Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The government wants a civil war so they ultimately can obtain more power and authority over the people, take away all their guns, etc..
The government is fueling rebellion in this country that looks to bring about a civil war..
And that is exactly what they want..
playing the people like a chess board and the people don't even see it.
The point of gun control is to keep people from killing each other with guns. I have beaten this to death. Semiauto AR-15s and hunting rifles won't do anything against the federal government if they really want to kill you. Your bullets will bounce off a tank. Honestly, they're probably being nice if they decide to let you see the tanks; an Abrams can kill you from over a mile away.
The point of gun control is to keep people from killing each other with guns. I have beaten this to death. Semiauto AR-15s and hunting rifles won't do anything against the federal government if they really want to kill you. Your bullets will bounce off a tank. Honestly, they're probably being nice if they decide to let you see the tanks; an Abrams can kill you from over a mile away.
Well the Jihadists have been pretty successful in killing our federal soldiers using terribly outdated guns and tech. I don't know where the death count is currently but it's over 4K. Most of them don't own AR-15's and their IEDs are WWII/Vietnam era ordinances.
Well the Jihadists have been pretty successful in killing our federal soldiers using terribly outdated guns and tech. I don't know where the death count is currently but it's over 4K. Most of them don't own AR-15's and their IEDs are WWII/Vietnam era ordinances.
4k compared to how many? Yeah, maybe they've killed 4,000 but when 100,000+ Iraqi soldiers and insurgents die it doesn't matter. That's pure dominance. And you're right, they don't own semiauto AR-15s, they own military-grade AK47s, RPGs, and some heavy machine guns. They're not successful; if the US military took 100,000 casualties while killing 4,000 hostiles, would you call that success? Also, some IEDs are quite advanced, with sophisticated chemical blends and trigger systems.
I agree with you on your arguing points. It would be a slaughter, but that wouldn't prevent the underdogs from fighting in what they believed in. That's the ugly thing about war, young men go fight for what they feel is right, and they are fully prepared to die for that cause, no matter what the stakes are against them.
The problem with "the majority rules" is that this new majority of progressives is doing so much radical change. This is not the usual back and forth between democrat and republican that we have seen and lived with for 200 years (minus the 4 years of civil war in which our system broke down). The liberal democrats are not like moderates from the 20th century like Truman, Kennedy or Clinton. They do not reach across the aisle, they work only for radical idealogs on their side. They wish to fundamentally change American society and government in a way that would make cold warriors like Kennedy and Regan think the Soviets had landed and set up a puppet regime. There is a reason red state America is so alarmed by them, they are in fact radical and dangerous in a way that democrats before them have not been or ever been. Republicans have responded to this by radicalizing in the other direction. They will not work together, they cant agree on one thing and our government is often paralyzed as it was during the shutdown. Only the threat of economic annihilation got them to work something out. Left and right now hate each other with a vitriol that is unprecedented in US politics with the exception of the civil war era. I think you believe I want this disunity and look forward to some sort of secession movement. I don't, I wish to see this great country fixed and to see our constitution function as it should. Majority does rule in Washington, but the federal government does not have the right constitutionally to legislate things like national healthcare, or to have its courts dictate civil marriage law in the states. They do not have the right to legislate away our 2nd amendment rights. The left is in majority but they must respect our constitutional rights, or we have tyranny. The federal government has the right to conduct foreign policy, coin money and regulate interstate commerce. Outside of that they have little real power. The states have the power to make their own laws, and the feds do not have the right to usurp that state authority. I want a united country behind our constitution, one that embraces the differences in our states and respects them. I respect the right of the New England states to have secular liberal government, I just want them to respect my states right to govern itself as the constitution prescribes. Unfortunately if the constitution is continuously violated one of two things will happen, either a powerful totalitarian state will rise up in Washington, or the states feeling disenfranchised will leave the union. Either one of those is catastrophic outcome in my opinion.
There's been no radical change at all. The 'left' as it exists in the United States is basically a moderate to right-leaning party on most issues. You need to look in the mirror. It's the right that has been radicalized; 20-30% of people in this country are pretty close to being the Christian version of Al Queda
We're not nearly as polarized as the media may make you think. The media is super polarized. The kind of people most likely to yammer about their opinions on online forums, comment sections, and phone polls are super polarized. But the general public is not, especially my generation (the younger crowd - 35 and under). We tend to fall in the middle on most issues, and we share many views.
I don't think there's going to be a civil war. I do, however, think there's going to be a major purge in the government over the next few decades. With all the information available to us these days, there's a growing discontent and festering intolerance of the way that we can see our country being manipulated by certain corporations and banks. There's also a discomfort with the the US' policing of the world. So, I think that as my generation becomes more influential in politics and the older generations (who are more conservative and grew up with the notion of American Exceptionalism) become less influential, you'll see monumental reforms in the way that our government runs and how it interacts with the world.
I completely agree with this. People have been heavily manipulated by the media to become extremely polarized. There is very little "news" left - it's all sensationalism and fear-mongering. If you look at polls on actual issues where inflammatory language is taken out Americans agree on many things. As an example, almost all of the ACA ("Obamacare") changes poll extremely well when the pollster doesn't call it "Obamacare" and simply talks about the policy ideas.
The big problem is that politicians on both the left and right constantly enact policies that are supported by almost no one except the very rich/influential. If you actually dig into the tax code it's absolutely ridiculous what the super rich are allowed to get away with.
And those "militias" still didn't stand a chance. Against outdated M60s and surplus Bradleys, and helicopters that weren't even designed to be the deadliest gunships the military fields.
The 2nd Amendment is no longer giving citizens a right to fight against a tyrannical government. The amendment is there so you can defend yourself against other citizens, using a gun. Remember that standoff over some guy grazing his cattle on federal land? One order and those guys would be dead, not knowing what hit them. Could be artillery, could be an airstrike, could be an M1A2 tank from over a mile away, could be some experimental thing we don't know about.
The point is, if you think you can fight against a determined federal government and win, you're plain crazy.
And about police departments using ex-military vehicles: even the best equipped SWAT units can't compare to military. SWAT units don't have light machine guns, they don't have fire support, they don't have tanks or even those Bradleys, and most of them use either submachine guns or 5.56mm assault rifles. Which works well in a populated environment and minimizes collateral damage, but a modern body armor can stop submachine gun rounds dead and they have nothing to throw at tanks.
Infantry rifles don't do much killing at all in modern warfare, even though Hollywood shows otherwise. Most infantry kills are from light machine guns, and most overall kills are from tanks and fire support.
And don't forget artillery - possibly the most deadly of all. Even mortars provide a HUGE combat advantage if the other side doesn't have them
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
