Whatever else gun rights are, they are not important

[pecksniff]

Personal ownership of firearms is politically useless. Saddam Hussein's people were armed -- it didn't help.

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

Fuck Off, Asshole!!


---------------------------
pecksniff
Join Date: 06-03-2021 (76.92 posts per day)
---------------------------
.

 

[pecksniff]

Fuck Off, Asshole!!


---------------------------
pecksniff
Join Date: 06-03-2021 (76.92 posts per day)
---------------------------
.

May you end your days in a FEMA gulag.

 

[CornusKousa]

Personal ownership of firearms is politically useless. Saddam Hussein's people were armed -- it didn't help.

Speak for yourself.

Not all of us are so meek.
https://i.imgur.com/SMgablT.jpg

 

[pecksniff]

Speak for yourself.

Not all of us are so meek.
https://i.imgur.com/SMgablT.jpg

It doesn't matter if you're meek or bold. You will never live to use your firearms against public authorities with any hope at all of victory or success.

 

[pecksniff]

The only things privately-owned firearms are really any good for are home defense, hunting, and hobby-collecting. There is no fourth thing. And none of those three things are important enough to merit constitutional protection.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Tell that to the "world's most powerful military," who is in the process of getting ejected from a barren rock of a nation by no more than a band of goatherds from the Seventh Century, armed with little more than AK-47s.

 

[pecksniff]

Tell that to the "world's most powerful military," who is in the process of getting ejected from a barren rock of a nation by no more than a band of goatherds from the Seventh Century, armed with little more than AK-47s.

Guerilla warfare will never be a factor here. No American militiaman is going to hide out in the woods or the mountains and raid National Guard posts, nor ever do anything more serious than blowing up a courthouse or taking over a bird sanctuary (!).

 

[CornusKousa]

It doesn't matter if you're meek or bold. You will never live to use your firearms against public authorities with any hope at all of victory or success.

LOL.....how much you want to bet a fire team of Army Rangers vs. any PD you want, the PD is in TROUBLE.

You REALLY don't know what you're talking about here peck.

The only things privately-owned firearms are really any good for are home defense, hunting, and hobby-collecting. There is no fourth thing. And none of those three things are important enough to merit constitutional protection.

You're lying to yourself to suit your partisan narrative.

Enjoy that lie. Just know it's a lie.

Tell that to the "world's most powerful military," who is in the process of getting ejected from a barren rock of a nation by no more than a band of goatherds from the Seventh Century, armed with little more than AK-47s.

Boom.....headshot.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Guerilla warfare will never be a factor here. No American militiaman is going to hide out in the woods or the mountains and raid National Guard posts, nor ever do anything more serious than blowing up a courthouse or taking over a bird sanctuary (!).

Not a factor...yet. If you think the descendants of those who unsportingly hid behind trees and rocks instead of forming ranks for the Redcoats to shoot at are not going to use asymmetrical tactics in any future conflict, you're dreaming.

And with a nice, cheap sporting rifle, I can get what the few soldiers who haven't deserted in the face of the orders to shoot their own countrymen will have.

 

[pecksniff]

LOL.....how much you want to bet a fire team of Army Rangers vs. any PD you want, the PD is in TROUBLE.

Army Rangers take orders from the Army and, more importantly, are supported by it. A group of rebellious Army Ranger veterans would not have much chance against a PD armed with military hardware, as most are, now.

 

[CornusKousa]

Army Rangers take orders from the Army and, more importantly, are supported by it. A group of Army Ranger veterans would not have much chance against a PD.

Again, you REALLY don't know what you're talking about.

It's not the army uniform or the government approval that makes the combatant effective.

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that.

 

[phrodeau]

I’m sure that anyone here can take out a tank with a pistol, like Capt. Miller in Saving Private Ryan.

 

[pecksniff]

It's not the army uniform or the government approval that makes the combatant effective.

Not approval, material support. A Ranger is nothing without the Army backing him up. The Confederates lost the Civil War because, among other things, they could not supply and equip their troops as well as the Union could (also, because the Yanks in the field outnumbered the Rebs two to one).

 

[CornusKousa]

Not approval, material support.

Which we have fuck tons of.

Shit you can buy better gear as a civilian and most of the guys I know did while in and didn't get rid of it when they got out. w

A Ranger is nothing without the Army backing him up.

You demonstrate yet again, you clearly have no clue what a Ranger is.

Rangers go on missions where there is often a distinct lack of back up or support.

And like all paratroopers they are often given tasks and high value targets well outside the range of support often not getting any for days or weeks if at all. Dropped behind "enemy lines", long range infiltration, reconnaissance and force application. They are not a regular infantry unit.

And if a bunch of 7th century goat herders with AK's can give the US a run for it's money so can 5 million US infantrymen with combat experience that are almost all armed to the teeth with the worlds latest and greatest tacticool gear.

It would be a terrible day for EVERYONE, if things were to get that veteran and almost certainly a large number of trained/experienced

The Confederates lost the Civil War because, among other things, they could not supply and equip their troops as well as the Union could (also, because the Yanks in the field outnumbered the Rebs two to one).

It is not 1863 anymore, war is not fought that way any longer, it hasn't been in over 130 years.

If you don't stop staring at the 1860's you're liable to get mugged by the 2020's

 

[pecksniff]

You demonstrate yet again, you clearly have no clue what a Ranger is.

Rangers go on missions where there is often a distinct lack of back up or support.

And like all paratroopers they are often given tasks and high value targets well outside the range of support often not getting any for days or weeks if at all.

And they never win battles, not by themselves -- they only prepare the way for the main force.

 

[CornusKousa]

And they never win battles, not by themselves -- they only prepare the way for the main force.

Another swing and a miss, you just don't know what you're talking about.

You have a very poor operational knowledge of modern US special forces units and less than no historical knowledge....bringing up the 1860's...LOL

Just accept the reality that if even a decent minority of the 300k~ish operators and grunts out there decide the government has gone totally corrupt and it's time to operate??

It's going to be BAD...really fuckin' bad, for everyone, really fast.

And it's not going to look like the 1860's either.

 

[pecksniff]

Just accept the reality that if even a decent minority of the 300k~ish operators and grunts out there decide the government is corrupt and has gone off the rails??

Then nothing happens, not unless some significant number of the officers decide on a coup or a revolution. And by "officers" I mean "generals" -- lieutenants and captains won't make a difference.

 

[CornusKousa]

Then nothing happens, not unless some significant number of the officers decide on a coup or a revolution. And by "officers" I mean "generals" -- lieutenants and captains won't make a difference.

And why exactly is that??

 

[pecksniff]

And why exactly is that??

Because soldiers do what their officers tell them, and junior officers do what their senior officers tell them. Mutiny is a phenomenon almost unknown in the history of the United States Armed Forces. Even in Vietnam, fragging was the closest it ever got to mutiny, and fragging still left the platoon under the command of a loyal sergeant, not marching on battalion headquarters to shoot the generals.

 

[CornusKousa]

Because soldiers do what their officers tell them, and junior officers do what their senior officers tell them.

Wow...LOL another swing and a miss.

I'm not talking about a conventional military operation buddy. again, it's not 1860 anymore.

We're not all going to line up in a giant pasture and gun each other down.

That's not how modern warfare works.

Neverminded, you're clearly not equipped for this conversation.

 

[pecksniff]

Wow...LOL another swing and a miss.

I'm not talking about a conventional military operation buddy.

Then, you are not talking about anything that can happen. "Fourth Generation Warfare" is not something that can happen here.

 

[CornusKousa]

"Fourth Generation Warfare" is not something that can happen here.

LOL that is some seriously "I'm 18 and thus bulletproof" level of ignorant shit right there.

Then why has it one of our governments BIGGEST concerns for the last decade?

You REALLY should stick to topics you have at least a basic understanding of.

 

[pecksniff]

LOL that is some seriously "I'm 18 and thus bulletproof" level of ignorant shit right there.

Then why has it one of our governments BIGGEST concerns for the last decade?

You REALLY should stick to topics you have at least a basic understanding of.

For the past decade, the DoD has been giving military hardware to local police forces. That sounds like a preparation for something more conventional than 4th-Gen Warfare.

Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians.

The term was first used in 1980 by a team of United States analysts, including paleoconservative William S. Lind, to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.

The simplest definition includes any war in which one of the major participants is not a state but rather a violent non-state actor. Classical examples of this type of conflict, such as the slave uprising under Spartacus, predate the modern concept of warfare.

That ain't gonna happen. No American militia club or "patriot" organization can present a threat at that level.

 

[KimGordon67]

Tell that to the "world's most powerful military," who is in the process of getting ejected from a barren rock of a nation by no more than a band of goatherds from the Seventh Century, armed with little more than AK-47s.

They had AK-47s in the 7th Century? Huh. You learn something new every day.