all costs. Peace has a real cost...lives...sadly.

“Venezuelans didn’t care enough about it. The idea of having the means to protect your home was seen as only needed out in the fields. People never would have believed they needed to defend themselves against the government,” Vanegas explained. “Venezuelans evolved to always hope that our government would be non-tyrannical, non-violator of human rights, and would always have a good enough control of criminality.”

Drone note: this is also why it is illegal for our government to keep a firearm registry of who owns what. Because a registry will only help potentially track down after a crime not before or during, will help the government track down who they determine (and now with red flag laws, anyone pissed at you) who has a gun to remove them effectively from fighting the tyrannical gov't. A criminal not following a background check (BTW the DOJ has passed many background checks because the criminal has lied on it! Your brain explodes) or state laws will not be on any registry. Here in CA, all records are kept by the FFL via paper, they are not allowed to be digitized for that reason, however the DOJ has broken that law and refuses to comply.

[z31maniac]

The tanks and F-22's that require ludicrous logistic chains to support, of which are ran by Americans, who you need to convince to fight against their own people. What is an air superiority fighter having to do with guerrilla warfare exactly? I think you greatly overestimate the people in uniform who'd stick around, and the usefulness of complex equipment in a prolonged guerrilla scenario on home soil. Hell, they'd be out of fuel in a matter of days.

The will to fight isn't speculative at all, morale and true passion to see victory keeps the fight going. For the select few who actually follow the orders of the even more select few who stuck around to issue them, watching their buddies die while trying to conquer their own country would put a stop to things real quick.

How is me arguing for the ability for the American civilian population to wage an effective guerrilla war against the military, proving your point? Civilian firearm ownership as a result of 2A would be the crux in their capabilities.

I also want to preface this by saying, I'm not anti-2A in any way, shape, or form.

We've got two different trains of thought going here, so I want to separate them back out.

1. The US Military wouldn't turn their guns on the civilians. I'm including in the definition of "military," the people that would run logistics, etc. Essentially anything the military needs to wage war.

2. The assumption that small arms possessed by the US population would be an effective deterrent against the most powerful military in the world.


In scenario 1, if the military wouldn't turn their guns on the population, then the 2A isn't needed as a means to protect from government tyranny.

In scenario 2, I don't see it happening. Again, I know many of you will point to Afghanistan, at it's peak there was less than 10% of our active military there and that amount was still a brief portion of our occupation there.

There are currently 1.3 million active duty, and another 865k in the reserves.

If the "government" wanted to impose true tyranny, martial law, whatever you want to call it, they wouldn't come with some half-assed 4% of the military, they would come with the majority of it. And it would be easy to crush whatever resistance, and the rest would fall in line.

Or they would never do it, and the point of the 2A is moot. Hence my earlier point about circular logic.

[FredK]

The average TGIF eating, America's got talent watching American is going to sit down and shut up when they see the neighborhood across the street destroyed.

Until they get rid of the Endless Apps promo. Guaranteed people armed with broken Coors Light bottles will fight alongside decay until the loaded potato skins and boneless Buffalo wings are made available every day in the bar area for $10. :p

[z31maniac]

Until they get rid of the Endless Apps promo. Guaranteed people armed with broken Coors Light bottles will fight alongside decay until the loaded potato skins and boneless Buffalo wings are made available every day in the bar area for $10. :p

#FredKdroppingtruthbombs

[cale]

I also want to preface this by saying, I'm not anti-2A in any way, shape, or form.

We've got two different trains of thought going here, so I want to separate them back out.

1. The US Military wouldn't turn their guns on the civilians. I'm including in the definition of "military," the people that would run logistics, etc. Essentially anything the military needs to wage war.

2. The assumption that small arms possessed by the US population would be an effective deterrent against the most powerful military in the world.


In scenario 1, if the military wouldn't turn their guns on the population, then the 2A isn't needed as a means to protect from government tyranny.

In scenario 2, I don't see it happening. Again, I know many of you will point to Afghanistan, at it's peak there was less than 10% of our active military there and that amount was still a brief portion of our occupation there.

There are currently 1.3 million active duty, and another 865k in the reserves.

If the "government" wanted to impose true tyranny, martial law, whatever you want to call it, they wouldn't come with some half-assed 4% of the military, they would come with the majority of it. And it would be easy to crush whatever resistance, and the rest would fall in line.

Or they would never do it, and the point of the 2A is moot. Hence my earlier point about circular logic.

I'm saying both are truthful, that scenario 1 is true, but if it took place that scenario 2 is also a reality, because...

You cannot simply look to the numbers of folks in uniform and imply those are the numbers who will be fighting, it's nowhere near that high. Without getting into specifics I can tell you the number of rifles even available to non-combat arms types is terrifying low, it would be straight out of Enemy at the Gates "follow the guy with the rifle". I can't find concrete numbers, but including both Army and Marines you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k infantry troops. That's a lot of troops yes, but it's a still a 1:3250 ratio of troop to civilian. That's 2000 troops per state, thin those numbers out to protect places like air wings who couldn't protect themselves against a few dozen angry militia, and you've got a very bad situation for anyone in uniform.

[gwb72tii]

I'm saying both are truthful, that scenario 1 is true, but if it took place that scenario 2 is also a reality, because...

You cannot simply look to the numbers of folks in uniform and imply those are the numbers who will be fighting, it's nowhere near that high. Without getting into specifics I can tell you the number of rifles even available to non-combat arms types is terrifying low, it would be straight out of Enemy at the Gates "follow the guy with the rifle". I can't find concrete numbers, but including both Army and Marines you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 100k infantry troops. That's a lot of troops yes, but it's a still a 1:3250 ratio of troop to civilian. That's 2000 troops per state, thin those numbers out to protect places like air wings who couldn't protect themselves against a few dozen angry militia, and you've got a very bad situation for anyone in uniform.

so cale, got your yellow vest?
looks like Paris is coming to Canada

[decay]

Until they get rid of the Endless Apps promo. Guaranteed people armed with broken Coors Light bottles will fight alongside decay until the loaded potato skins and boneless Buffalo wings are made available every day in the bar area for $10. :p

amusing that you'd choose that as an example, because the nightclub/restaurant i'm a bouncer at will sell you an order of boneless buffalo wings for... nine bucks. half the time that's my free on-shift meal. so i guess i can keep limiting what i worry about to actual problems like white supremacists. thanks for the strawman, though, i'll put it over here in the corner and decorate it with christmas ornaments.

as former military, i wish i could tell you that most of the people i was in an infantry unit with wouldn't have fired on the populace if ordered to do so, whether they knew or thought it was illegal or not. enough of the people i served with would that i don't think it's wrong to be concerned about the idea.

[cale]

so cale, got your yellow vest?
looks like Paris is coming to Canada

Totally, because dying in riots over taxes is definitely on my to-do list.

I'm going to vote when the election comes in the fall, something I very much doubt the people taking part in current protests here saw fit to do during the last election. Virtue signalling isn't reserved to the left.