Defensive Carry banner

61 - 80 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
The County Coroner issued a report that really did a good job of breaking down the numbers in our county. 609 deaths in the county this year and 34 were from covid-19. He told how many people were on hospice and how many had been in long term care facilities. The number of men and women and whites and blacks and Latinos. Which towns the people were from.

Then some woman named Zoe comments that the hospitals are paid to claim that ALL of the people who die are covid-19 patients. Because she knew for a fact that a friend's friend's cousin's uncle died from gun shot wounds and they counted it as covid. Then her boyfriend knew a guy who knew a guy that had been told that one of the vehicle accident deaths was counted as covid.
I asked Zoe why then were there only 34 deaths counted as from covid out of 609? I think we all know a Zoe who believes every conspiracy theory that comes along.
But like Zoe will tell you this is all just one big conspiracy anyway that this many people die every year. Don't try to tell Zoe that these deaths are in addition to the normal number of deaths every year. Because she got the facts straight from a friend's friend.
Please note that Colorado had to downgrade their numbers because many of the dead who died WITH Corona were counted as deaths BY Corona. Your Zoe may be exagerating, but not totally incorrect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,767 Posts
Fair enough, but that bypasses what I said. I said people are willing to turn in their neighbors. Recently, people have been calling police on their neighbors for innocuous actions. I made the connection with how far that can go. And it has gone right to sending neighbors to death camps for being "undesirable".

So we know how easily people can be convinced that this is necessary behavior. And we know how far people are willing to take it. So before civil unrest even begins, when "common sense" prohibits certain firearms, do you think people will be reporting neighbors to the police?
I guess I wasn't very clear. It really doesn't matter in the long run whether people call police on their neighbors. What does matter is what police DO with that information. We haven't seen enough of any of that to even make an uneducated guess. I agree people are easily herded. There is an old saying that applies here, "What do you expect subjects to do?"

What we are seeing is the beginnings of a revolt by law enforcement against, what I believe to be, communist leanings on the part of a Democratic party (and some RINO's) that would be totally unrecognizable to history. Almost daily, we are seeing law enforcement, the people who are at the point of the spear saying, "This far, no farther."

My point is that IF we begin to see citizens start to step in because they are armed and do have a responsibility under the Constitution to BE their government, it will cause, IMHO, a sea change on the part of law enforcement. The only hope they have of maintaining control is to threaten the use of force to control the citizens. But that is a huge risk when you are outnumbered tens of thousands to one - and those thousands are armed and angry. Contrary to what some say (and I think HOPE), that is not a mob, that is the beginning of a revolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,767 Posts
Vietnam is a perfect example. Below is a simplified version of the Viet Cong organizational structure. That's what I'm talkin' about. And this is not even the N. Vietnamese regulars, who were also very organized.

View attachment 327950
You've destroyed your own argument. What makes you think something like that couldn't happen here? Would we just assume people in the US are too stupid to do those things?
 
  • Like
Reactions: G26Raven

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
You've destroyed your own argument. What makes you think something like that couldn't happen here? Would we just assume people in the US are too stupid to do those things?
It could definitely happen here. It needs to happen here. We are smart enough. But we just aren't doing the work. Ho Chi Minh started working on that in 1941, became president of Vietnam in 1945, initially with US support. By the time we decided to become his enemy, he was well established as a popular leader, with a solid organization behind him. They looked rag-tag, but the were highly organized.

The Mujahaddeen in Afghanistan had a system of regional warlords that were well established who orchestrated all the fighting against the Russians initially, but they were not organized enough until they got aid and advice from other Islamic countries and groups, as well as the US, to not only get better equipped but also better organized. They did not get fully organized until the mid-90s when the Taliban pulled things together. By the time the 19 years you spoke of started, they were very unified and organized. The US came in and kicked them out as the official government, so they took to the hills and they are still fighting.

So in both cases, what seemed like rag-tag groups to us actually started out as the official government of those countries and then had to go guerrilla in an attempt to get it back. They had strong organizing principles that were popular with the people, communism and Sunni Islam respectively. They had established leaders that people accepted as such. All that went back years before we came up against them.

Before the first shots are fired, we would need to figure out questions like: What are the principles that a critical mass, not just scattered individuals, could agree on with such fervor they would fight over it? By critical mass, I'm thinking at least 10% of the population to start, but more would be better. Who would their leadership be? There needs to be someone that 10% would follow and who could put an effective command structure in place. I don't see such leaders at this point. I think the rest of the equation would follow from that.

What I see is conservatives who can't agree on basic things. I see conservatives who don't even go out and vote. I see conservatives that are less organized than liberals. So we are smart enough, but we are not acting smartly yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,767 Posts
....What I see is conservatives who can't agree on basic things. I see conservatives who don't even go out and vote. I see conservatives that are less organized than liberals. So we are smart enough, but we are not acting smartly yet.
Well then, there is no point in even considering it, is there? I fear if that had been all the vision our forefathers had in 1776 was to make a detailed plan of battle, then throw their hands up because no one was doing anything yet, we would be subjects of the Crown to this day.

And I have veered quite far enough off of the thread topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Well then, there is no point in even considering it, is there? I fear if that had been all the vision our forefathers had in 1776 was to make a detailed plan of battle, then throw their hands up because no one was doing anything yet, we would be subjects of the Crown to this day.

And I have veered quite far enough off of the thread topic.
I never said any of that, so you are just making those arguments up. The point is we should learn lessons from our forefathers. We should look at all the great heroic, hard work and sacrifice they did and realize that's what it takes to throw off tyranny. We shouldn't romanticize the Revolution and think it was all glory, just a few guys with muskets blasting away. It was messy. It was risky. It was costly. It was complicated. And it took organization.

We need to stop yammering about it and get busy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,860 Posts
I never said any of that, so you are just making those arguments up. The point is we should learn lessons from our forefathers. We should look at all the great heroic, hard work and sacrifice they did and realize that's what it takes to throw off tyranny. We shouldn't romanticize the Revolution and think it was all glory, just a few guys with muskets blasting away. It was messy. It was risky. It was costly. It was complicated. And it took organization.

We need to stop yammering about it and get busy.
Iraq is a perfect example that disproves your theory that the government would be victorious against the citizens because they are well organized. In Iraq, where religion is everything, they absolutely hate each other and fight wars amongst each other. There is no real unity or organization there, but there are hundreds, maybe thousands of small terror cells that all want to take a jab at the US. They dont play by our rules, and they dont care about doing anything but harming the American service members who are there. Think back a year, maybe two, to the NYPD officer who was executed while in his car, and how easy it was for someone to get to him. Anyone on the governments side who thinks their organization will lead them to victory will probably have a short lifespan once bullets start flying.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
This
"What I see is conservatives who can't agree on basic things. I see conservatives who don't even go out and vote. I see conservatives that are less organized than liberals. So we are smart enough, but we are not acting smartly yet."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,093 Posts
I just read an article that said the number of suicides during the lockdown in CA equaled the normal ANNUAL count. So the question is, were ANY lives actually saved? Or did it result in not only economic deaths but human deaths in suicides and blocked life-sustaining procedures?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,845 Posts
I just read an article that said the number of suicides during the lockdown in CA equaled the normal ANNUAL count. So the question is, were ANY lives actually saved? Or did it result in not only economic deaths but human deaths in suicides and blocked life-sustaining procedures?
I liked this because I agree and not actually like the fact that there are a lot of suicides. Wife had a friend on FB the other day post how he has lost 2 friends to suicide the past month and no friends to Covid19. I believe the 2 suicides he was talking about were from people that were depressed from Covid19 related issues. These types of deaths are lost and not figured into the negative effects of draconian measures to keep us safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,860 Posts
This
"What I see is conservatives who can't agree on basic things. I see conservatives who don't even go out and vote. I see conservatives that are less organized than liberals. So we are smart enough, but we are not acting smartly yet."
As much as I hear conservatives say liberals are dumb, I don’t think conservatives are any smarter. You say we are smart enough, but the collective right doesn’t really have a clue about how to beat the liberals. We will put all our might into winning one battle but forget about the rest of the war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
813 Posts
I never said any of that, so you are just making those arguments up. The point is we should learn lessons from our forefathers. We should look at all the great heroic, hard work and sacrifice they did and realize that's what it takes to throw off tyranny. We shouldn't romanticize the Revolution and think it was all glory, just a few guys with muskets blasting away. It was messy. It was risky. It was costly. It was complicated. And it took organization.

We need to stop yammering about it and get busy.
One thing most of us need to realize on the differences between the Revolution and today is where the Tyrants are. In the 1770's the seat of Tyrannical power was across an ocean in a time when it took weeks to cross. Today's seat is based among us. And everything is done instantly.

That alone complicate the issues of reigning in Tyrants.

Most people don't see the Forest for the Tree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Iraq is a perfect example that disproves your theory that the government would be victorious against the citizens because they are well organized. In Iraq, where religion is everything, they absolutely hate each other and fight wars amongst each other. There is no real unity or organization there, but there are hundreds, maybe thousands of small terror cells that all want to take a jab at the US. They dont play by our rules, and they dont care about doing anything but harming the American service members who are there. Think back a year, maybe two, to the NYPD officer who was executed while in his car, and how easy it was for someone to get to him. Anyone on the governments side who thinks their organization will lead them to victory will probably have a short lifespan once bullets start flying.
You are cherry picking what I said. I did not say the government would be victorious and I don't think they would. What I said was that they would have the strong military advantage, so the rebels could not be victorious either. It would be years and years of bloody conflict. Yes, insurrectionists could continue to harass and terrorize indefinitely. I'm talking about achieving decisive victory against the government.

The examples you used prove my point. We can't beat those terror cells in Iraq but they can't beat us either. They can only harass because while they have internal organization, they are not cohesive, they don't work together. There was the same situation in Afghanistan with the warlords until the Taliban pulled them together. Now the Taliban may actually get the US to the bargaining table.

Having a cop shot in a patrol car is awful and it creates terror, but it achieves no military objective. Rebels can't win anything by shooting cops at random. Terror can be an element in a victory, but it cannot achieve victory not by itself. So the choice for people who want to fight is do you want to win against the government, or do you just want to take out your frustrations by killing people?

I for one, would prefer to join a fight that could be won. And that takes more than random people with guns. That takes organization. This is military strategy 101. I'm surprised anyone is arguing against it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,949 Posts
As much as I hear conservatives say liberals are dumb, I don’t think conservatives are any smarter. You say we are smart enough, but the collective right doesn’t really have a clue about how to beat the liberals. We will put all our might into winning one battle but forget about the rest of the war.
Or focus on one thing that let's them win the battle but lose the war.

Bump stocks come to mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,860 Posts
You are cherry picking what I said. I did not say the government would be victorious and I don't think they would. What I said was that they would have the strong military advantage, so the rebels could not be victorious either. It would be years and years of bloody conflict. Yes, insurrectionists could continue to harass and terrorize indefinitely. I'm talking about achieving decisive victory against the government.

The examples you used prove my point. We can't beat those terror cells in Iraq but they can't beat us either. They can only harass because while they have internal organization, they are not cohesive, they don't work together. There was the same situation in Afghanistan with the warlords until the Taliban pulled them together. Now the Taliban may actually get the US to the bargaining table.

Having a cop shot in a patrol car is awful and it creates terror, but it achieves no military objective. Rebels can't win anything by shooting cops at random. Terror can be an element in a victory, but it cannot achieve victory not by itself. So the choice for people who want to fight is do you want to win against the government, or do you just want to take out your frustrations by killing people?

I for one, would prefer to join a fight that could be won. And that takes more than random people with guns. That takes organization. This is military strategy 101. I'm surprised anyone is arguing against it.
You are being argued against because you're wrong. In this post, you attempted to shift your argument away from what you said in your previous posts which were proven wrong.

What would the Iraqi terror cells beating the US look like to you? What would a victory on US soil look like to you?

You also dont understand why I brought up the NYPD officer. It had nothing to do with it resulting in some great victory. If you don't like the Iraq example, there are others. Cartels in mexico, is one that is more local if you like that better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
You are being argued against because you're wrong. In this post, you attempted to shift your argument away from what you said in your previous posts which were proven wrong.

What would the Iraqi terror cells beating the US look like to you? What would a victory on US soil look like to you?

You also dont understand why I brought up the NYPD officer. It had nothing to do with it resulting in some great victory. If you don't like the Iraq example, there are others. Cartels in mexico, is one that is more local if you like that better.
So the idea that organization is required for a major military victory has been proven wrong? Because that is my main point. I'd like to see you win that argument with any military historian or general.

And cartels in Mexico are another great example that proves my point. The cartels can conduct criminal activities and the government can't stop them. But neither can any one cartel take over the government.

The Iraqi terror cells beating the US would look like either the US pulling out, like Vietnam, or bringing the US to the bargaining table, as the Taliban may succeed in doing in Afghanistan.

A victory on US soil, to me, would be an armed insurgency either takes over the government, or forces the government to get back in adherence to the Constitution. I don't see any other good purpose for it. I mean, what point is there just shooting cops because you don't like cops or even because they are doing gun confiscations? Is that what you are advocating for?

You say my points have been proven wrong, but they haven't been. They are as old and proven as warfare itself. I may not have articulated them well enough so you could understand them. But I am not even sure what your point is if you have one. You haven't made any argument at all I can tell, you've just criticized mine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,860 Posts
So the idea that organization is required for a major military victory has been proven wrong? Because that is my main point. I'd like to see you win that argument with any military historian or general.

And cartels in Mexico are another great example that proves my point. The cartels can conduct criminal activities and the government can't stop them. But neither can any one cartel take over the government.

The Iraqi terror cells beating the US would look like either the US pulling out, like Vietnam, or bringing the US to the bargaining table, as the Taliban may succeed in doing in Afghanistan.

A victory on US soil, to me, would be an armed insurgency either takes over the government, or forces the government to get back in adherence to the Constitution. I don't see any other good purpose for it. I mean, what point is there just shooting cops because you don't like cops or even because they are doing gun confiscations? Is that what you are advocating for?

You say my points have been proven wrong, but they haven't been. They are as old and proven as warfare itself. I may not have articulated them well enough so you could understand them. But I am not even sure what your point is if you have one. You haven't made any argument at all I can tell, you've just criticized mine.
Referring back to what you said in post 39, and what you were responding to, the organization does not change that the US government is on the losing end of that war.

The cartels prove your point? Ask the guys who rolled up El Chapos nephew how they feel about your point.

As far as Iraq. We left once. Continuing to spend money and lives does not mean we are winning.

Agree with you on the US victory being to get our government back to adhering to the constitution.

I’m not advocating for shooting anyone just to shoot anyone. It has nothing to do with who I do or don’t like. Whether it’s police, politicians, or people with any other affiliations, if they want to go to war with the people, the people will fight back, and they will be thinned our much quicker than the gun owning, disorganized population. Eventually, the type of people who are Viewed as the enemy will be much fewer and some will no longer want to be apart of it, then the organization will crumble. The ability to fly in people in and out to rotate fighting forces will not be available like it is overseas.


If your point has been proven right, tell me how often the US military has won fighting an ideology. Even going back to the revolutionary war, it was the organized military that lost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
@Havok: I would submit that:
  • In the Revolutionary War, both sides were well organized. And it is obvious that we would have lost without the alliance with the French, which was one of the most organized military forces in the world at the time.
  • In the Civil War, the US government definitely defeated an ideology, "The Southern Cause," whatever you want to read into that.
  • In WWII, we defeated Nazis, the Fascists and Japanese Shinto, the devotion to the Emperor, all powerful ideologies.
Here's what I would ask you: What is our ideology? What ideology do conservatives, gun owners, whoever you think might take up arms against the government, what ideology do they all share that decent numbers would be willing to band together and fight for? What do you call it? Who leads it? How is that ideology banded together? I am not convinced that the government would even have to defeat an ideology in the US. I think conservatives, and even gun owners, don't agree on a whole lot. That leaves us as individuals, shooting at cops trying to take our guns, accomplishing no objective.

Hey, I actually hope I'm wrong! And I would like to see us get organized around an ideology. I think we could do it. But I am not seeing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,860 Posts
@Havok: I would submit that:
  • In the Revolutionary War, both sides were well organized. And it is obvious that we would have lost without the alliance with the French, which was one of the most organized military forces in the world at the time.
  • In the Civil War, the US government definitely defeated an ideology, "The Southern Cause," whatever you want to read into that.
  • In WWII, we defeated Nazis, the Fascists and Japanese Shinto, the devotion to the Emperor, all powerful ideologies.
Here's what I would ask you: What is our ideology? What ideology do conservatives, gun owners, whoever you think might take up arms against the government, what ideology do they all share that decent numbers would be willing to band together and fight for? What do you call it? Who leads it? How is that ideology banded together? I am not convinced that the government would even have to defeat an ideology in the US. I think conservatives, and even gun owners, don't agree on a whole lot. That leaves us as individuals, shooting at cops trying to take our guns, accomplishing no objective.

Hey, I actually hope I'm wrong! And I would like to see us get organized around an ideology. I think we could do it. But I am not seeing it.
You are right about the revolutionary war, but the largest most well organized army in the world still lost.

The civil war wasn’t as simple as government vs civilians.

In ww2 we were fighting uniformed militaries.

As far here, today. It’s purely anti government. Who leads it? Well if it ever does happen, I’ll let you know. Does anyone ever have a leader picked out for a revolution long in advance?
 
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
Top