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

4 minutes ago, jackmormon said:

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

The Germans occupied Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ukraine at one point. The Japanese occupied half the Pacific Ocean and large portions of Asia. 

Of course militaries aren’t the same size today. But we haven’t fully mobilized since WW2. Occupation is much harder when you have a large armed populace. No other nation can mobilize as many people that possess firearms and know how to use them than the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rebelbacker said:

The Germans occupied Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ukraine at one point. The Japanese occupied half the Pacific Ocean and large portions of Asia. 

Of course militaries aren’t the same size today. But we haven’t fully mobilized since WW2. Occupation is much harder when you have a large armed populace. No other nation can mobilize as many people that possess firearms and know how to use them than the US. 

So Russia and Canada should be no problem then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

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. 

Again, they don’t start with the presupposition that their failures are the world’s fault. That’s where they end up, but not necessarily where they begin. 

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

1 hour 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. 

I don’t believe US civilian gun ownership in 1941 factored into Axis thinking at all. They had no ability to cross the oceans. The Germans couldn’t even make it across the English Channel. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I don’t believe US civilian gun ownership in 1941 factored into Axis thinking at all. They had no ability to cross the oceans. The Germans couldn’t even make it across the English Channel. 

I’m speaking in general about the armed American populace. 

 Admiral Yamamoto was said to have said “Invading America will never happen because behind every blade of grass would be an American with a rifle.” Some people question if he actually said that but the sentiment is still true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I’m speaking in general about the armed American populace. 

 Admiral Yamamoto was said to have said “Invading America will never happen because behind every blade of grass would be an American with a rifle.” Some people question if he actually said that but the sentiment is still true. 

Come on man. That quote, although popular with gun rights wingnuts, has been shown to be completely bogus as I expect you know. Yamamoto was opposed to attacking the US period because he knew that ultimately American industrial might would prevail.

I have read quite a bit of WWII history. I’ve never read anything to suggest invasion of the American was seriously contemplated by the Axis, and I certainly don’t believe US gun ownership had anything to do with it. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rebelbacker said:

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

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. 

The National Guard is basically under the control of the Federal Government making them for all purposes an extension of the Federal Armed Forces.   What The 10th amendment proposes (and I support) is all Volunteer and non paid.   It keeps them out of the reach of the federal government while also having a trained and equipped force.   It serves the same purpose of private owned arms (but with fully automatic weapons) while also providing a means to monitor the mental state of members.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Again, they don’t start with the presupposition that their failures are the world’s fault. That’s where they end up, but not necessarily where they begin. 

So my mom has consulted globally on drug treatment programs and her speciality is behavioral interviewing and how to get the person to buy in.   I know how hard it is with drug addiction.   I’m not sure what you describe is much easier.   I think mental health would be huge because it gives people contemplating suicide a path and the the idea of suicide is the bottom.  But striking out in anger is not an clear path to acceptance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Come on man. That quote, although popular with gun rights wingnuts, has been shown to be completely bogus as I expect you know. Yamamoto was opposed to attacking the US period because he knew that ultimately American industrial might would prevail.

I have read quite a bit of WWII history. I’ve never read anything to suggest invasion of the American was seriously contemplated by the Axis, and I certainly don’t believe US gun ownership had anything to do with it. 

I said it was questioned if he said it. I just used the quote because I think it makes a good point.

I never said the Axis was considering invading the US. My point was it would be too difficult for any occupying army to do because we have private gun ownership. You brought up the point about oceans being the issue and I said that didn't stop us in WW2. That's how it got started if you remember. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

The National Guard is basically under the control of the Federal Government making them for all purposes an extension of the Federal Armed Forces.   What The 10th amendment proposes (and I support) is all Volunteer and non paid.   It keeps them out of the reach of the federal government while also having a trained and equipped force.   It serves the same purpose of private owned arms (but with fully automatic weapons) while also providing a means to monitor the mental state of members.  

The national guard is under the control of the states governor. They can be federalized if needed. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

The national guard is under the control of the states governor. They can be federalized if needed. 

 

They can be federalize at will.  States have no means of stopping the federal government from taking control of the guard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I said it was questioned if he said it. I just used the quote because I think it makes a good point.

I never said the Axis was considering invading the US. My point was it would be too difficult for any occupying army to do because we have private gun ownership. You brought up the point about oceans being the issue and I said that didn't stop us in WW2. That's how it got started if you remember. 

It’s not “questioned” if he said it. It’s well-established that it’s a bogus quote circulated by gun nuts. We crossed the oceans because we had unmatched industrial capacity. Those same oceans prevented anyone from invading us. Domestic guns were irrelevant. 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

It’s not “questioned” if he said it. It’s well-established that it’s a bogus quote circulated by gun nuts. We crossed the oceans because we had unmatched industrial capacity. Those same oceans prevented anyone from invading us. Domestic guns were irrelevant. 

We also crossed the ocean because we hand a place to dump our supplies for years in Russia and England.  Before we attempted to cross the channel which Eisenhower thought had a good chance of failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Old_SD_Dude said:

It’s not “questioned” if he said it. It’s well-established that it’s a bogus quote circulated by gun nuts. We crossed the oceans because we had unmatched industrial capacity. Those same oceans prevented anyone from invading us. Domestic guns were irrelevant. 

Why are you harping on this? I'm not disputing this regarding WW2. My point( for the 4th time) is that no occupying army could succeed in America because of private gun ownership. Dispute that if you want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Why are you harping on this? I'm not disputing this regarding WW2. My point( for the 4th time) is that no occupying army could succeed in America because of private gun ownership. Dispute that if you want. 

lol. You accusing someone of harping. Kiss your gun night night. See ya.

 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Why are you harping on this? I'm not disputing this regarding WW2. My point( for the 4th time) is that no occupying army could succeed in America because of private gun ownership. Dispute that if you want. 

Domestic gun ownership or impossibly long supply lines?   Some territory would be hard to conquer.  Others like Kansas would be a piece of cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Why are you harping on this? I'm not disputing this regarding WW2. My point( for the 4th time) is that no occupying army could succeed in America because of private gun ownership. Dispute that if you want. 

Considering how difficult the U.S. and Russian armies had occupying 3rd world shitholes like Vietnam and Afghanistan among others.

I think it would be extremely difficult to occupy the United States especially considering the population of even the least educated in the country exceeds by far the populations of Vietnam and Afghanistan.   The problems an occupying army would have in this country where every 3rd person has a chemistry background good enough to create huge bombs and other technical devices,  Where every doctor and half the biology grads could easily create Ricin or Anthrax.   Where the electrical engineering crowd could do I don't no how much damage.   The guns might be the smallest problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Considering how difficult the U.S. and Russian armies had occupying 3rd world shitholes like Vietnam and Afghanistan among others.

I think it would be extremely difficult to occupy the United States especially considering the population of even the least educated in the country exceeds by far the populations of Vietnam and Afghanistan.   The problems an occupying army would have in this country where every 3rd person has a chemistry background good enough to create huge bombs and other technical devices, the guns might be the smallest problem.

Might depend how ruthless the occupying army was.   But the point of the 2nd amendment isn’t really foreign occupying armies but a tyrannical central government.  

So the question is what is the counter force to our own government with its own internal sympathizers.  The ability of some foreign power with transoceanic supply lines is irrelevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Domestic gun ownership or impossibly long supply lines?   Some territory would be hard to conquer.  Others like Kansas would be a piece of cake.

Both. Everything plays a part in an insurgency. 

Conquering an area like Kansas is one thing. Holding it is another. The problem for invaders in asymetric warfare is there is no army to face. They blend back into the population. If reprisals are made the population turns even more. 

One reason why Iraq pacification worked in some areas like Ramadi is because the population saw the Americans as liberators. You wouldn't see that in America if a foreign army invaded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...