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.
St. Clair's Defeat, 1791
Comanche Wars 1706-1875 (169 years before they lost)
Seminole Wars, 1816-1819, 1835-1842
Apache Wars, 1849-1886 (Battle of Cieneguilla, Geronimo's War)
Red Cloud's War, 1866-1868
Little Bighorn, 1876
And many, many more.
I don't think you know just how many battles the Indians won against the U.S. Army...
Yet, they all still lost....Hence they don't inhabit their own countries. Ditto the Mormons btw who tried armed resistance against the govt and like all before them failed miserably.
Yet, they all still lost....Hence they don't inhabit their own countries. Ditto the Mormons btw who tried armed resistance against the govt and like all before them failed miserably.
Some of the Indian Wars lasted tens, even hundreds, of years. If there were 50 million Sioux fighting against the U.S. army they would have prevailed.
White Southerners were disproportionally poor; only a very small handful of white owned slaves. Being anti-federalist doesn't mean libertarian, or even pro-freedom. They still used man-made laws to keep Africans in bondage.
They also relied on armed citizens to uphold the slave system. An armed citizen is as likely to be the force of oppression and tyranny as they are the freedom fighter. Which is why just having guns in the hands of the public is not a functional defense against tyranny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
The violence during the Indian Wars was sponsored and condoned by the federal government. Ever hear of the Cavalry? The taking of Indian land was also done by the federal government.
Not all of the time, maybe not even most of the time. Look up how many times white settlers massacred Native Americans. There are dozens of cases but I'll just list a few down below.
All committed by bands of random bands of armed American citizens. The tool to protect against tyranny is yet again used to enforce tyranny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
They were failures because of two reasons--they were under-equipped, and the governments (federal, state, territorial, and local) had the backing of the citizens because at the time blacks and reds were considered subhuman.
Exactly, and how would these problems be fixed in a future uprising? They wouldn't. Even with the most authoritarian of governments you can bet at least 40% will be supportive of it. As for the supply problems lets breakdown how it would play out today. With hundreds of varieties of firearms and calibers available withing the general population any militia group would immediately run into major supply problems. Since there is little commonality amoung the weapons gathered, ammo shortages would begin to occur within a few days or weeks of an armed uprising. Only firearms with the most common calibers would be continually useful. 9mm, .223 NATO and the .45 ACP. Any firearm not firing one of these rounds would be completely useless in a short period of time. Domestic bullet manufactures would cease sales to the general public or be totally shutdown. So we would have to rely on existing stored ammo as our only option. Military estimates say for every one combat death we fire 250,000 bullets. There are 12 billion bullets purchased each year within the US. Assuming we have access to all of those bullets for our resistance we would at the most optimistic of levels only be able to inflict about 48,000 casualties before we would completely run out of ammo. Much like how we needed the French to beat the British, we would need a strong foreign backer to supply us with weapons. The problem is nobody on earth is going to want to do that. Nor could they even if they wanted to since they would have to defeat the most powerful navy in history in order to do so. Are you beginning to understand why the concept of thwarting tyranny with armed citizens does not and has not worked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
That said, the Indian Wars weren't a complete and utter failure, as they fought the U.S. for decades before finally succumbing.
In the end the lost, which is the only thing that matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
See: Vietnam, Algeria, Mexico against the French, Afghanistan against anybody.
Those wars involved well supplied and structured military forces. The NVA during the Vietnam war were armed to the teeth with solid Soviet made weapons and were organized and lead by some of the best military commanders of the 20th century. Nothing today in America would be anything close to that level.
They also relied on armed citizens to uphold the slave system. An armed citizen is as likely to be the force of oppression and tyranny as they are the freedom fighter. Which is why just having guns in the hands of the public is not a functional defense against tyranny.
Of course they did. But as the State has a monopoly on violence, they must rely on those who sympathize with the State.
What, pray tell, is a better defense against the State other than the armed individual?
Quote:
Not all of the time, maybe not even most of the time. Look up how many times white settlers massacred Native Americans. There are dozens of cases but I'll just list a few down below.
All committed by bands of random bands of armed American citizens. The tool to protect against tyranny is yet again used to enforce tyranny.
Those massacres were committed, as white settlers didn't respect property rights. But the Indians didn't start losing ground until the U.S. Army started fighting on behalf of those bands of Americans. If the U.S. government wouldn't have intervened more than likely the settlement of the frontier would've taken much, much longer than it did. Once again, the State was the cause of the problem.
Quote:
Exactly, and how would these problems be fixed in a future uprising? They wouldn't. Even with the most authoritarian of governments you can bet at least 40% will be supportive of it. As for the supply problems lets breakdown how it would play out today. With hundreds of varieties of firearms and calibers available withing the general population any militia group would immediately run into major supply problems. Since there is little commonality amoung the weapons gathered, ammo shortages would begin to occur within a few days or weeks of an armed uprising. Only firearms with the most common calibers would be continually useful. 9mm, .223 NATO and the .45 ACP. Any firearm not firing one of these rounds would be completely useless in a short period of time. Domestic bullet manufactures would cease sales to the general public or be totally shutdown. So we would have to rely on existing stored ammo as our only option. Military estimates say for every one combat death we fire 250,000 bullets. There are 12 billion bullets purchased each year within the US. Assuming we have access to all of those bullets for our resistance we would at the most optimistic of levels only be able to inflict about 48,000 casualties before we would completely run out of ammo. Much like how we needed the French to beat the British, we would need a strong foreign backer to supply us with weapons. The problem is nobody on earth is going to want to do that. Nor could they even if they wanted to since they would have to defeat the most powerful navy in history in order to do so. Are you beginning to understand why the concept of thwarting tyranny with armed citizens does not and has not worked?
You'd be surprised how much ammo private citizens have. Besides, many people make their own ammo nowadays, as the technology exists and it is much cheaper to do so.
How do you know a foreign country wouldn't intervene on behalf of American citizens during an uprising against their government?
Quote:
In the end the lost, which is the only thing that matters.
Only after nearly 300 years of fighting. If there were 50 million Sioux, Cherokee, Comanche, or Apache fighting against the U.S. Army they would've won. Don't forget they also had no defense against the diseases the settlers and soldiers brought. That wouldn't be the case today.
Quote:
Those wars involved well supplied and structured military forces. The NVA during the Vietnam war were armed to the teeth with solid Soviet made weapons and were organized and lead by some of the best military commanders of the 20th century. Nothing today in America would be anything close to that level.
Like I said, you don't know that other countries wouldn't support the people in a war against the U.S. government. Hackers could completely shut down government weapons systems, for instance.
Back to you--answer my question. Does Donald J. Trump deserve to have armed security (with "assault" rifles) and not everyday citizens?
You do comprehend that the threat level of a president is FAR different then that of a normal citizen, and that a president has responsibilities such as nuclear launch that outweigh most normal everyday concerns by folks right?
That he is arguably guarded as part of our military command and control assets.
I’m a 2nd amendment guy and all but these pictures are just kind of weird to me. To have that much of your identity tied in with weapons. My Dad served in the Marines in WWII when he was her age and he never owned a gun and would never allow one in his house his entire life. Guns have their place and purpose.
It seems like common sense goes out the window with the radicalized types such as this crazy young woman.
I wonder if this entitled young woman would survive in the military or police force where she actually had to deal with the responsibility that goes along with having a weapon and the rigor of that life; not just parading around trying to intimidate people with such a weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charolastra00
I don't care that she has a gun, I care that she is wearing a gun that would not only be useless in that position for self defense but also makes her a target for anyone coming up behind her.
Can the gun rights advocates promote someone with any sense?
Apparently not. At least not in this case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
She did. Read the article. She got a job with a GUN SHOP.
That's what I would expect. That's one good thing about being able to do web searching for stupid things job applicants have done on the side and quietly make a decision not to hire them. A quick web search for this young woman would reveal this fiasco and her application would get tossed to the garbage quickly if I were making a hiring decision for a job she applied for! I sure wouldn't want this kind of person as an employee or coworker.
Also, I wonder why she wouldn't receive some serious disciplinary action, including expulsion for this type of behavior on campus? Many campuses have banned smoking (which is legal) and they're going to allow this??
She had graduated the previous day. The policy of the school is that visitors can carry firearms. She broke no rules. I would hire her in a heartbeat. She has conviction, and is not afraid to be bullied by the 95% of far left, progressives on campus.
You do comprehend that the threat level of a president is FAR different then that of a normal citizen, and that a president has responsibilities such as nuclear launch that outweigh most normal everyday concerns by folks right?
That he is arguably guarded as part of our military command and control assets.
Doesn't matter. Either everyone has the same rights or no one has any rights at all.
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.
