Attention all gun-rights advocates

[KingOrfeo]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

You do realize that's lefty propaganda that's proven time and again to be total bullshit right?

The state always wins that firefight.

You need to take a history class.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You do realize that's lefty propaganda that's proven time and again to be total bullshit right?

No, it hasn't.

You need to take a history class.

In Hussein's Iraq, every household had an AK-47. It didn't matter. "Oh, you have a rifle? Good for you. The army has rifles, machine guns, tanks, artillery, helicopters, organization, training and discipline. Now shut up and pay your taxes."

 

[sr71plt]

Now shut up and pay your taxes."

We don't have to pay taxes any more, I understand. Our president doesn't pay taxes, so we don't have to either.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, it hasn't.

Vietnam ring a bell? Iraq? Afghanistan?? N. America 1776?

Many countries have both resisted invasion of a far superior military quite effectively with little more than small arms.


A number of other nations have been birthed and or permanently altered by armed populations.

In Hussein's Iraq, every household had an AK-47. It didn't matter. "Oh, you have a rifle? Good for you. The army has rifles, machine guns, tanks, artillery, helicopters, organization, training and discipline.

And we lost.

Just like in Vietnam.....if you're not prepared to kill EVERY MOTHER FUCKER, you don't have what it takes to win a war. Making those with nothing to loose far more dangerous and committed than those seeking power and control.

Now shut up and pay your taxes."

You can't make me

 

[KingOrfeo]

Vietnam ring a bell? Iraq? Afghanistan?? N. America 1776?

Guerilla warfare won't succeed in an industrialized country. The armed forces know the terrain just as well as the civilian population, and better, have run war games on it, and are entirely prepared to fight on it.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Botany has the right of this one. Many modern nation states were shaped and are being shaped by lightly armed guerrilla or insurgent forces engaged in asymmetrical warfare. It isn't necessary to defeat the larger force in open battle - all that is required is the ability to apply sufficient political pressure to bend the outcome to one that is more satisfactory to your desires.

A society in which light arms are easily available and widely dispersed makes any effort at a totalitarian rule a very iffy prospect, which is why the first step toward totalitarianism is to restrict/confiscate personal weapons and ammunition.

In the US, that's a genie that will never go back into the bottle.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Botany has the right of this one. Many modern nation states were shaped and are being shaped by lightly armed guerrilla or insurgent forces engaged in asymmetrical warfare. It isn't necessary to defeat the larger force in open battle - all that is required is the ability to apply sufficient political pressure to bend the outcome to one that is more satisfactory to your desires.

Can you seriously imagine any scenario where guerilla warfare with small arms would succeed in overthrowing the U.S. Government, or even pressuring it into changing its policies? No, you can't.

 

[Rightguide]

Can you seriously imagine any scenario where guerilla warfare with small arms would succeed in overthrowing the U.S. Government, or even pressuring it into changing its policies? No, you can't.

The American revolution, Shay's Rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion, Indian Wars, the Civil War, Prohibition rebellion. All resulted in policy changes.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Can you seriously imagine any scenario where guerilla warfare with small arms would succeed in overthrowing the U.S. Government, or even pressuring it into changing its policies? No, you can't.

Oh sure. Remember, overthrowing a government (forcing a change) is not the same as militarily defeating them on the battlefield. Here is a quick walk through scenario often discussed when learning about asymmetrical warfare.

-Group A gains power over the government, usually by legitimate means
-Group A begins to oppress group B
-Group B mounts a lightly armed irregular campaign against Group A's civilian and military infrastructure
-Group A responds with increasing force levels which require
-Increased conscription to man all the necessary guard posts/security levels
-Increased taxation/redistribution of taxation to security forces
-Increased military on civilian population atrocities
-Increased collateral damage to civilian infrastructure
-Increased civilian discord due to significant disruptions
-Which results in the loss of public good will for group A and increased support for the insurgent forces in the forms of goods and services
-Which results in Group A being forced into negotiation with Group B for a secession of hostilites
-Group A alters in oppressive behavior to accommodate Group B
-Resulting in a new government

Bonus Points - extending from August of 1968 to September of 1997, name the successful guerrilla war outlined above.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Guerilla warfare won't succeed in an industrialized country.

LMFAO!!! Special Warfare Operations Command disagrees with you, completely.

Guerrilla warfare is the only successful model against a modern 1st world industrialized military.

The armed forces know the terrain just as well as the civilian population, and better, have run war games on it, and are entirely prepared to fight on it.

They are better prepared....but they are outnumbered and the bad guys they are fighting look exactly like everyone else.

So unless you really think the US military is ready to carpet nuke the whole fuckin' country.....you are flat out wrong on this one KO.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The American revolution, Shay's Rebellion, The Whiskey Rebellion, Indian Wars, the Civil War, Prohibition rebellion. All resulted in policy changes.

The first three happened in a pre-industrial world where armies were armed no better than civilians. In the Indian Wars the Indians were the nearest thing to a guerilla side, and they lost every time, and gained no policy changes in their favor. The Civil War was guerilla on neither side, it was a conventional war. There was no "Prohibition rebellion," no guerilla warfare, no armed resistance to Prohibition, only gangsters evading it for profit (but never trying to actually fight the LEOs) and a public eventually wearying of that situation.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Can you seriously imagine any scenario where guerilla warfare with small arms would succeed in overthrowing the U.S. Government, or even pressuring it into changing its policies? No, you can't.

Sure I can, you can't fight a guerrilla war hidden away from the public and win, what makes you think you could win one here?

You going to carpet bomb the US? That will just seal your fate as the bad guys.

 

[BotanyBoy]

only gangsters evading it for profit and a public eventually wearying of that situation.

Yea but millions of American guerrilla fighters couldn't ever achieve the same results.....

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sure I can, you can't fight a guerrilla war hidden away from the public and win, what makes you think you could win one here?

Nothing can be hidden away from the public here.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nothing can be hidden away from the public here.

LMFAO!!!!

I've never read such ignorant shit in my life, USA's underbelly is huge, wealthy, extremely smart and well equipped. They have all sorts of shit hidden away from the public.

The state can't even stop the flow of drugs, sex slaves or counterfeit DVD's.

What do you think they are going to do about millions of hidden underground insurgents ?

 

[HisArpy]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

Guerilla warfare won't succeed in an industrialized country. The armed forces know the terrain just as well as the civilian population, and better, have run war games on it, and are entirely prepared to fight on it.

Compare/contrast. Notice how he starts with an outlandish statement then proceeds to move the goalpost in an effort to deny any fact based rebuttal?

Synopsis of this thread:
You're gun rights won't do anything against a government and its military. Wait, I meant guns in the hands of civilians of an industrial society. I mean, I meant...

It's ALL bait and switch to make himself seem important and worldly when in reality he's backpedaling so fast he can't keep up with the effluent from his own bullshit.

In this specific case, King Oregano totally blows as a student of both past and current history. As ONE MORE example, Afghanistan rebels kicked the Soviets' asses. And, it could be argued that they are currently kicking OURS too. So long to his assertion that a pre-industrial society can't stand up to an industrialized one militarily.

 

[KingOrfeo]

LMFAO!!

I've never read such ignorant shit in my life, USA's underbelly is huge, wealthy, extremely smart and well equipped. They have all sorts of shit hidden away from the public.

The state can't even stop the flow of drugs, sex slaves or counterfeit DVD's.[/QUOTE]

Guns are harder to hide. Guerilla units are a lot harder to hide. Criminal gangs evade the authorities by doing as little as possible to draw their attention -- but guerillas can't accomplish anything that way.

 

[HisArpy]

I've never read such ignorant shit in my life, USA's underbelly is huge, wealthy, extremely smart and well equipped. They have all sorts of shit hidden away from the public.

The state can't even stop the flow of drugs, sex slaves or counterfeit DVD's.

Guns are harder to hide. Guerilla units are a lot harder to hide. Criminal gangs evade the authorities by doing as little as possible to draw their attention -- but guerillas can't accomplish anything that way.[/QUOTE]

Dude, you have no clue. There are more HIDDEN guns in the country than you think. And, trust me, a .50BMG/.580 Beowulf and the like can really ruin the day of any field commander. And his second in command. And the XO, and the cook, and the sentry on the perimeter and... you get the picture? A battalion of tanks and artillery are worthless against that. Battleships are worthless in Kansas. Cruise missiles too.

From there, you can't use your own military to suppress the families of your own troops. Dipshit idea because that's what CAUSES civil war.

For the last, Guerrilla units are the populace that the invaders are trying to suppress. You can't tell the difference between them by looking. The only way to know the difference is after you're bagged and tagged.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Guns are harder to hide.

No they aren't....the illegal gun trade is already monstrous.

Guerilla units are a lot harder to hide.

Guerrilla "units" are just a group of people having a beer at the local dive bro. They don't build bases and run their flags up.

That's why guerrilla warfare is so effective against a uniformed military, the guys in uniform can't tell the fighter from everyone else until it's too late. And if the guys in uniform do anything, they just create more insurgents.

Criminal gangs evade the authorities by doing as little as possible to draw their attention -- but guerillas can't accomplish anything that way.

Do you think guerrillas put on parades or some shit?

Public bulletins about their activities for the uniformed forces to find?

They are as secretive and insulated as any mafia.

 

[Christobal]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

I am pretty sure that was King George's thinking before he lost the American Colonies in the 1770's.

 

[FGB]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

Wrong.
A few bullet holes in a window has made many a man change his attitude.

 

[Ms_Ann]

I am pretty sure that was King George's thinking before he lost the American Colonies in the 1770's.

Well to be fair, we had home court advantage.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I wish to remind you of something that you should know very well, but often appear to talk as if you have forgotten:

You do realize, don't you, that your guns are politically useless?

Your guns are good for self-defense, home defense, hunting, target shooting, hobby-collecting, and of course you can use them for crime. And that's all. End of list. You cannot use them to defend your "freedom" in any politically meaningful way. You cannot use them to fight the state with any hope of success. The state always wins that firefight. You could conceivably use them to fight those you consider political opponents, but that falls under the heading of crime. There are no "Second Amendment solutions" to political grievances, none at all.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lb5a57uuyx1qafhe9o1_400.gif

 

[EternalFantasies]

I for one am not gonna answer you Oreo.

Guns are here now, wayyyy past their ban, and not going anywhere.


Tyranny will never be.

Thank God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORYVCML8xeE