"Millions of Armed Citizens can't take on American Armed Forces" Lie.[W:316:627:703]

Thrilla · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

KevinKohler said:
And please don't label me as some gun grabbing nut job. I support the 2nd. I just think that using the argument that we need it to defend ourselves from our government is asinine.

I think this thread is more about combating the idea that the US military is invincible in the face of an armed citizenry...because, realistically, at the point where such a conflict to arise, the Constitution, all applicable rights and privileges ... are out the window.

while I find the odds of open conflict with our govt to be extremely long and incredibly unlikely ( it's also not preferable), it's not like it's a fantasy someone has concocted out of thin air.... that **** happens around the world all the time.

I find no harm in discussing a hypothetical, nor do i believe it's stupid to discuss it... hell, I know for fact that it's a running dialogue within military academia.
I've been involved in such dialogues during my time at NWC/AFSC ( now JFSC).
even today, academics at the NWC and AWC publish doctrinal pieces which outlines the US military's operating concepts for domestic insurrection.

it only goes stupid when people interject partisan politics into the mix... which invariably happens when stupid people find themselves in front of a keyboard with time on their hands.

AmericanSpartan · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

AJiveMan said:
Bull****.

You really have bad taste. Just bad. Not to mention a clouded view of people.

Really, no reply from my postings?

Jerry · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

haymarket said:
I realize that basic wish is part of the rightwing delusional fantasy.

I let the right wing speak for themwselves.

KevinKohler · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

AmericanSpartan said:
They did not have a mass of people helping them, doing to having a media that flat out lied to the American people.

Would more guns have changed that?

KevinKohler · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

AmericanSpartan said:
Go to a free state, buy a few, keep them at home....

Or move a free state, cheaper cost of living, lower taxes, more freedoms...

Once the kids are out of school (in 18 YEARS, lol), I will be doing EXACTLY that. Minus the guns, unless I own enough land down south someplace to shoot on my own property. Used to be able to do that, anyway. Not sure if things have changed.

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

haymarket said:
I treat my garbage the same way. I also flush the crap away and let others treat that too.

Difference is, your garbage isn't a threat to put a bullet in your head. Hence the reason you would be happy to send other peoples sons to do your dirty work.

again, you were the only one advocating murder. You are worse than the image you paint of your enemy.

KevinKohler · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

Thrilla said:
I think this thread is more about combating the idea that the US military is invincible in the face of an armed citizenry...because, realistically, at the point where such a conflict to arise, the Constitution, all applicable rights and privileges ... are out the window.

while I find the odds of open conflict with our govt to be extremely long and incredibly unlikely ( it's also not preferable), it's not like it's a fantasy someone has concocted out of thin air.... that **** happens around the world all the time.

I find no harm in discussing a hypothetical, nor do i believe it's stupid to discuss it... hell, I know for fact that it's a running dialogue within military academia.
I've been involved in such dialogues during my time at NWC/AFSC ( now JFSC).
even today, academics at the NWC and AWC publish doctrinal pieces which outlines the US military's operating concepts for domestic insurrection.

it only goes stupid when people interject partisan politics into the mix... which invariably happens when stupid people find themselves in front of a keyboard with time on their hands.

Thing is, I feel like our government has much more potent weapons to use against us, than the military. Bullets, and the personnel to fire them, cost money...lots of money. Freezing assets electronically requires very little money. Shutting down ports costs very little money. For the government, at least.

Thrilla · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

KevinKohler said:
Thing is, I feel like our government has much more potent weapons to use against us, than the military. Bullets, and the personnel to fire them, cost money...lots of money. Freezing assets electronically requires very little money. Shutting down ports costs very little money. For the government, at least.

they do have much more potent weapons... however, consider that the govt not only has to actively combat such an insurrection, but also maintains it's legitimacy.
as they deploy more potent weaponry (anything from resource denials, to financial confiscations , to advanced weaponry) the insurrectionists position becomes more and more valid ( provided the conflict arises due to tyranny or government overreach) and justified... the government overstepping it's reaction can lead to a PR fiasco and a widening insurrection.

the insurrectionists have the advantage in this regard... the also have the advantage by not being tied to an operational doctrine.
generally speaking, the insurrectionists need only to combat govt authority( not necessarily personnel), and maintain a minimal amount of public support.... both efforts are aided by a martial reaction/overreaction from the govt.

again, it all depends on the nature of the conflict, and popular sentiment...but it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the US military can defeated, domestically, with a minimal amount of expenditures ( which would need leadership that understands advanced insurgency tactics, force multipliers, and strategic targeting, at the very least)
for a quick example.... a single man, with a single rifle, with a single bullet, can cause an entire tank battalion to be rendered combat ineffective for a prolonged duration ..or an entire aircraft squadron.
provided he has the proper Intel on the composition of the local fuel farm
in much the same way snipers in ww2 would render enemy tanks combat ineffective ( by targeting tank commanders), a domestic insurgent can strategically target infrastructure, command and control ,or resupply.. and render larger units "dead", at least on a temporary basis.

beefheart · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

AmericanSpartan said:
Us in Vietnam.

Soviets in Afghanistan(they use mines, chemical weapons, carpet bombing of villeges, murdering children, ect)

Us in Afghanistan.

Us in Iraq.

The recent up rising in the Middle East (regardless of what ****ed up thing they support)

How can you really think the following?

Guerrilla warfare does not win.

That some how having better weapons and tech will always win the day.

That the American military would betray the Constitution, Oath of Service, their nation, their family, their friends, their existence.

That the American military will obey an order of mass murder and use Nuclear weapons on the American people.

KevinKohler · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

Thrilla said:
they do have much more potent weapons... however, consider that the govt not only has to actively combat such an insurrection, but also maintains it's legitimacy.
as they deploy more potent weaponry (anything from resource denials, to financial confiscations , to advanced weaponry) the insurrectionists position becomes more and more valid ( provided the conflict arises due to tyranny or government overreach) and justified... the government overstepping it's reaction can lead to a PR fiasco and a widening insurrection.

the insurrectionists have the advantage in this regard... the also have the advantage by not being tied to an operational doctrine.
generally speaking, the insurrectionists need only to combat govt authority( not necessarily personnel), and maintain a minimal amount of public support.... both efforts are aided by a martial reaction/overreaction from the govt.

again, it all depends on the nature of the conflict, and popular sentiment...but it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the US military can defeated, domestically, with a minimal amount of expenditures ( which would need leadership that understands advanced insurgency tactics, force multipliers, and strategic targeting, at the very least)
for a quick example.... a single man, with a single rifle, with a single bullet, can cause an entire tank battalion to be rendered combat ineffective for a prolonged duration ..or an entire aircraft squadron.
provided he has the proper Intel on the composition of the local fuel farm
in much the same way snipers in ww2 would render enemy tanks combat ineffective ( by targeting tank commanders), a domestic insurgent can strategically target infrastructure, command and control ,or resupply.. and render larger units "dead", at least on a temporary basis.

I think of open combat in the same way I think of the UFC, and auto racing. It's just something that a lot of civilian guys like to think aboout, and like to think they'd be good at, for some reason.

But without proper training, all of these things a hard, and no one is just "naturally" good at them.

This is in response to your last paragraph. You're assuming a surprising amount of communication, knowledge, and training. One MIGHT start to think that the key players in such a thing were either all active military, or RECENTLY former military.

At which point, it's not really civilians vs military...is it? And at which point I would have to ask...why would active and recently former military side AGAINST their former fellow employees?

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

Manc Skipper said:
JimJefferies may be a crass chauvinist sexist boor, but he nailed this one. (Bad language!)

because you like what he says

he's an entertainer-and he oozes excrement

of course gun haters cannot find real experts supporting their nonsense

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

lizzie said:
At last, you show your true colors, and it is exactly what I expected.

that's OK, I suspect if this crap actually happened, the radical right would be looking for Haymarket:mrgreen:

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

Manc Skipper said:
Bundy bandidos.

yeah that fits most pro gun patriots as much as garment soiling cowards fits anti gun foreigners who like to whine about US freedom

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

Jerry said:
A conflict wouldn't be civilians vs military as you assume. The military itself would split, as would civilians.

the most skilled with arms-from the army and the civilians would tend to be on the proper side.

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

ReverendHellh0und said:
Of course you would leave your desires and dirty work to others to do your heavy lifting.

which is why many patriots will specifically target the gun hating cheering section if it comes to this

sort of like strafing planes on a runway-you get your count up on soft targets

Thrilla · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

KevinKohler said:
I think of open combat in the same way I think of the UFC, and auto racing. It's just something that a lot of civilian guys like to think aboout, and like to think they'd be good at, for some reason.

But without proper training, all of these things a hard, and no one is just "naturally" good at them.

This is in response to your last paragraph. You're assuming a surprising amount of communication, knowledge, and training. One MIGHT start to think that the key players in such a thing were either all active military, or RECENTLY former military.

At which point, it's not really civilians vs military...is it? And at which point I would have to ask...why would active and recently former military side AGAINST their former fellow employees?

well, it's not a requirement to have prior military experience, but it sure does help..... a firm educational foundation on military topics is all that's really required.
the average "foot soldier" in an insurrection need not understand advanced topics...like anyone else, he has a job to do, and he should do it.
personally, i'd rather have be around a bunch of "average joes" instead of a bunch of professional warriors...but that's just a personal preference grounded in my desire to not be pegged as an insurgent.:lol:

instead of saying "civilian versus military" i choose " insurrectionist versus military".... not all civilians would be insurrectionists, but all insurrectionists would be civilians by definition..
I have extensive military training and background.. but i'm just a lowly civilian now... an old combat vet.
I would be of literally no use to the US govt in such a conflict.. but i would be of great use to the insurgents.... depending on the "cause" of the insurrection, i could either sit home or join in with the rebels..... and there are tens of millions of us old timers out there, not to mention the younger crops of hardened warrior vets.
as it is with any organized effort, a wide variety of skill sets are utilized... insurgencies need shooters.. they also need folks who know about communications... and PR.. and logistics... etc.

as for why would prior service vets be part of it?... that entirely depends on the reasons behind the conflict.
most vets are fiercely loyal to our basic founding principles... so a conflict based upon a govt violating those principles in some extreme fashion would probably bring out a lot of vets.
again, i don't have a specific conflict model in mind... so the "why's" are pretty tough to answer.

lizzie · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

TurtleDude said:
that's OK, I suspect if this crap actually happened, the radical right would be looking for Haymarket:mrgreen:

You're probably right, but I have no use for someone who would even consider a "blood bath" a good thing, and especially when the implication is that gun owners WANT a bloody revolution. That is bull****, and it's intellectually dishonest. I have never ONCE seen a gun rights supporter on this forum suggest that we should be aggressive. Only defensive, and I support defense completely. To try and accuse us of desiring death and destruction is a blatant lie, of the lowest order.

Thrilla · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

lizzie said:
You're probably right, but I have no use for someone who would even consider a "blood bath" a good thing, and especially when the implication is that gun owners WANT a bloody revolution. That is bull****, and it's intellectually dishonest. I have never ONCE seen a gun rights supporter on this forum suggest that we should be aggressive. Only defensive, and I support defense completely. To try and accuse us of desiring death and destruction is a blatant lie, of the lowest order.

Amen.

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

haymarket said:
I thought survival was the first rule of all living organisms?

it is-that's why the founders wanted to guarantee Free Americans had arms

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

haymarket said:
The Cincinnati revolt and hard turn to the right is no secret and has been well documented.

its only because by then most of us members (yeah I was a member at 18 then) saw that the scum in the Democrat Party was hard core gun banners and it was time for the NRA to take the gloves off

AmericanSpartan · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

TurtleDude said:
it is-that's why the founders wanted to guarantee Free Americans had arms

Who could oppress this and still say they support the 2nd Amendment?

AmericanSpartan · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

TurtleDude said:
its only because by then most of us members (yeah I was a member at 18 then) saw that the scum in the Democrat Party was hard core gun banners and it was time for the NRA to take the gloves off

And off they have come, They could have found the Hughes Amendment.....And push harder and harder to fight legal cases, and maybe stop asking for money every week, But they have starting to become more pro liberty then they have..

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

AJiveMan said:
Now, YOU name the party that is not, from one of your other irrelevant posts.

Please name the party most likely to support gun rights. I'll give you some time to answer.

every federal intrusion on the 2A was authored by and sponsored by the Democrat party and every such law was signed into law-save one poison pill-by Democrat presidents

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

AJiveMan said:
Let me help you with some RW :spin:

Liburuls, democrats and lefties are anti second amendment people, I hope this clears things up a bit.

But in this forum, if your political lean is OTHER or UNDISCLOSED, you're a lefty in their eyes, especially when you disagree with them.

are you saying you aren't a lefty?

EVERY hard core gun hater on this board is a lefty

lots of lefties are pro gun but every gun hater is a leftist as far as this board goes

TurtleDude · Jan 10, 2015

Re: "Millions of Armed Citizens can not take on the American Armed Forces" Lie.

haymarket said:
it does lay out fact after fact after fact.

You could also read the relatively new book by Michael Waldman - SECOND AMENDMENT: A BIOGRAPHY and he has extensive material on it.

yeah a hit piece

waldman is a hard core Democrat disinformation specialist with no constitutional scholarship in his resume

he was a big supporter of the clinton gun ban and he decided to create 'evidence' supporting his party's desire to ban guns

he's seen as a joke by real constitutional scholars

"Millions of Armed Citizens can't take on American Armed Forces" Lie.[W:316:627:703]

Thrilla

AmericanSpartan

Jerry

KevinKohler

KevinKohler

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.

KevinKohler

Thrilla

beefheart

Why a duck?

KevinKohler

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Thrilla

lizzie

Thrilla

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

AmericanSpartan

AmericanSpartan

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

"Millions of Armed Citizens can't take on American Armed Forces" Lie.[W:316:627:703]

I don't respect you.

Why a duck?

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

warrior of the wetlands

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency