Millennials may save the day

[Ura-Ki]

Ask your self this, How many Vets currently alive? How many can still shoot? How many still have the skills needed to organise and fight? Add in the ability to train a group of willing folks, and you have a pretty large force ready and able to do what ever needs doing!!!

 

[Medic!]

Ask your self this, How many Vets currently alive? How many can still shoot? How many still have the skills needed to organise and fight? Add in the ability to train a group of willing folks, and you have a pretty large force ready and able to do what ever needs doing!!!

True. But how many can still do 10 pushups?
Or survive a week without their meds?

 

[AMProducts]

I thought I would throw this in:

Really, a fight between the government and the people is the last thing any of us should want. It's abundantly clear in the writings of the founders that this was a major thing they wanted to avoid as well, especially if you look at the outcomes of other revolutions at the time (french being the key example). Revolutions do not always result in more freedom, in fact historically a violent insurgency and revolution more often than not creates the right habitat for a police state to develop.

One of the biggest problems we have as a society, is that civil society is eroding, and that too often the solution thrown around is one of violence. As liberty minded people we really need to focus on that, rather than aligning ourselves with a larger group, and seeing the other group as the opposition.

To borrow from Sun Tzu: "if your opponent is of choleric temper, irritate him" followed by "What is of supreme importance in war is to attack your enemy's strategy". The right falls into this trap constantly, it's like lucy and charlie brown with the football. As someone who nominally supports republican/right candidates, it's really embarrassing when they fall into these rhetorical traps.

 

[Medic!]

Fear the vacuum.

 

[Dave Workman]

Honestly guys, the direction this conversation has taken is astonishing. We've got a system. It may not be the best, indeed it may be bad except for all the other systems.
I have yet to see any of the people talking about civil war (or whatever one wants to call it) actually step forward and volunteer to fire the first shot.
"The right is just as bad as the left."
"My dog is better than your dog."

I know Democrats who are hardcore pro-gun. I know more Republicans who are. I know some RINOs. I know a lot more liberal "progressives" who just might have been wearing brown shirts had they lived in Germany back in the 1930s.

Contending that the right is just as dangerous as the left doesn't get much traction with me. That wasn't what the article was about anyway. It was about how liberals may have picked the wrong demographic to take for granted. And that seems to be holding true.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Unfortunatly Dave, The broken systems cannot be put back together. Until this country can UNITE under ONE cause, forever divided we will be! La'Revolution is not the only answer, but it may very well be the place to start, IF enough of the right sort of folks stand together and actually effect hope and change to put this country right again! I know it's a long shot, but we have to use every means available to us to stop the bleeding before it comes to that which we all would prefer to avoid!!!

 

[Brutus57]

True. But how many can still do 10 pushups?
Or survive a week without their meds?

I don't need no stinkin' meds!

Brutus Out

 

[clearconscience]

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.

They vote on propaganda and BS fed to them by education (indoctrination) system and their simple juvenile brains hell bent on beating authority sponge it in like a poison.

 

[cigars]

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?

Let's not forget that Boogle, Bookface, Twipper, etc are taking away the third half....

 

[HuckleberryFun]

Let's not forget that Boogle, Bookface, Twipper, etc are taking away the third half....

That's right. Spend too much time on Boogle, Bookface, and Twipper and you'll also skip math class one too many times. lol

 

[Stomper]

Ask your self this, How many Vets currently alive? How many can still shoot? How many still have the skills needed to organise and fight? Add in the ability to train a group of willing folks, and you have a pretty large force ready and able to do what ever needs doing!!!

It's called force multipliers.... I know I still remember how to take skulls fulla mush and train them into lean, MEAN, motivated, killin' machines.

Honestly guys, the direction this conversation has taken is astonishing. We've got a system. It may not be the best, indeed it may be bad except for all the other systems.
I have yet to see any of the people talking about civil war (or whatever one wants to call it) actually step forward and volunteer to fire the first shot.
"The right is just as bad as the left."
"My dog is better than your dog."

I know Democrats who are hardcore pro-gun. I know more Republicans who are. I know some RINOs. I know a lot more liberal "progressives" who just might have been wearing brown shirts had they lived in Germany back in the 1930s.

Contending that the right is just as dangerous as the left doesn't get much traction with me. That wasn't what the article was about anyway. It was about how liberals may have picked the wrong demographic to take for granted. And that seems to be holding true.

Dave, we also have a "system" in place for the mishandling of classified material, "pay for play" corruption, misappropriation of government funds/property, violation of election laws, immigration laws, etc.... how's THAT working out?

 

[dude23]

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.

Not the only choices, but the only two likely outcomes. But in reality it will be an amalgamation of socialism and corporatism, where corporations control nearly all power and politics through employment, media and gov playoffs (public to private sector jobs) and the working people are regulated out of starting small business, controlling their own property and shoulder the lion's share of tax burden to pay for those on welfare. The worst of both worlds.

What other conclusion of a future can you come to when the progression is things like NAFTA and TPP combined with high taxes, increased unemployment and increased welfare benefits. Unless something drastically changes that's the future of Amercia and the world.

 

[PaulB47]

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

Actually I wasn't assuming anything about you, just making a general comment. I get a little tired of "liberals" or "leftists" always being the standard bad guy, implying their counterparts must be the good guys. Pretty much anybody with power is an bubblegum, if you ask me.

Framing the discussion as having only two, extreme, radical outcomes is ridiculous.

Well, they are not so extreme, are they? We are swimming in a sea of socialism and fascism, like fish who do not notice the water.

I'm cynical too. But, I can't believe that the only choices are extreme one side, or other.

True. But I do like something that actually is extreme (i.e., rare) today - liberty.

Really, a fight between the government and the people is the last thing any of us should want. It's abundantly clear in the writings of the founders that this was a major thing they wanted to avoid as well, especially if you look at the outcomes of other revolutions at the time (french being the key example).

"the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

It's one thing to say we would personally not want to experience a revolution. Of course that's so. It's another thing entirely to suggest this country does not need one.

I have yet to see any of the people talking about civil war (or whatever one wants to call it) actually step forward and volunteer to fire the first shot.

Most of us have the sense to see that wouldn't work. The revolution comes on its own time and place, not on any individual's personal schedule.

"The right is just as bad as the left."

Now you're getting it.

 

[HuckleberryFun]

Actually I wasn't assuming anything about you, just making a general comment. I get a little tired of "liberals" or "leftists" always being the standard bad guy, implying their counterparts must be the good guys. Pretty much anybody with power is an bubblegum, if you ask me.



Well, they are not so extreme, are they? We are swimming in a sea of socialism and fascism, like fish who do not notice the water.



True. But I do like something that actually is extreme (i.e., rare) today - liberty.



"the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

It's one thing to say we would personally not want to experience a revolution. Of course that's so. It's another thing entirely to suggest this country does not need one.



Most of us have the sense to see that wouldn't work. The revolution comes on its own time and place, not on any individual's personal schedule.



Now you're getting it.

Well said, @PaulB47
A pretty much across the board DITTO from over here.

 

[tionico]

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.

Never underestimate the value and power of "assymetrical warfare", that is what carried the day during our War for Independence. It is also what has kept many of the world's conflicts going for years in the face of what has lately been the most powerful military force on earth.. OUR military. Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, VietNam, Columbia drug wars in Mexico, etc.......

 

[HuckleberryFun]

Never underestimate the value and power of "assymetrical warfare", that is what carried the day during our War for Independence. It is also what has kept many of the world's conflicts going for years in the face of what has lately been the most powerful military force on earth.. OUR military. Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, VietNam, Columbia drug wars in Mexico, etc.......

Sometimes it's difficult to convey nuance of thought on a forum board. My bad for not writing more clearly or more fully. I don't at all dismiss the place or value that asymmetrical warfare has now or had at just about any time in history. The capacity of lightly armed but highly motivated guerilla fighters to wreak havoc and unpleasantness upon a conventional force can be formidable. What woodsman/scout Rangers did to the Brits, what Philippino freedom fighters did to the occupying Americans, and what the VC did yet again to Americans all made them a royal pain in the gumbubble and essentially made those countries unstable and ungovernable. Neither the Rangers and their Indian scouts nor the VC won their respective wars all on their own. It took the regiments at Yorktown and the North Vietnamese tanks rolling into Saigon to finally end those wars.
(Disclaimer: these are not morally equivalent, just entities using similar AW style tactics)
Those long insurgencies set things up for the final climactic war ending battles.

That is what UW can do splendidly: destabilize and demoralize. But --and this was the point I was trying to so clumsily make-- to finally WIN the war large masses of conventional forces have to mass together in large formations with heavy weapons to deliver the final blow. Until that more conventional end stage the guerilla fighter is indeed usually hitting hard as he can and then running and hiding from the pursuing force until the opportunity to hit again presents itself. That is pretty much the definition of the guerilla fighter, I think: hit, run, hide, hit again.

The guerilla force cannot stand toe to toe against tanks and planes because if those tanks and planes find him and corner him he's dead. Just ask Mr Hajj on the plains of Afghanistan about that. However, if he does his job right then he doesn't have to.

 

[Martini_Up]

Here is a quote from one of the 'system' makers. Don't forget it, folks. These men were much smarter and infinitely more brave than anyone we currently have running the show now days:

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.