Millennials may save the day

[Dave Workman]

Stronger Second Amendment Support from This Surprising Group

A Tuesday piece in the Washington Times detailed why there may be hope yet for the Second Amendment, and why the gun prohibition lobby just might not have as clear a horizon as it might like.

Stronger Second Amendment Support from This Surprising Group

Read More

 

[Stomper]

That's great, yet most of them will continue to vote "blue" because they vote on "other issues" as well...


I'm amused by the pro-2A leftists on this website. They actually think the "progressive" ideology is conducive to personal/individual liberty, when COLLECTIVE STATISM (the end result) is exactly the opposite.




***fixed a STUPID typo***

 

[HuckleberryFun]

That's great, yet most of them will continue to vote "blue" because they vot on "other issues" as well...


I'm amused by the pro-2A leftists on this website. They actually think the "progressive" ideology is conducive to personal/individual liberty, when COLLECTIVE STATISM (the end result) is exactly the opposite.

The Right has been taking away half of your liberties, and the Left has been taking away the other half.
What makes you think you're free?

 

[Martini_Up]

When a Republican signs a law, it doesn't sunset.

Both R and D are rulers and don't want the ruled having firearms. Only exercising the 2nd amendment will save it and ultimately the rest of our personal liberty. Allowing it to change into a privilege, given out to those who comply with rules and fees will be it's ultimate demise.... and ours.

 

[HuckleberryFun]

When a Republican signs a law, it doesn't sunset.

Both R and D are rulers and don't want the ruled having firearms. Only exercising the 2nd amendment will save it and ultimately the rest of our personal liberty. Allowing it to change into a privilege, given out to those who comply with rules and fees will be it's ultimate demise.... and ours.

I agree with you, Martini, with this proviso:
They have "let us" have our guns, so far, because pistols, shotguns, and rifles (even the dreaded evil-black AR-15s) aren't going to matter diddly squat against an occupying army (either ours or someone else's). If you don't have crew served heavy weapons along with anti-tank and anti-aircraft capabilities then all you are doing is running and hiding. Your semi-auto poodle shooter that you're so proud of is largely irrelevant in a military / resistance context. That's why you still have them... for now.

 

[Howard1955]

I agree with you, Martini, with this proviso:
They have "let us" have our guns, so far, because pistols, shotguns, and rifles (even the dreaded evil-black AR-15s) aren't going to matter diddly squat against an occupying army (either ours or someone else's). If you don't have crew served heavy weapons along with anti-tank and anti-aircraft capabilities then all you are doing is running and hiding. Your semi-auto poodle shooter that you're so proud of is largely irrelevant in a military / resistance context. That's why you still have them... for now.

Heh. 'Semi-auto-poodle-shooter'.

 

[PaulB47]

I'm amused by the pro-2A leftists on this website. They actually think the "progressive" ideology is conducive to personal/individual liberty, when COLLECTIVE STATISM (the end result) is exactly the opposite.

I'm amused by rightists, who imagine their philosophy is any different in this respect.

A choice between socialism and fascism is not much of a choice.

Your semi-auto poodle shooter that you're so proud of is largely irrelevant in a military / resistance context. That's why you still have them... for now.

I guess you never heard of 4th generation warfare. We still have guns because the rulers fear to (attempt to) take them, even though it is in their direct interest to do so. There is a reason they resort to ever-more-feeble baloney-slicing tactics rather than just handing down a blanket prohibition - and the reason is not concern for our welfare, either.

 

[Certaindeaf]

While they're busy saving the day (ha), hopefully they'll save some money to pay off their master's in The Renaissance And The Modern Feminist and not expecting a bailout from the taxpaying citizenry.

 

[HuckleberryFun]

I'm amused by rightists, who imagine their philosophy is any different in this respect.

A choice between socialism and fascism is not much of a choice.



I guess you never heard of 4th generation warfare. We still have guns because the rulers fear to (attempt to) take them, even though it is in their direct interest to do so. There is a reason they resort to ever-more-feeble baloney-slicing tactics rather than just handing down a blanket prohibition - and the reason is not concern for our welfare, either.

Agreed that concern for us is not motivating either party or pols on either wing of the political spectrum and I'm personally feeling pretty sliced and diced on all fronts. And yes, I know the term "4th generation warfare" very well. It's actually a misnomer arising from our military leaders (or at least our coiners of phrases) ignorance of history. 4th gen warfare is actually THE original form of tribal / guerilla war that has always been with us but has a new name because we think we are encountering something new out there in the Stans. It's really just war as it has always been fought until we got "civilized" and forgot. Read Keeley's
War Before Civilization: the Myth of the Peaceful Savage

 

[ChiefStealth]

(snip) Your semi-auto poodle shooter that you're so proud of is largely irrelevant in a military / resistance context. That's why you still have them... for now.

I disagree. I've been an Infantryman. Massing small arms fire can take out a lot of heavier stuff. And, vice versa.

 

[Stomper]

I'm amused by rightists, who imagine their philosophy is any different in this respect.

A choice between socialism and fascism is not much of a choice.



I guess you never heard of 4th generation warfare. We still have guns because the rulers fear to (attempt to) take them, even though it is in their direct interest to do so. There is a reason they resort to ever-more-feeble baloney-slicing tactics rather than just handing down a blanket prohibition - and the reason is not concern for our welfare, either.

And what makes you a$$-u-me I'm a "rightist"?

 

[HuckleberryFun]

I disagree. I've been an Infantryman. Massing small arms fire can take out a lot of heavier stuff. And, vice versa.

Well, never say never, but as an American infantryman I'm betting that air or artillery support was usually available to you on call.... unless you were just having a really bad day. The exception that proves the rule. Our concept of "Light infantry" is not true light infantry in that they are still heavily dependent on vehicles and lots of support. A true guerilla can't rely on re-supply every 48-72hrs or on air support or medivac for that matter. That's why hit and run is the key to survival. Massed small arms fire judiciously, quickly, and furiously applied can be very effective, you're right. But having just light arms also limits your capabilities. Heavy weapons gives you more options & capabilities.

Riding in vehicles to the operations area and walking the last 2 miles to the fight, calling in help when you get in trouble, then leave to be back at the FOB in time for chow and a video is the American way of war... Not that Id complain because it beats slinging a hammock in the woods and eating cold beans.

 

[ChiefStealth]

(snip)A choice between socialism and fascism is not much of a choice.

Framing the discussion as having only two, extreme, radical outcomes is ridiculous. It only stifles the conversation. Leading people to believe that any attempt at change will produce a result that is worse than present.
I'm cynical too. But, I can't believe that the only choices are extreme one side, or other.

 

[Martini_Up]

I agree with you, Martini, with this proviso:
They have "let us" have our guns, so far, because pistols, shotguns, and rifles (even the dreaded evil-black AR-15s) aren't going to matter diddly squat against an occupying army (either ours or someone else's). If you don't have crew served heavy weapons along with anti-tank and anti-aircraft capabilities then all you are doing is running and hiding. Your semi-auto poodle shooter that you're so proud of is largely irrelevant in a military / resistance context. That's why you still have them... for now.

Understand??

 

[Stomper]

Well, never say never, but as an American infantryman I'm betting that air or artillery support was usually available to you on call.... unless you were just having a really bad day. The exception that proves the rule. Our concept of "Light infantry" is not true light infantry in that they are still heavily dependent on vehicles and lots of support. A true guerilla can't rely on re-supply every 48-72hrs or on air support or medivac for that matter. That's why hit and run is the key to survival. Massed small arms fire judiciously, quickly, and furiously applied can be very effective, you're right. But having just light arms also limits your capabilities. Heavy weapons gives you more options & capabilities.

Riding in vehicles to the operations area and walking the last 2 miles to the fight, calling in help when you get in trouble, then leave to be back at the FOB in time for chow and a video is the American way of war... Not that Id complain because it beats slinging a hammock in the woods and eating cold beans.

There won't be a frontal war directly against an army. Large standing armies have never fared well against indigenous guerilla fighters who know the lay of the land and who belongs and doesn't belong in an area. We're talking a vicious asymmetrical war and it'll entail hitting their supply lines, hitting those who provide material, administrative, and political support. They'll get hit on their commutes to/from work, they'll be hit in their houses when they sleep (and yes... hitting their families as well). It could be their neighbor (who's been watching and making notes for years) that hits them, it could be a perfect stranger that hits them, it could be from within the ranks of the army itself who choose their Constituional Oaths over "obeying orders".

A massive standing army can't operate when it's support structure grinds to a halt because nobody shows up to work...

A determined man with some skills and a "poodle shooter" can change the world... don't sell the concept too short.


If that horrifies and/or offends any of you, then don't start none and there won't be none.

 

[etrain16]

And what makes you a$$-u-me I'm a "rightist"?

Well now, how else do you explain your tramp stamp of Rush Limbaugh??

 

[Diamondback]

Hell, look at what one dude with a cheapass junk pistol did in Sarajevo, or a loser-douche with a worn-out Carcano in Dallas. Or in Ford's Theater.

Point is both for better and just as frequently for worse, one trigger finger at the right (or wrong) place at the right (or wrong) time can make a lasting impact.

 

[HuckleberryFun]

There won't be a frontal war directly against an army. Large standing armies have never fared well against indigenous guerilla fighters who know the lay of the land and who belongs and doesn't belong in an area. We're talking a vicious asymmetrical war and it'll entail hitting their supply lines, hitting those who provide material, administrative, and political support. They'll get hit on their commutes to/from work, they'll be hit in their houses when they sleep (and yes... hitting their families as well). It could be their neighbor (who's been watching and making notes for years) that hits them, it could be a perfect stranger that hits them, it could be from within the ranks of the army itself who choose their Constituional Oaths over "obeying orders".

A massive standing army can't operate when it's support structure grinds to a halt because nobody shows up to work...

A determined man with some skills and a "poodle shooter" can change the world... don't sell the concept too short.


If that horrifies and/or offends any of you, then don't start none and there won't be none.

LOL. OK, now all that you just said I do agree with 100% I would know better than to start any angry poodle stuff with you, Monsieur. Mon dieu!

 

[AMProducts]

I agree with you, Martini, with this proviso:
They have "let us" have our guns, so far, because pistols, shotguns, and rifles (even the dreaded evil-black AR-15s) aren't going to matter diddly squat against an occupying army (either ours or someone else's). If you don't have crew served heavy weapons along with anti-tank and anti-aircraft capabilities then all you are doing is running and hiding. Your semi-auto poodle shooter that you're so proud of is largely irrelevant in a military / resistance context. That's why you still have them... for now.

The finns routed the russians with a few dozen anti-tank guns, molotov cocktails, small arms, and determination. Sure it wasn't decisive, but they held off long enough to get bigger actors into play.

Even then, you look at what a group of locals equipped with small arms can do against a state, look at syria. It's certainly not a clean outcome, and is still yet to be resolved.

 

[Stomper]

LOL. OK, now all that you just said I do agree with 100% I would know better than to start any angry poodle stuff with you, Monsieur. Mon dieu!

I've have my pockets stuffed with heaping helpings of pure hell, all I need to do is is open them up if called for... and I'm FAR from unique in this country.