America - The Official Thread

[TexRex]

ISIS has survived a good while with simple weapons...

And it would be much easier to rid the world of them if one assumed everyone in a country they occupy is a member, but that assumption is inaccurate and acting as such would be inappropriate.

 

[McLaren]

good for you, and currently, the law allows you this freedom. I was simply stating my opinion on the matter.

It might, it might not. I would hope it wouldnt. But that really just further backs up the point that we dont need guns to keep a tyrannical gov at bay.

Lol, as much as some of y’all detest Trump, I find it funny you wouldn’t even entertain the thought of wanting some kind of fighting chance with a gun rather than believing we might as well give in to him/the govt.

Armed citizens stand more of a chance than one might think. As said, they’d already have the support of several hundred military members going AWOL to side with them to protect them. One can assume other nations will step in as well; a tyrannical US govt that attacks it’s own citizens is 1 bomb away from going after someone else.

In other words, the scenario YOU brought up as an argument is irrelevant; it’s not happening.

 

[Scaff]

Is it really? ISIS has survived a good while with simple weapons...

ISIS has neither survived very well at all, nor just had access to simple weapons, well unless you count tanks, field artillery, AA guns, etc as simple weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_equipment_of_ISIL

One can assume other nations will step in as well; a tyrannical US govt that attacks it’s own citizens is 1 bomb away from going after someone else.

That's worked out well every time its occuered in the last few decades.

 

[Imari]

Militia=Army in 1776.

Sort of. It was the people that would mobilise to defend the country in times of war. But in terms of how it was organised it was more like the Reserves than what people think of as a modern military, a professional force that makes soldiering their full time job with specialist equipment and training.

I think that there's more than enough difference between a militia 200 years ago and a modern military to review whether the same need for an armed populace to defend the country is truly necessary or desirable.

The argument about the military is pointless as well; the govt is not going to use tanks and jets on its own citizens in this country. I’d wager they’d lose a huge chunk of military personnel as soon as they even tried to execute such a drastic action against US citizens.

Seems like a silly thing to wager one's life on a belief that the military wouldn't act against it's own citizens. That's basically what the argument for have guns as a defence against government oppression is based on. Any cursory study of world politics will show dozens of countries that use force to oppress their citizens, and the US is not exempt from becoming one of those. Hell, the US is one of those. Remember the Civil War? That little thing where US military fought against other US citizens?

If the government decides to use military might internally, the military will likely do what it deems right for the good of the country. Which you would like to think includes not firing missiles at you, but I wouldn't put money on it.

What do you think will keep them at bay? Good intentions? Faith? Thoughts and prayers?

There are no legal weapons that you could legally own that could seriously threaten the military moving in force. You'd be annoying at best.

The citizenry has always relied on the fact that the government doesn't want to harm them. Sometimes this goes awry, as in WW2. But generally, the government by definition has the monopoly on force within a country, and so if they want you dead you die. The only question is how much collateral damage is incurred.

Is it really? ISIS has survived a good while with simple weapons...

You should read up more on ISIS, the weapons available to them and the forces actually deployed against them. They were not a bunch of hicks armed with 22s and bolt action rifles.

Lol, as much as some of y’all detest Trump, I find it funny you wouldn’t even entertain the thought of wanting some kind of fighting chance with a gun rather than believing we might as well give in to him/the govt.

I happen to think that if you happen to find yourself against an armed military, firearms is one of the worst weapons you could select. You're in a minority, and you're pretty much always going to be outgunned in a straight fight. You would have to adopt guerilla tactics in order to stand a chance, at which point explosives and sabotage are far more effective. But that doesn't conform to the "big strong American who don't back down from nothin'" archetype.

One can assume other nations will step in as well; a tyrannical US govt that attacks it’s own citizens is 1 bomb away from going after someone else.

Mmhmm. Remind me how interested the US was in getting involved in the European theatre in WW2? Even though a victorious Germany would have posed a significant threat to the US and it's allies (what would have been left of them).

That's right, countries aren't keen on getting into shooting wars unless there's an imminent threat. Not a potential threat, every country is a potential threat. Hell, even during the Cold War when Russia was an very imminent threat neither side started firing simply because they didn't want to get involved.

Note that the Syrian war is still ongoing, with limited outside involvement from non-threatened countries like the US. The US would have to be performing large scale genocide before you'll get anything other than condemnations out of NATO and the UN, and even then I think it would take a lot for something like NATO to turn on the US and attack.

I think you greatly overestimate your own value in a political arena. The government holds control of the military, and that counts for a lot. Simply killing civilians does not mean the rest of the world is going to charge in to save you. That's just Hollywood.

 

[Scaff]

Lol, as much as some of y’all detest Trump, I find it funny you wouldn’t even entertain the thought of wanting some kind of fighting chance with a gun rather than believing we might as well give in to him/the govt.

It has nothing to do with Trump, however the use of small arms alone against a truly tyrannical government is an illusion of defense, as....

Armed citizens stand more of a chance than one might think. As said, they’d already have the support of several hundred military members going AWOL to side with them to protect them

....without the intervention of competently trained people with access to much more powerful weaponry then armed civilians are outmatched.

 

[Rage Racer]

AAAhhh-hahahahaha

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...like-north-korea-did-it-us-officials-say.html

Is there anything left in the world that Russia hasn't hacked yet?

 

[ryzno]

ISIS has neither survived very well at all, nor just had access to simple weapons, well unless you count tanks, field artillery, AA guns, etc as simple weapons.

There are Americans that privately own the above...

They were not a bunch of hicks armed with 22s and bolt action rifles.

Nope, a bunch of hicks with AKs and RPGs and IEDs...

As usual y'all missed my point...

 

[TexRex]

As usual y'all missed my point...

Then do a better job of conveying it, because you're the only constant in situations where people don't get what you're trying to say.

 

[TetsuKobura]

AAAhhh-hahahahaha

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...like-north-korea-did-it-us-officials-say.html

Is there anything left in the world that Russia hasn't hacked yet?

If I had a dollar for every time a news outlet/paper has blamed a situation on Russia, I would have enough to buy an Aston Martin One-77.

 

[ryzno]

Then do a better job of conveying it, because you're the only constant in situations where people don't get what you're trying to say.

What I say makes sense to me and I don't like typing an essay on a phone to get my point across.
People should read outside the box a little.

My point was a group of people have caused a lot of problems for a number of governments.
Not how long they lasted...

Even though we might not win we'd give the American government a run for their money.

 

[TexRex]

My point was a group of people have caused a lot of problems for a number of governments.

Still not an appropriate comparison.

Should the US government want to "occupy" the United States, every single one of its occupants would need to be dealt with. No ambiguity there.

In order to eliminate ISIS, individuals must first be determined to be a part of the group. Now, it seems to me they don't all wear "ISIS" caps and jerseys, so anyone not--including an overwhelming majority who "look like" the sort of individual who would be a part of the group--wouldn't be easily identified as a member. Because of rules of engagement and simple ethics, various countries' military personnel can't simply gun down people because they "look like" they could be in ISIS.

I won't bother pointing out your ability to render your point down from an "essay" to a single sentence, so this is me not pointing that out.

 

[ryzno]

Still not an appropriate comparison.

Should the US government want to "occupy" the United States, every single one of its occupants would need to be dealt with. No ambiguity there.

In order to eliminate ISIS, individuals must first be determined to be a part of the group. Now, it seems to me they don't all wear "ISIS" caps and jerseys, so anyone not--including an overwhelming majority who "look like" the sort of individual who would be a part of the group--wouldn't be easily identified as a member. Because of rules of engagement and simple ethics, various countries' military personnel can't simply gun down people because they "look like" they could be in ISIS.

I won't bother pointing out your ability to render your point down from an "essay" to a single sentence, so this is me not pointing that out.

I have no idea what your point is about hats...
Stop trying to read into other things and get my point.
People and KIDS caused a lot damage.
Enough to disrupt an entire region.

 

[Scaff]

There are Americans that privately own the above...

Not even close to the same quantity within a single, battle tested force with the ability and resources to use them en masse operationally.

Even with that difference they still lost, because it's still not even in the same ball park.

In Syria for example, the US military managed to kill more Russians in a single day (from a PMC) when they targeted pro-Assad forces than ISIS have managed in the entire time Russia has had troops in country.

As usual y'all missed my point...

No, I just don't agree with you.

Many reasons exist to argue for gun ownership, however being an effective defence from a tyrannical own government simply isn't one any longer.

The US military budget is the largest on the planet, as large as the next twelve budgets combined. They have equipment, numbers and resources that if brought to bear, private militia and armed civilians will never match. Particularly if a tyrannical government then gives little care about collateral damage.

My point was a group of people have caused a lot of problems for a number of governments.
Not how long they lasted...

Then it's not an effective defence against a tyrannical government.

Even though we might not win

That's my point.

we'd give the American government a run for their money.

No you wouldn't. Not without either a large enough part of the military being onside from day one, or outside military assistance. These both then render the private citizens with guns argument moot.

 

[Imari]

Nope, a bunch of hicks with AKs and RPGs and IEDs...

As usual y'all missed my point...

Like I said, look up what ISIS actually fields. You don't think even an impromptu army runs with just AKs and RPGs, right? That would be insane given the other arms readily available in the middle east. Look at what Al Qaeda has had access to since the 80's. They also have stores of weapons and supplies that I doubt any significant number of US citizens are sitting on, because that would be both dangerous and wasteful unless you expect to get into a full scale guerilla war in the next five years.

The RPG thing is also intentional, I might add. They had access to IR guided missiles because those are fairly ubiquitous in the area. But it's older tech, and modern countermeasures are fairly effective, at least on rotorcraft. But you can't use countermeasures against a volley of unguided missiles. And so given what they had fielding RPGs was often actually a better choice than fielding Stingers, which they have as well.

Don't assume that simply because someone chooses to field older tech that's all they have. Sometimes old tech is a good response to more modern systems. It's why I get irritated when people dismiss the North Korean military for fielding old tech. A lot of it is still very effective when used correctly.

What I say makes sense to me and I don't like typing an essay on a phone to get my point across.
People should read outside the box a little.

No. We're not mindreaders. Don't expect us to be. If you want to be succinct then that's fine, but you still need to adequately explain your point rather than rely on us knowing your innermost thoughts.

My point was a group of people have caused a lot of problems for a number of governments.
Not how long they lasted...

There's a difference between "causing problems" and actually being a threat. Single shooters are arguably causing problems for the US government right now, what with school shootings and the like. They're not a threat to the US government or military.

Even though we might not win we'd give the American government a run for their money.

No, you wouldn't. That you even think that a citizenry of enthusiast shooters with non-military weapons could even have a go against a professionally trained force with military arms shows just how delusional you are.

If the citizenry could compete with an actual military, why have a professional military at all? Just call up the citizens. They used to call it a militia, and it worked fine back when the difference between civilian and military weapons was minimal or non-existent, and the level of training required was small. But today, the vast, vast number of citizens are not even in the same ball park as a trained soldier.

The citizenry does not have access to support or strategic information and planning. They don't have the benefit of enormous stockpiles of weapons. You would at best have to mobilise and create all the structures that the military already has in place, so as long as the military gave you six months to prepare you might, maybe be able to defend some small towns, as long as they didn't use any heavy tanks or artillery, air strikes, or missiles on you.

But you still don't have the industrial supplies behind you, because you don't have the capability to man, supply and defend military factories in the face of the strongest military in the world. So all they really have to do is wait a week for you to run out of ammo and then walk in and club you all into submission.

People and KIDS caused a lot damage.
Enough to disrupt an entire region.

OK, you need to learn some about the politics of the region as well.

ISIS did damage and destabilised things, but there were greater things already going on in the region even before them. ISIS largely took advantage of regions that were already unstable. They did not invade countries that were strong and united, with solid military defences to oppose them. Because despite what you see on the news, their leaders are not actually insane and do (or did) have a reasonable idea of what they were and weren't capable of with the military power at their disposal. Something that you don't seem to be able to accurately assess for a group of US civilians.

 

[Spurgy 777]

AAAhhh-hahahahaha

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...like-north-korea-did-it-us-officials-say.html

Is there anything left in the world that Russia hasn't hacked yet?

Well to be fair it wouldn’t be the first time Russia has cheated in the Olympics.

 

[Dotini]

My point was a group of people have caused a lot of problems for a number of governments.
Not how long they lasted...

Even though we might not win we'd give the American government a run for their money.

It's a sad day when we start talking about armed rebellion in our own country. Let's stop doing that. Timothy McVeigh was a bad example.

If we get sick and tired of our government, our system, we can cause plenty enough trouble by simply refusing to pay taxes, not shopping, not spending, not going to work, and instead do sabotage of roads, rails, networks and other vital infrastructure. Way before all that, the government would get the message and roll over. There are many patriots in government at all levels that would simply refuse to cooperate with a rogue executive and instead support the people. The national government is over 20 trillion dollars in debt. It will not survive without the support of the people. No doubt about that!

 

[Scaff]

It's a sad day when we start talking about armed rebellion in our own country. Let's stop doing that. Timothy McVeigh was a bad example.

Please don;t tell other members what they can and can't post on.

These discussions do not violate the AUP, as such they are free to continue regardless of how uncomfortable they may make you feel.

 

[Rallywagon]

It's a sad day when we start talking about armed rebellion in our own country. Let's stop doing that. Timothy McVeigh was a bad example.

If we get sick and tired of our government, our system, we can cause plenty enough trouble by simply refusing to pay taxes, not shopping, not spending, not going to work, and instead do sabotage of roads, rails, networks and other vital infrastructure. Way before all that, the government would get the message and roll over. There are many patriots in government at all levels that would simply refuse to cooperate with a rogue executive and instead support the people. The national government is over 20 trillion dollars in debt. It will not survive without the support of the people. No doubt about that!

Hyperbole much? We arent discussing armed rebellion, we are talking about the original intent of the seond amendment, the precedences set for it and how it applies to modern america as opposed to the founding of the constitution.

 

[Dotini]

Hyperbole much? We arent discussing armed rebellion, we are talking about the original intent of the seond amendment, the precedences set for it and how it applies to modern america as opposed to the founding of the constitution.

Precedences? Maybe you mean precedents?

 

[Rallywagon]

Precedences? Maybe you mean precedents?

Yep, thanks. Correcting me doesnt fix you though.

 

[Imari]

It's a sad day when we start talking about armed rebellion in our own country. Let's stop doing that. Timothy McVeigh was a bad example.

Yes. Let's not talk about things that make us uncomfortable. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

The truth is that in some respects the US isn't in a great state at the moment, and it's worth discussing.

Precedences? Maybe you mean precedents?

Perhaps when the only response you have is to pick on his spelling you don't really have a point to make.

 

[Dotini]

Yes. Let's not talk about things that make us uncomfortable. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

The truth is that in some respects the US isn't in a great state at the moment, and it's worth discussing.



Perhaps when the only response you have is to pick on his spelling you don't really have a point to make.

On the contrary, I do enjoy talking about things that make us uncomfortable (even our own national problems), and I am aware of precedents for the 2nd amendment. Do you have a preference?

 

[Rallywagon]

On the contrary, I do enjoy talking about things that make us uncomfortable (even our own national problems), and I am aware of precedents for the 2nd amendment. Do you have a preference?

But.... didnt you just try to shift the conversation?
And, my gods, have you not been keeping up with the conversation? If not, hey, fine, but, he has two of the longest posts on this very page that outline his "preference." You could go and read them perhaps.

 

[Imari]

On the contrary, I do enjoy talking about things that make us uncomfortable...

Oh. So why were you trying to shut this conversation down then? I took the "it's a sad day" comment as that it was a potential side of your country that you didn't like to see.

 

[TexRex]

Oh. So why were you trying to shut this conversation down then? I took the "it's a sad day" comment as that it was a potential side of your country that you didn't like to see.

No mention of aliens...

 

[Dotini]

Timothy McVeigh was a seriously violent actor. He had guns, but used a truck bomb to devastating effect. In an absorbing interview with Gore Vidal, he discussed the grievances he had with this country. The Unabomber also had grievances, discussed in his Manifesto, which I have read. As a result of their crimes, and because of what I saw at the '99 WTO (the Battle of Seattle), I studied our primitive anarchist movement, reading their books and traveling to Eugene for interviews. I believe our moment of anarchy and neo-Luddism has passed. Now we have another, lesser problem with youth shootings in schools. Like anarchism, it is likely due to alienation but compounded by antidepressants, and so fortunately not well organized. Yes, the US is an inherently violent society, born in revolution, steeped in genocide of natives, civil war, gangsterism, and first use of atomic bombs against cities. We have been constantly at war since WWII, interfering in other country's elections and toppling democracies in favor of complaisant dictators. It's a real mess! Fortunately, I survived it all, and I'm now personally rich and comfortable, though nearing the end of my own life. I have no trouble with honesty about reality.

 

[Rallywagon]

No mention of aliens...

Lol, i was gonna go there, but felt it best left.

Timothy McVeigh was a seriously violent actor. He had guns, but used a truck bomb to devastating effect. In an absorbing interview with Gore Vidal, he discussed the grievances he had with this country. The Unabomber also had grievances, discussed in his Manifesto, which I have read. As a result of their crimes, and because of what I saw at the '99 WTO (the Battle of Seattle), I studied our primitive anarchist movement, reading their books and traveling to Eugene for interviews. I believe our moment of anarchy and neo-Luddism has passed. Now we have another, lesser problem with youth shootings in schools. Like anarchism, it is likely due to alienation but compounded by antidepressants, and so fortunately not well organized. Yes, the US is an inherently violent society, born in revolution, steeped in genocide of natives, civil war, gangsterism, and first use of atomic bombs against cities. We have been constantly at war since WWII, interfering in other country's elections and toppling democracies in favor of complaisant dictators. It's a real mess! Fortunately, I survived it all, and I'm now personally rich and comfortable, though nearing the end of my own life. I have no trouble with honesty about reality.

None of this correlates to the discussion. But, it does lend something to extrapolate. After the Oklahoma city bombing, many if the ingredients used to create the explosives either became illegal or so seriously monitered that we havent seen explosion of its like since. I mean, if there is an argument to be made off of your sidetrail, its that we have a clear case of where regulations have worked.

 

[Dotini]

No mention of aliens...

Lol, i was gonna go there, but felt it best left.

There is no evidence aliens exist anywhere. However, I am happy to discuss UFOs. But since we have no UFO thread, I discuss the phenomenon in the Aliens thread. I really should make a bespoke UFO thread. Since the government has declassified an enormous amount of UFO material over the decades, and recently confirmed that UFOs exist (NY Times, Washington Post, Politico, 12/16/17) and has been studying them for ~70 years. We could even discuss them here, due to the national security implications, and potential for social and religious unrest. But since I'm a thoughtful and considerate fellow, I'll resist unless asked.

 

[TexRex]

There is no evidence aliens exist anywhere. However, I am happy to discuss UFOs. But since we have no UFO thread, I discuss the phenomenon in the Aliens thread.

Oh but you also discuss aliens in the America thread. As recently as fewer than ten pages ago. Perhaps more recently, but that instance stands out in my memory.

 

[Dotini]

Oh but you also discuss aliens in the America thread. As recently as fewer than ten pages ago. Perhaps more recently, but that instance stands out in my memory.

True, but a slip-up in a jocular context, not a serious discussion. I'm aware that the subject of aliens makes some people uncomfortable, and I do want to respect that.