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.
You and your militia attack a military base, I want to see how far you make it. What I'm saying is you guys must not believe in the constitution, you guys don't believe we have a strong military, you guys believe tyranny is inevitable. Its not my fault that I believe our constitution restricts the military from acting against us, but you guys don't believe the same. If the military was going to fight us, it would demolish us. You can keep living in your fantasy land where you believe 1984 will happen in America but I refuse to live in that paranoid land.
I don't know what you envision but you're clearly the one in the fantasy world. Please tell me how I'm wrong:
There will be no militia storming US Army bases. What a ridiculous stupid statement. There would be a protracted guerrilla war until the country fell into chaos, disarray and becomes unruleable. No one would be safe. Not politicians. Not ordinary civilians who want no part. The constant need to put done ambushes-retreat at the police and military infrastructure will allow criminals to run amok. The government will become bankrupt from all the fighting and the depressed economy and will slowly lose her grip on the military as she becomes unable to pay the soldiers food and shelter. Where would those drones strike? After a quick ambush and then flee, we will strip ourselves of our uniforms and go back to our homes. We will be your neighbors. A drone strike takes you out, takes your family out and then more angry civilians join the resistance. As the resistance gains notoriety we get money and weapons from countries who want to deal the death blow to the USA that sustains us even more.
That's sort of what happened in Chechnya. We faced similar obstacles as we would in the US. A modern, sophisticated nuclear power. So we turned her to hell. I still remember what one Russian soldier wrote on the wall of a family he busted in, raped and killed (only women and old men in the house): We all made this earth hell, now we can all burn together (rough translation).
no way military attacks its own citizen. point is void.
if it was mandated that the military take up arms against its own, the military would start with those doing the mandating.
Kudos to you dub dub.
Our military is ultimately made up of American citizens. One would hope that they'd never even consider turning their weapons on their civilian brothers and sisters, mtohers and sons, father and daughters, friends and neighbors, at the behest of a vile, elite ruling political class.
“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”
I see plenty of posts on this site where people say things such as:
"guns weren't meant for us to hunt with but to protect ourselves from tyranny"
"I'm not giving up my gun without a fight"
"Etc."
Well how exactly would your rifle stop tyranny? Do you guys believe your rifle that most likely the military commissioned into existence could battle a military that includes tanks, millions of well-armed troops, drones, ground-drones such as the Foster-Miller TALON, fully-automatic assault rifles, and anything else powerful? I've said time and time again that the Bill of Rights is out of date in someways especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment. People won't be able to protect themselves from Tyranny if it occurred, just as they probably never expected a weapon such as a assault rifle nevermind a drone would ever be created. Trust me, if the gov't wanted to oppress you and force upon its will it could've done it years ago. So once again, explain how a assault rifle would protect you from our gov't?
SN: When I say the 2nd amendment is out of date, I'm not calling for it to be repealed but to be rebuilt to meet todays world. Some guns such as pistols should still be allowed.
And I understand if Tyranny did occur, you wouldn't want to go down without a fight so maybe that'll be your answer. I'd just suggest taking the cowards way out against our military.
Methinks we have an analyst from a Neocon think tank here.
Have you ever studied armed insurrections, guerrilla warfare, or the fall of dictatorships and single-party states? If you really are from a Neocon think tank--which I'm assuming given your location, the belief in a nearly omnipotent military, and your contempt for the Bill of Rights and Rule of Law applying to the government--you probably haven't because Neocons don't believe history, facts, or even the laws of physics apply to them and they seem to read no further into warfare than all the cool weapons and bad ass spec ops units while harboring the believe that America exists to support the military not that other way around.
Read up on guerrilla warfare tactics. Read up on what various successful and semi-successful guerrilla leaders have done. I'm talking about Mao, Che, Giap, Washington, some Civil War generals, and others. You don't just keep what you have and you don't attack the enemy at their strongest if you can avoid it. You capture weapons when possible and use them against the enemy, you fight as close to them as possible so air support and artillery support becomes too risky to use. You use sabotage and try to attack their most dangerous and expensive assets (like attack helicopters) when they are the easiest to attack like during refueling or maintenance on the ground. A lot of weapons used by the military would be impractical in a guerrilla war (especially one fought on home soil). Nuclear weapons? Almost definitely out (unless if the Khmer Rouge somehow took over). Stealth bombers? Extremely expensive and the damage to infrastructure and civilian deaths would likely lead to more resistance. Aircraft carriers? No. Submarines? No. Cruise missiles? See Bomber, Stealth. Tanks? Maybe in small amounts, but as Iraq shows they have limited use in guerrilla warfare (although they are still useful). The majority of fighting would be done with small arms (like most guerrilla wars) which includes... assault rifles.
Plus, you need to remember we are talking about a hypothetical civil war here. Remember there are different degrees of oppression and even some tyrants get a bit squeamish about killing TOO many people. Sure, a handful of disappearances are no big deal, maybe running over some protesters with tanks might happen, but the idea of literally declaring war on the population and killing off millions is a step too far for many tyrants. Also, the military tends to rebel when asked to kill too many of their own people and it is not uncommon for whole divisions to join the resistance (as we saw during the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Arab Spring). Most rebellions in tyrannies like the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, and so on were not carried out by the regular military, but rather by secret police and "internal troops" and assault rifles would be extremely useful against them.
Oh, and "taking the cowards way out"? I can imagine you giving rape prevention advice, "Listen, the average man is much stronger than a woman and if the guy is already going to rape you, there isn't much you can do about it and he can pretty much do anything he wants at that point including murder. So I suggest making it as less stressful and enjoyable for him as possible. Compliment the size of his penis and then thank him for being so kind as to select you."
Just so one takes what I am saying out of context. I am talking about when the government becomes undisputedly tyrannical. Like willing to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people. I am talking about the type of situation where a President would declare himself President for Life or if there was a coup or some other hypothetical situation that many people think could never happen in the US or in democratic countries (despite the historical evidence that suggests that democracy and relatively free society are the exception, not the rule). This is not a scenario I'm hoping for and the thought of it occurring is not a pleasant one. I'm merely stating that although it isn't ideal,
As much as think the current leadership of the "Free World" sucks; it could be worse. Much worse. That is why I support the right to bear arms. Because if the "worse" does ever happen it is best to have other options available than hope that they aren't hoping to break the record for the largest genocide. If crushing protests could lead to a massive armed uprising that would force the would-be oppressors to choose between being overthrown or going to war with their own people while destroying much of what is worth fighting over, they might be a little reluctant to crush those protests in the first place when the people they are crushing can fight back.
I was looking at the technology of the military all night and I can't tell you how amazed I am to see how advanced it is. When I said the military could kill you without losing troops, this will be def. be possible within the next 10 years. So if tyranny was indeed imminent (say 10 years away) it wouldn't be stoppable. The weapons they posses now are like R/C toys, I saw one flying device that had four propellers on it that was controlled by a tablet and it had a 100-round machine gun attatched to it. They have this huge plane capable of shooting down missiles with a laser-beam. And with night vision on plenty of their planes, they can blow you up all times of the day and night. But that will never happen in today's world.
Yes, it is extremely advance, but a lot of the stuff has been in development for a while and still is likely to be in development in the foreseeable future.
I took about a book from the library on military technology in the late 90s that was written in the early 80s. It had a number of weapons systems in it. Like the Copperhead artillery shell, various drones, and so on. Most of which have really only come on line in the past 10 years, but according the book they were to be ready "by the time the book [was] published". I also remember that Land Warrior program which was supposed to come online in the mid-1990s and then the early 2000s before finally being cancelled.
The problem is that you are amazed by the impressive technological capability and firepower of the US military while completely ignoring that most of that isn't very helpful in guerrilla warfare. Did you know that the US military lost more soldiers in post-Invasion Iraq than during the actual invasion? Did you know that the kill ratio is less impressive against the insurgents than the Iraqi army? You know why? Because the US military is built for fighting other conventional military forces and it does it very, very well. You know what it's not really built for? Fighting guerrillas. Why? Because you need different tactics and different weapons to successfully fight a guerrilla war. That is why Afghanistan is still ongoing. Despite the fact that the US has (extremely) superior technology, superior firepower, and superior numbers they still can't nail down all the Taliban and AQ.
“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”
-Thomas Jefferson
I like this and it bears repeating. Unfortunately the government does not fear the people anymore. They learned how to manipulate the people through division, they learned how to use political theater and they now know that they could buy their vote.
I don't know what you envision but you're clearly the one in the fantasy world. Please tell me how I'm wrong:
There will be no militia storming US Army bases. What a ridiculous stupid statement.
That's an understatement.
You can say that again...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
I was looking at the technology of the military all night and I can't tell you how amazed I am to see how advanced it is.
That explains a lot. No doubt, you're a Generation Y-Work who thinks technology is the be-all-end-all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
You and your militia attack a military base, I want to see how far you make it.
Why would I attack a military base?
You're not even in my league; not to mention the same universe. I'm light-years ahead of you. I was at TRADOC Headquarters editing, reviewing and writing doctrine for Airland Battle 2000 at the time the US was abandoning the silly stupid Western-style of warfare. It never made any sense to me; a really stupid way to fight. Soviet war-fighting style was superior in every way, shape and form. It is objective oriented --- and the mentality suits me and is intuitive.
I can see no possible set of circumstances arising that would ever make a military base an objective.
Why would I waste time, money, resources and personnel planning something that is useless, worthless, pointless, stupid, silly, non-productive or even counter-productive?
Instead of wasting 120 people in a fruitless effort, I'd break them down into 60 two-person teams and they would freaking rock your world.
In less than a week, you'd have no TV, no cable, no radio, no cell-phones, no telephones, no access to the money in your bank, no electricity, no fuel, miles of rail-lines destroyed, bridges collapsed onto highways --- disrupting your supply network -- and on and on and on.
Groceries would run out of food, restaurants same story, retailers can't get new shipments, no point in going to work since there's no electricity and it wouldn't matter because you cannot get the parts, supplies and resources you need to manufacture anything, so all you'd do is sit around and stare at each other ---- and is your employer going to pay people to stand around with the thumbs up their butts?
No. That means you lose money -- and you already have money issues because you cannot access your bank account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
What I'm saying is you guys must not believe in the constitution,...
Wrong conclusion. The Constitution I trust; people I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
... you guys don't believe we have a strong military,...
Wrong conclusion again. Your troops are sub-standard to mediocre at best in general terms. Your technology is superior, but without your technology, you're just another run-of-the-mill Iraqi Republican Guard unit --- wearing a different uniform.
Even if that were not true, your military is not trained to fight to insurgencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
... you guys believe tyranny is inevitable.
We already live under tyranny, and yes tyranny is inevitable.
So, the fact that persons of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and placed in camps never happened?
Oh, I see, it did happen, but it isn't tyranny when the US does it.
And to preempt stupidity like, "Well, in _____________ (enter one of the irrelevant 25+ Euro-States who have populations the size of large US cities), they don't have tyranny"
I don't know how to break this to you, so I'll do it as gently as I can, but Denmark --population 5.5 Million --- is not going to be ruling the world.
Euro-States like France, Spain and Italy think they are important -- they aren't -- but gosh, how bizarre is that they all had kings and were fascist States at some point, and even had dictators.
There is a tremendous amount at state for the US -- in particular for the 60-odd wealthy families who actually rule the US, ooops, sorry, I meant to say who actually run the US, damn, what I meant was who actually control the US -- so don't think for a moment they won't do whatever they need to do to maintain the Status Quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
Its not my fault that I believe our constitution restricts the military from acting against us, but you guys don't believe the same.
It is your fault, and you cannot provide any evidence to support your claim.
Article I. Section. 8.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Article IV. Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Apparently your Constitution is worded differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMOREBOY
If the military was going to fight us, it would demolish us.
You're free to believe in any fantasy you want, but it's unbecoming to impose your personal limitations on others.
The 2nd Amendment is just fine the way it is.
Not amused...
So you guys don't truly fear tyranny then, correct?
BMOREBOY, too much power in any ones hands will result in tyranny. I don't care if it's Democratic, Republican. Power will beget more power no matter at what level, no matter who, no matter the party.
I see plenty of posts on this site where people say things such as:
"guns weren't meant for us to hunt with but to protect ourselves from tyranny"
"I'm not giving up my gun without a fight"
"Etc."
Well how exactly would your rifle stop tyranny? Do you guys believe your rifle that most likely the military commissioned into existence could battle a military that includes tanks, millions of well-armed troops, drones, ground-drones such as the Foster-Miller TALON, fully-automatic assault rifles, and anything else powerful? I've said time and time again that the Bill of Rights is out of date in someways especially when it comes to the 2nd amendment. People won't be able to protect themselves from Tyranny if it occurred, just as they probably never expected a weapon such as a assault rifle nevermind a drone would ever be created. Trust me, if the gov't wanted to oppress you and force upon its will it could've done it years ago. So once again, explain how a assault rifle would protect you from our gov't?
SN: When I say the 2nd amendment is out of date, I'm not calling for it to be repealed but to be rebuilt to meet todays world. Some guns such as pistols should still be allowed.
And I understand if Tyranny did occur, you wouldn't want to go down without a fight so maybe that'll be your answer. I'd just suggest taking the cowards way out against our military.
See Vietnam
No one would take on the US military in the field. Let them come in an "grab them by the belt buckle", to paraphrase Ho Chi Mihn.
Soldiers have to eat and drink, which is easier said than done long term in hostile territory.
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.
