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

21 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

 

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. 

They knew there was no point trying to invade America because there were big oceans in the way. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

You glossed over the part where I also listed schools and social systems. 

School maybe if they are in school but many of these shooters are not in school nor are teachers trained to spot those kinds of issues.    I applaud the sentiment but from what I know about drug addiction counseling which is related I’m skeptical of the impact as a preventive measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

The Cato Institute is a libertarian organization you dim bulb. They, as well as myself, are at the forefront of complaining about the United States being too authoritarian as it is in its current state. Did it ever occur to you the US is ranked lower than other Western countries because of shit like denial of due process, domestic surveillance spying, etc? Forcibly denying others life and property? Yeah, that would be you and your ilk like Comrade fan. You're the types proposing to break down my door, shoot up my household, and confiscate my property.

And you're really going to double down on this compulsory military bullshit? Jesus Christ, how much more totalitarian can a person get? 

Do you even read before you spew opinions?   

The Cato link specifically downgrades the US to 17th largely due to your chances of being the victim of violent crime.   

As for compulsory, that is flat out an incorrect representation of what I said.   I specifically said all volunteer and un-paid.   

Good lord did you even pass the reading comp part of your SAT’s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, toonkee said:

 

Geez.  That supports a lot of what all those reports from people say about Dear Cheeto. 

I wonder if he even really cares?  Or if he's going through the motions until it's McDonald's time.

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jackmormon said:

Is constantly insulting a person a person you are having a discussion with, part of Libertarian philosophy?

Since apparently has no reading comprehension skills I don’t worry about the insults but instead patiently explain it to him 5-10 times since that seems to be what it takes for him to get something.   

But his constant insults does fit right in with his “non-aggressive” life philosophy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

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

 

Simple the Afghans has fully automatic weapons supplied first by us and later a fair number of AK-47’s.  Do you really think the Taliban are fighting with semi-automatic rifles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

The Battle of Midway had a little to do with it too. 

Sure it did. But even if the Japanese had won the battle, there's a huge difference between control of the west-central Pacific and staging an invasion of North America. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

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.

Again what is the catalyst to make them want change?  

One of the fundamental precepts of counseling is they have to accept they have a problem and desire change.    It’s one of the key reasons drug addiction counselors stage family interventions but even then many aren’t successful.   For someone so convinced it’s everyone else’s fault they would shoot them, it seems like a high hill to climb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 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. 

 

The arms at the time of the American revolution were relatively equivalent.   Now we would be vastly out gunned.   It’s why I posited the “volunteer” “unpaid” state funded militia ( quotes for reading compromised BSU25) that would even out the fire power with automatic weapons and drones.   

I agree it is a sizable amount many of whom are like BSU25 convinced of their rights, ensconced in their echo chamber, glued to Fox News, and showing limited reading comprehension.  I fully expect change will take an equally (I forget how thelawful put it) committed counterforce with likely bloodshed.   I may be wrong but BSU25 has done nothing to demonstrate a compromise is possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The arms at the time of the American revolution were relatively equivalent.   Now we would be vastly out gunned.   It’s why I posited the “volunteer” “unpaid” state funded militia ( quotes for reading compromised BSU25) that would even out the fire power with automatic weapons and drones.   

I agree it is a sizable amount many of whom are like BSU25 convinced of their rights, ensconced in their echo chamber, glued to Fox News, and showing limited reading comprehension.  I fully expect change will take an equally (I forget how thelawful put it) committed counterforce with likely bloodshed.   I may be wrong but BSU25 has done nothing to demonstrate a compromise is possible. 

We already have state militias, it is called the National Guard. 

56 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Simple the Afghans has fully automatic weapons supplied first by us and later a fair number of AK-47’s.  Do you really think the Taliban are fighting with semi-automatic rifles?

In combat it is rare to use fully automatic fire with rifles. It burns ammo too fast. You are taught to conserve ammo. Even the use of actual belt fed machine guns are short bursts for many reasons. And yes the Muj did use many semi-auto and even old Lee Enfield bolt action rifles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Right where we had superior fire power.   Fire power matters, terrain matters.   Most would be outgunned with weapons systems in flat terrain.     

Actually we broke their codes. Where we were able to lure them into an ambush. We had less carriers, and less firepower than the Japanese in that battle as well. 

If you understood asymetrical warfare you wouldn't fight in open terrain if you can avoid it. You don't fight set piece battle. You use small unit tactics and ambush the enemy where they are weak. You disrupt supply lines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Sure it did. But even if the Japanese had won the battle, there's a huge difference between control of the west-central Pacific and staging an invasion of North America. 

I don't dispute that. All I'm saying is that any adversary would not want to invade a country that has private gun ownership in the quantity we have. It isn't possible to occupy as large a land mass as we have and pacify it. I think we both agree on this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rebelbacker said:

I don't dispute that. All I'm saying is that any adversary would not want to invade a country that has private gun ownership in the quantity we have. It isn't possible to occupy as large a land mass as we have and pacify it. I think we both agree on this. 

Wouldn’t it be the same for any country of this size? Russia for example. Even Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...