Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mysfit

Has the Eunuch in Chief met his match?

Recommended Posts

The NRA has generally been extremely successful in using the 'slippery slope' argument to ANY kind of gun control.

 

97% of people want gun control yet our representatives remain firmly in the pockets of the NRA. Until we get new reps I don't see this changing. It's going to have to take a long haul effort for change in a short attention span society.

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mysfit said:

The NRA has generally been extremely successful in using the 'slippery slope' argument to ANY kind of gun control.

 

97% of people want gun control yet our representatives remain firmly in the pockets of the NRA. Until we get new reps I don't see this changing. It's going to have to take a long haul effort for change in a short attention span society.

Could be. The difference I see is these mass shooting events seem to be increasing in frequency. If that continues, the issue will stay in the national discussion. The more it happens, the less politicians can tune it out or distract us from it. Eventually maybe even a stronger coalition for gun control will develop. In the article I linked in my last post, the author was a noted transportation engineer and compared gun control to traffic safety. He noted that one of the major catalysts for change was MADD.

Today, high school students from all over the country are staging a walk out in protest of our gun laws (or lack thereof). There seems to be a national consciousness on this issue that has developed in a young generation's formative years. Surely time may dull their resolve, but I think this upcoming generation just finding their place in society and the nation will continue to believe strongly in this issue. These are kids raised with the reality of seeing their peers gunned down, or having to deal with the idea that such an event can happen to them at any time. I have a feeling that this generation will be the first to enact impactful gun control.

But the issue is definitely a marathon and not a sprint. The cultural change required to improve gun control is different than traffic control. This is something deeply engrained in our culture and may require generations of small changes to see meaningful results.

I also agree that mental health needs to be addressed. Though they are separate issues, their intersection results in mass casualties to innocent people. I do hope that the mental health issues don't get lost in the gun control fervor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Actually, weren't the Russians pretty much kicking ass until the US started supplying the Mujahideen with shoulder held missile launchers?

Not really. They controlled the bigger towns but the Muj controlled almost 80% of the rest of the country. The Stingers helped no doubt but the Muj were already bleeding them before they were introduced. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Explain how the Afghani's held off the Russians and us then? 

 

Oh come on. The situations are in no way comparable. The Afghanis have been holding off foreigners from their hills since the beginning of recorded history.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Explain how the Afghani's held off the Russians and us then? 

 

1. Terrain.

2. The United States providing weapons of war to the Mujaheddin. Predecessor of Al Qaeda.

3. The Russians providing weapons of war to the Taliban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Actually, weren't the Russians pretty much kicking ass until the US started supplying the Mujahideen with shoulder held missile launchers?

It all started to go downhill for the Russians when they started overdoing it on the vodka. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mysfit said:

One school district in Texas has threatened 3 day suspensions to any student participating in a walk out.

Damn, I would walk out and get suspended just to have it on my resume. Certainly not a negative when applying to college. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mysfit said:

One school district in Texas has threatened 3 day suspensions to any student participating in a walk out.

In that case, I really hope every kid walks out. That punishment is only there to stifle their voice. To shut them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Oh come on. The situations are in no way comparable. The Afghanis have been holding off foreigners from their hills since the beginning of recorded history.

Really? Only 3% of Americans fought against the British, then the world's most powerful military, and won. 

It's estimated that 32% of Americans own at least one gun. That's a little over 102 million people. If 3% decided they would not submit and fight you have over 3 million armed individuals. That's 3 times the size of ALL of the US military right now. Consider that many of these people that own weapons are trained. They are ex military, LE, or hunters. Combat veterans. 

Plus who would they be fighting? Military, Law enforcement? How many of those guys would willingly fire on fellow Americans? Especially when many of them would agree on the same issues. 

Look at what we had to do in Iraq to pacify it. Then contrast our population and size of America with Iraq. Add in the fact that the insurgents would know your tactics and capabilities. And would have the support of a sizable amount of the population. 

I don't want this to happen. All I'm saying is this is a unique situation and quite frankly I think you are underestimating how many armed citizens would resist. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Really? Only 3% of Americans fought against the British, then the world's most powerful military, and won. 

It's estimated that 32% of Americans own at least one gun. That's a little over 102 million people. If 3% decided they would not submit and fight you have over 3 million armed individuals. That's 3 times the size of ALL of the US military right now. Consider that many of these people that own weapons are trained. They are ex military, LE, or hunters. Combat veterans. 

Plus who would they be fighting? Military, Law enforcement? How many of those guys would willingly fire on fellow Americans? Especially when many of them would agree on the same issues. 

Look at what we had to do in Iraq to pacify it. Then contrast our population and size of America with Iraq. Add in the fact that the insurgents would know your tactics and capabilities. And would have the support of a sizable amount of the population. 

I don't want this to happen. All I'm saying is this is a unique situation and quite frankly I think you are underestimating how many armed citizens would resist. 

 

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

giphy.gif

I don't know how anyone can take that guy seriously.  War certainly isn't the same as video gamers and weekend warriors think it is.

This is an oldie but a goodie - I'm sure you can appreciate it.

 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AndroidAggie said:

how did that give way to us being the dominant species?

Because it allowed a more diverse set of males to reproduce than if the females were not selective.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Again not arguing with your description just questioning if person X you describe above would go to treatment prior to committing such an act.  It would seem your description would be exactly the kind of person who wouldn’t go because it’s not their issue.  It’s everyone else’s fault.   

So if the access or ability to fire remains the same what have you accomplished?

They aren’t predestined to end up feeling that way. It’s a long dark road where intervention along the way could be well received. Now yeah, on the morning of the planned rampage it’s probably too late, but the point is to stop them from getting to that point.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

giphy.gif

 

32 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

I don't know how anyone can take that guy seriously.  War certainly isn't the same as video gamers and weekend warriors think it is.

 

I see my fan club has arrived.

I'm sure you two generals have a firm grasp on military history and asymmetrical warfare. LOL! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

Really? Only 3% of Americans fought against the British, then the world's most powerful military, and won. 

It's estimated that 32% of Americans own at least one gun. That's a little over 102 million people. If 3% decided they would not submit and fight you have over 3 million armed individuals. That's 3 times the size of ALL of the US military right now. Consider that many of these people that own weapons are trained. They are ex military, LE, or hunters. Combat veterans. 

Plus who would they be fighting? Military, Law enforcement? How many of those guys would willingly fire on fellow Americans? Especially when many of them would agree on the same issues. 

Look at what we had to do in Iraq to pacify it. Then contrast our population and size of America with Iraq. Add in the fact that the insurgents would know your tactics and capabilities. And would have the support of a sizable amount of the population. 

I don't want this to happen. All I'm saying is this is a unique situation and quite frankly I think you are underestimating how many armed citizens would resist. 

 

What would these armed citizens be fighting exactly? A government push to disarm mentally disturbed 19-year olds?

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Yeah which school of libertarian thought do you belong to?   Because making the means readily available to forcibly deny others life and property is hardly libertarian.  It is the primary reason the US is ranked 17th in freest countries in the world by the Cato Institute.   You know them, thinking not reflexive libertarians.

https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

Not to mention the current abilities of the untrained populace to fight against fully automatic weapons with hunting rifles and semi-automatic weapons is zero.   That reason is why I support state funded and trained militias that are adequately armed by voluntary non paid and beyond the reach the federal government.  They would have sufficient arms but would also be tasked with monitoring the mental health of their members. 

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2016/08/01/why-we-need-independent-militias/

 

 

18 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

What would these armed citizens be fighting exactly? A government push to disarm mentally disturbed 19-year olds?

The quote bolded above is what I was responding to. Sactowndog is saying that citizens couldn't fight a standing army. History tells us otherwise. From the Japanese in WW2 to the Soviets they all knew that no nation could occupy America due to private gun ownership. I think his premise is very flawed and I said why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...