Gyroscopic Investing

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 11:50 am

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 11:37 am I think the profile is fairly well known...social isolation with a grudge of one sort or another seems to be a huge part of it.

More complicated than that. This psychologist website author proposes three categories:

Despite frequent references in the media to a “profile” of school shooters, there is no one profile. Based on my research, however, shooters tend to fall into one of three psychological types:

Psychopathic shooters are narcissistic, entitled, lacking in empathy, and sometimes sadistic. Some are abrasive and belligerent; others are charming and deceptive.
Psychotic shooters have either schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder, with a combination of psychotic symptoms (hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thoughts/behavior), eccentric behavior and beliefs, and severely impaired social/emotional functioning.
Traumatized shooters grew up in chronically dysfunctional families characterized by parental substance abuse, domestic violence, physical abuse, sometimes sexual abuse, frequent relocations, and changing caregivers.

I don't think it takes a luminary to say the multi decades deterioration in the American traditional family society has driven #3. IMO we can have all the guns and laws in the history of mankind, but if our society is fundamentally unhealthy no bandage will stop the bleeding.

This is the only thing in the entire thread you said that makes sense.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 11:55 am

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 11:30 am Since the abortion discussion is no longer even pretending to be part of the gun control thread, it gets its own space where it belongs
Abortion Discussion 2022
/DS

Probably a good move for the masses Dualstow. I must say however that for me the root cause of mass shootings and the root cause of abortion are very closely associated. Many in our society just don’t want to acknowledge it because it makes themselves quite uncomfortable and it’s easier to just ignore it, or blame some inanimate object (e.g. gun) or others for actions causing the “problem”.

I hear you. I left your post in this thread intact which includes

... as long as killing millions of pre-born children is permitted, even endorsed, I have no ears to hear about gun control being about saving lives.

PrimalToker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:08 pmYou're a complete idiot.

This is a really interesting discussion; can we try to keep it civil so that it can continue?

Dualstow's tagline about Cheasea Boudin's recall brought up something that hasn't been mentioned.

Jurisdictions should *bleeping* enforce the laws they *already* have on the books.

Makes you wonder how serious progressives really are about gun violence. They want to spout off on showy and dramatic omnibus bills but aren't willing to use the tools they have.

PrimalToker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:08 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 9:40 am

PrimalToker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:59 pm Everyone in 1776 knew that a government with a military 100% of the time turns against the population. The United States should not have a standing army. No Army, No Marines, No Navy, No Air force, No National Guard. There should only be the Coast Guard, and state sponsored militias. The military is spread throughout the population, only officially forming when congress declares war and creates an army. After the war the military is disbanded and equipment dispersed throughout the states. The real entity that shouldn't be allowed to have weapons is the federal government.

My former self would love to meet you on the field of battle. You bring the militia. Depending on how big your militia is I'm bringing I think some Delta guys and a Spooky. If you are larger in size, some Reapers and a couple of B-2s ought do it. If your militia is really big, well then let's just throw the whole shooting match at you.

Just read a little bit about what is going on in Ukraine...this should tell you your idea is completely stupid (you know assuming you actually want to win the war vs. making some political 2nd amendment bs point shortly before you get to go meet your maker).

The humans who are the best at killing practice at it a lot. And the humans capable of killing at large scale use things that take lots of practice to know how to use and then use their tools effectively and as part of a very large, integrated and coordinated killing team. If your opponent is both suicidal and has no sense of humanity they shoot these highly technical things at you that are long and oblongish looking with rounded off 3 dimensional triangles on the top. Your guys with guns and their guns get turned into ash and gun metal returns to mother earth as a liquid blob.

Humans are really good at killing each other...if you think bringing an intermural softball team of fat old men to the majors is a good idea, good luck with that.

So let me be perfectly clear on one point...guns do not bring you freedom or safety. Good civil society and the rule of law is what brings both.

You're a complete idiot.

Nice, you're going to need to up your game.

My experience is you get these types of responses when the other side had nothing useful or compelling to counter with.

I'll go mano e mano with you all day long on warfare discussions and we will let the audience judge for themselves who is the idiot here.

We digress...back to school shooters.

Cheers!

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:49 am P.S. What about comparing the U.S. to itself? 2021 to 1971?

Absolutely!

One weird change that nobody thinks about is that every gun control proposal or law sends gun acquisitions soaring. In 1971 gun control was still very minor, and people didn’t feel much need to get one while they still could. I think gun control has sent gun numbers to the moon.

But the real point is that we were a better culture in 1971.

Kbg, what countries did you pacify and are the opposing cultures gone?

All of the major actions I can think of, the hopelessly outgunned opposing side is still there, and we are not. Sure we killed a lot them. But in the end, they couldn’t be occupied.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:56 pm For those of you who are pro-gun control, how do you plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (gang bangers, etc)? I mean, it worked so well for drugs.....

And when you acknowledge that you really can't, how does taking guns away from law abiding citizens solve anything?

Yes, that’s the reality. And there seems to be hundreds of thousands or millions of regular owners who won’t comply. Even a tenth of a percent is scores of thousands of the most hardcore, probably accounting for 10 or 20 guns each.

So the government will have to use a lot of force and there will be a lot of violence. I know there are many progressives who relish the thought of setting the government on the gun resisters. I think it could lead to secession.

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:28 pm Kbg, what countries did you pacify and are the opposing cultures gone?

All of the major actions I can think of, the hopelessly outgunned opposing side is still there, and we are not. Sure we killed a lot them. But in the end, they couldn’t be occupied.

Fair question, the usual locations mentioned in the news.

But your premise is wrong...you assume the U.S. wanted to occupy them. We did not, nor did we from day 1.

Additionally, you have to consider the following with any discussion of "bubbas with automatic rifles" and I will sprinkle in some anecdotes I'm familiar with.

Vietnam...Bubbas with guns didn't do the job (Viet Cong) Vietnamese bubbas were basically wiped out post Tet. North Vietnamese mechanized infantry forces won the day and took over S. Vietnam in 1973.

Bosnia...Bubbas with guns were being systematically exterminated by Serbians with actual military arms. Serbia forced out of Bosnia by the USAF basically after their president was given a choice between leaving and having his country destroyed with essentially no effective defenses to counter.

Iraq 1...no bubbas with guns involved

Chechnya...bubbas with guns meet Russian artillery and aircraft...bubbas lose. Ruthless and bigger weapons generally work well together against Bubbas with guns.

Iraq 2...bubbas with guns were killing each other and the US was stuck in the middle after the proverbial "we broke their country" occurred. Bubbas with guns finally decided killing each other isn't very fun and they decide to try giving politics a chance. US exits at that point. Of note, bubbas with guns in the former regime were usually tortured, had their families shot and/or raped in front of them before being shot. Not many bubbas with guns will actually sign up for that...but it sounds good in theory cuz you know with me an my AR ain't no one gonna stop me.

Iraq 2.5/Western Syria...Bubbas with guns resoundingly defeated by a combination of bombs and actual soldiers. Turns out bubbas with guns were only good at snuff films and looking cool in pretend battles that no serious soldier would ever do. Now known as Tik Tok warriors.

Afghanistan...bubbas with guns defeated by Soviet invaders in a couple of days. Stalemate for years...bubbas with guns hide out in the mountains or die...Bubbas with guns eventually get Stinger missiles, game changes, helicopters go away. Helicopters with guns are good at killing Bubbas with guns. Soviets do lots of drugs, babushkas all over Russia get mad and Soviets leave...yea Bubbas with guns win! (Well not really...bubbas with guns, stinger missiles and a butt load of foreign weapons/support win). US loses interest competing bubbas with guns fight and kill each other for years until the US gets involved again with Bin Laden attack.

Round 2...bubbas take half the year off in Pakistan and come back for summer fighting. US respects the border. After 20 years US throws in the towel...bubbas with guns win??? Unfortunately bubbas with guns don't know how to run a country...but hey, they look super cool in their baggy clothes and AK-47s. (Lessons for super powers...only back people who actually have their skin in the game and don't overstay your initial reason for being there...this is known as hubris.)

Columbia...bubbas with guns do jungles, guns and drugs. After 30 years bubbas decide living in a jungle for a really long time isn't that great and quit.

As noted earlier...our 1776 bubbas with guns had a pretty great general who trained them as a conventional army and fought as one which normally lost the early battles. Eventually, our bubbas with guns (who are now a conventional army) pin the other professional army against the coast which was in turn hemmed in by the French Navy and could not be rescued. Turns out the US Continental Army wasn't actually bubbas with guns after year 1...because they kept getting beat soundly by professional soldiers with red uniforms. Afterwards, historians write about how fortunate it was that a non-selfish man who was motivated by the right things and BUILT a country...who can name the Afghanistan Washington...anyone?

Drug cartel bubbas with guns...don't cross certain non-publicized lines or you will learn first hand how good elite SOF are. Unfortunately you wont' be able to write about it and gain royalties from the book sales.

While I don't have as much familiarity, with a little research I could list conflict after conflict in Asia, S. America and Africa where bubbas with guns lost. That is almost always the case. No doubt there are some exceptions...but very few.

OK...there's my evidence.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:56 pm For those of you who are pro-gun control, how do you plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals (gang bangers, etc)? I mean, it worked so well for drugs.....

This question is a good point against draconian gun control laws, but are there any ideas for what to do between confiscation and doing nothing?

And when you acknowledge that you really can't, how does taking guns away from law abiding citizens solve anything?

So we're supposed to just live with this high level of mass violence? We should just let things be what they are today and wait for the next sensational trajedy so we can ignore it again?

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:55 pm Afterwards, historians write about how fortunate it was that a non-selfish man who was motivated by the right things and BUILT a country...who can name the Afghanistan Washington...anyone?

We got Washington and Cincinnatus. Who else?

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:55 pm

Fair question, the usual locations mentioned in the news......



OK...there's my evidence.
[/quote]

One distinction I'd like to add for comment - the expression goes possession is 9/10 of the law.
In nearly every example Kbg provided, the bands of bubbas were fighting against an invading force, and still lost to professional military.

Here we're talking about a civilian militia rising up and using their civilian 2nd Amendment firearms to overthrow a government that is as firmly in possession of the country as can be humanly possible, with law enforcement at more levels than I can count. I don't know how to emphasize just how much more difficult that task is compared to beating back an invading force or a homegrown upstart.
When you see totalitarian governments "overthrown" in other countries, it is almost always a military coup d'etat, not a band of bubbas overwhelming the existing military.

I'm not claiming to be a scholar on the Revolutionary war, but from what I recall, the thirteen colonies were mostly self governed and independent in terms of physical possession. The arrangement with the British was a mercantile colonial economic form of possession more than physical possession. So when the colonies joined together and declared independence, it was closer to fighting an invading force asserting economic rights, than overthrowing an incumbent government. But take me to school if you know otherwise.

> Depending on how big your militia is I'm bringing some Delta guys

It would be some of the military (traitors) vs FL+TX state guard, natl guard, sheriffs, and bubbas("rednecks, idiots") from all over the country.

As Pug mentioned, waiting period, background check, maybe 21 to buy.

The libs who want guns banned think the government didnt lie about covid. The possibility that they could lie requires too large a change of worldview.

Meanwhile CA is still in a state of emergency, despite never using hospital overflow facilities even at the peak of the case-demic 2.5 years ago. Allows Newsom to give contracts to donors, among other things

https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/ ... tedhealth/

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:20 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:49 am P.S. What about comparing the U.S. to itself? 2021 to 1971?

…
One weird change that nobody thinks about is that every gun control proposal or law sends gun acquisitions soaring. In 1971 gun control was still very minor, and people didn’t feel much need to get one while they still could. I think gun control has sent gun numbers to the moon.
…

Always a good time to buy gun stocks. (Although I haven’t for a while).

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:43 pm

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:20 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:49 am P.S. What about comparing the U.S. to itself? 2021 to 1971?

One weird change that nobody thinks about is that every gun control proposal or law sends gun acquisitions soaring. In 1971 gun control was still very minor, and people didn’t feel much need to get one while they still could. I think gun control has sent gun numbers to the moon.
…

Always a good time to buy gun stocks. (Although I haven’t for a while).

Why not buy the entire gun?

boglerdude wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:20 pm As Pug mentioned, waiting period, background check, maybe 21 to buy.

Thanks, bolger and pug. It seems that we can find some middle ground here. Waiting periods. Close up any background check loopholes.

Study upping the age (would it actually help?).

Also some serious study in red flag laws, if not enactment and implementation (assuming they aren't challenged/struck down by SCOTUS).

How about more training for cops? If there are red flag laws in the state, then training of police officers and social workers so we don't have Buffalo happen again. Also tactical training for handling these crisis situations since FL and TX cops clearly weren't ready for the moment.

And as I mentioned above, progressive softies can't let baby gun crimes slide just because they are anti-jail. Prosecute any strawman purchases as well.

Does this seem like a moderate path forward?

joypog wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:59 pm

MangoMan wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:56 pm

And when you acknowledge that you really can't, how does taking guns away from law abiding citizens solve anything?

So we're supposed to just live with this high level of mass violence? We should just let things be what they are today and wait for the next sensational trajedy so we can ignore it again?

How does your conclusion follow from my question? The vast, vast majority of legal gun owners also follow the law. I believe the NRA points out that no member has ever caused a mass shooting. So saying that allowing legal gun owners to keep their guns will somehow foment "this high level of mass violence" is ludicrous.

My apologies, I was frustrated with the general gun control conversation in the US. You get one side that wants to do the impossible (confiscate guns) and the other side that is seemingly unwilling to countance any minimal encroachment on their maximalist interpretation of the 2A. It always feels that the two sides are whistling past each other.

In that frustration I misread your question as a rhetorical "can't do nothing" statement.

To answer your specific question. I agree. Gun control won't do much without a draconian regime of brutal invasive search and confiscation with heavy punishments for anyone who is caught with possession (obviously this would require a repeal of the 2A).

As Xan pointed out early in the thread, that's not an American even I would want to live in. Things aren't that bad.

However, without adoption of middle ground policy proposals (a risk of "slippery slope" on one side and a complaint of "not enough") I fear we're going to be stuck in this seige warfare of inaction.

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:05 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:55 pm

Fair question, the usual locations mentioned in the news......



OK...there's my evidence.

One distinction I'd like to add for comment - the expression goes possession is 9/10 of the law.
In nearly every example Kbg provided, the bands of bubbas were fighting against an invading force, and still lost to professional military.

Here we're talking about a civilian militia rising up and using their civilian 2nd Amendment firearms to overthrow a government that is as firmly in possession of the country as can be humanly possible, with law enforcement at more levels than I can count. I don't know how to emphasize just how much more difficult that task is compared to beating back an invading force or a homegrown upstart.
When you see totalitarian governments "overthrown" in other countries, it is almost always a military coup d'etat, not a band of bubbas overwhelming the existing military.

I'm not claiming to be a scholar on the Revolutionary war, but from what I recall, the thirteen colonies were mostly self governed and independent in terms of physical possession. The arrangement with the British was a mercantile colonial economic form of possession more than physical possession. So when the colonies joined together and declared independence, it was closer to fighting an invading force asserting economic rights, than overthrowing an incumbent government. But take me to school if you know otherwise.
[/quote]

I would agree 100%...Washington knew we could not win independence without beating the British Army in the way armies were defeated in those days. So that's why he did everything possible to professionalize the Continental Army...and he had little tolerance for senior officers who he deemed unprofessional. Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben, look him up.

More rant coming...look away now. Don't say you weren't warned. :-)

For those who are willing to engage their brains more than superficially...if bubbas with guns are fighting the big bad US gubment, then we are in a civil war and the side with the best military, industrial base and motivation is going to win it. (And the other half of the US is going to have bubbas with guns as well...so let's assume they just net out.)

Oh hey we have experience with that in the US and it would be known as the Kansas-Missouri or Border war that continued right into our civil war.

And once the pros showed up...what happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_ ... _Civil_War

OK here's my one and only concession to this idea...In the late 1700's when the Constitution was written, the bubbas with guns approach to defense was legit for the times. It was used all the time in the various wars with Indian tribes both for defense and offense. It was also used less frequently on the border to defend against Mexican bandit raiders in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. Trick question: What happened every time an Indian tribe or Mexican bandit gang outmatched the firepower of the local militia? Answer: Yo Senator/Congressman/President...get the US cavalry out here ASAP please.

If someone wants to concealed carry (legally) so they aren't a sitting target in a crowded movie theater rock on brother or sister. In my view, in today's world such a scenario is a solid argument for having the appropriate firearm...the right to self-defense. If someone wants to hunt (legally) there's a huge part of America where that is both culture and sport...also rock on. I categorically do not want to live in a country where everyone has an AR-15 or AK-47 slung over their shoulders for defense. If you've ever been to a place like that you know the following: They are sh**holes.

Guns as a defense against the US government is pure delusional fantasy. In terms someone who thinks like this should understand...you will lack firepower sufficient to the task. And, unless you have sufficient funds to upscale to serious 21st century firepower (guided missiles, aircraft, laser and GPS guided artillery and armor, C4ISR systems to bring it all together) you are going to lose.

There's one thing I know that is absolute fact in the 21st century...if the US military finds you and wants to kill you, you are dead. Your only hope is to not be found...shooting at professional soldiers gets you found and quickly.

One more bad argument...if you get rid of guns then only criminals will have guns so we can't do anything.

Not something I would suggest...but yes you can make guns illegal and it has a massive impact to the downside on gun-related violence and crime. This isn't even debatable. For countries who have done it, the results are clear.

But again...and this is a critical point. Guns do not keep you safe...the rule of law, adherence to the rule of law, lack of corruption in the legal arm and enforcement of the law is what keeps you safe.

A trillion guns lacking a good legal system gets you Afghanistan, Latin America and several parts of Africa.

Or let's make this super simple...the actual problem isn't being able to shoot. The fundamental problem is getting shot at. The former is a reaction to the latter, the latter is the problem.

So let's stick to the problem at hand...how do we prevent children getting shot at in school? I don't know about you guys but I'm pretty sure if in the third grade I saw my teacher Miss Hansen exchanging fire over my desk with a shooter I would be pretty traumatized mentally for quite a while. Teacher's packing isn't a fix to the problem...only a reaction to.

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:44 pm

PrimalToker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:08 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 9:40 am

PrimalToker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:59 pm
Everyone in 1776 knew that a government with a military 100% of the time turns against the population. The United States should not have a standing army. No Army, No Marines, No Navy, No Air force, No National Guard. There should only be the Coast Guard, and state sponsored militias. The military is spread throughout the population, only officially forming when congress declares war and creates an army. After the war the military is disbanded and equipment dispersed throughout the states. The real entity that shouldn't be allowed to have weapons is the federal government.

My former self would love to meet you on the field of battle. You bring the militia. Depending on how big your militia is I'm bringing I think some Delta guys and a Spooky. If you are larger in size, some Reapers and a couple of B-2s ought do it. If your militia is really big, well then let's just throw the whole shooting match at you.

Just read a little bit about what is going on in Ukraine...this should tell you your idea is completely stupid (you know assuming you actually want to win the war vs. making some political 2nd amendment bs point shortly before you get to go meet your maker).

The humans who are the best at killing practice at it a lot. And the humans capable of killing at large scale use things that take lots of practice to know how to use and then use their tools effectively and as part of a very large, integrated and coordinated killing team. If your opponent is both suicidal and has no sense of humanity they shoot these highly technical things at you that are long and oblongish looking with rounded off 3 dimensional triangles on the top. Your guys with guns and their guns get turned into ash and gun metal returns to mother earth as a liquid blob.

Humans are really good at killing each other...if you think bringing an intermural softball team of fat old men to the majors is a good idea, good luck with that.

So let me be perfectly clear on one point...guns do not bring you freedom or safety. Good civil society and the rule of law is what brings both.

You're a complete idiot.

Nice, you're going to need to up your game.

My experience is you get these types of responses when the other side had nothing useful or compelling to counter with.

I'll go mano e mano with you all day long on warfare discussions and we will let the audience judge for themselves who is the idiot here.

We digress...back to school shooters.

Cheers!

Totally easy judgement for me to make!

Desert wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 2:29 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 9:40 am
My former self would love to meet you on the field of battle. You bring the militia. Depending on how big your militia is I'm bringing I think some Delta guys and a Spooky. If you are larger in size, some Reapers and a couple of B-2s ought do it. If your militia is really big, well then let's just throw the whole shooting match at you.

Just read a little bit about what is going on in Ukraine...this should tell you your idea is completely stupid (you know assuming you actually want to win the war vs. making some political 2nd amendment bs point shortly before you get to go meet your maker).

The humans who are the best at killing practice at it a lot. And the humans capable of killing at large scale use things that take lots of practice to know how to use and then use their tools effectively and as part of a very large, integrated and coordinated killing team. If your opponent is both suicidal and has no sense of humanity they shoot these highly technical things at you that are long and oblongish looking with rounded off 3 dimensional triangles on the top. Your guys with guns and their guns get turned into ash and gun metal returns to mother earth as a liquid blob.

Humans are really good at killing each other...if you think bringing an intermural softball team of fat old men to the majors is a good idea, good luck with that.

So let me be perfectly clear on one point...guns do not bring you freedom or safety. Good civil society and the rule of law is what brings both.

This is a great post. And the logical conclusion is this: If we'd taken the 2nd amendment seriously, the U.S. would no longer exist. We would have been conquered easily by one of the world powers as our local militias fought and died at the hands of modern air forces, navies, and mechanized land forces.

The 2nd Amendment wasn't well written, and is completely outdated. I think it needs to be replaced.

And I want to address one aspect of the abortion/gun-death debate: There is no reason one can't oppose both. It's only our silly political polarization that seemingly forces (it doesn't really, it's a personal choice) one to oppose abortion and then support the sea of firearms that plague our cities. If you support birth, it's illogical to disregard the welfare of the resulting children. A decent approach would be to be pro-life across the spectrum: continue to work to reduce/eliminate late term abortions; provide and encourage birth control; work on reasonable gun control measures; continue to improve automobile safety. But to take such a position, one has to set aside tribalism in favor of morality and logic.

Several times a friend and I used to discuss how he and I were just about all pro-life.

Just about 100% against all abortions under all circumstances.

Supporting families / children once they were born.

Not killing our citizenry through senseless and needless wars (while also not killing those on the other side).

I Shrugged wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 3:20 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:49 am
P.S. What about comparing the U.S. to itself? 2021 to 1971?

Absolutely!

One weird change that nobody thinks about is that every gun control proposal or law sends gun acquisitions soaring. In 1971 gun control was still very minor, and people didn’t feel much need to get one while they still could. I think gun control has sent gun numbers to the moon.

But the real point is that we were a better culture in 1971.

Black people (and other minorities) and women would differ with that. That is the majority of our current population.

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 10:34 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:05 pm

Kbg wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 4:55 pm

Fair question, the usual locations mentioned in the news......



OK...there's my evidence.

One distinction I'd like to add for comment - the expression goes possession is 9/10 of the law.
In nearly every example Kbg provided, the bands of bubbas were fighting against an invading force, and still lost to professional military.

Here we're talking about a civilian militia rising up and using their civilian 2nd Amendment firearms to overthrow a government that is as firmly in possession of the country as can be humanly possible, with law enforcement at more levels than I can count. I don't know how to emphasize just how much more difficult that task is compared to beating back an invading force or a homegrown upstart.
When you see totalitarian governments "overthrown" in other countries, it is almost always a military coup d'etat, not a band of bubbas overwhelming the existing military.

I'm not claiming to be a scholar on the Revolutionary war, but from what I recall, the thirteen colonies were mostly self governed and independent in terms of physical possession. The arrangement with the British was a mercantile colonial economic form of possession more than physical possession. So when the colonies joined together and declared independence, it was closer to fighting an invading force asserting economic rights, than overthrowing an incumbent government. But take me to school if you know otherwise.

I would agree 100%...Washington knew we could not win independence without beating the British Army in the way armies were defeated in those days. So that's why he did everything possible to professionalize the Continental Army...and he had little tolerance for senior officers who he deemed unprofessional. Friedrich Wilhelm Von Steuben, look him up.

More rant coming...look away now. Don't say you weren't warned. :-)

For those who are willing to engage their brains more than superficially...if bubbas with guns are fighting the big bad US gubment, then we are in a civil war and the side with the best military, industrial base and motivation is going to win it. (And the other half of the US is going to have bubbas with guns as well...so let's assume they just net out.)

Oh hey we have experience with that in the US and it would be known as the Kansas-Missouri or Border war that continued right into our civil war.

And once the pros showed up...what happened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_ ... _Civil_War

OK here's my one and only concession to this idea...In the late 1700's when the Constitution was written, the bubbas with guns approach to defense was legit for the times. It was used all the time in the various wars with Indian tribes both for defense and offense. It was also used less frequently on the border to defend against Mexican bandit raiders in the late 1800s and very early 1900s. Trick question: What happened every time an Indian tribe or Mexican bandit gang outmatched the firepower of the local militia? Answer: Yo Senator/Congressman/President...get the US cavalry out here ASAP please.

If someone wants to concealed carry (legally) so they aren't a sitting target in a crowded movie theater rock on brother or sister. In my view, in today's world such a scenario is a solid argument for having the appropriate firearm...the right to self-defense. If someone wants to hunt (legally) there's a huge part of America where that is both culture and sport...also rock on. I categorically do not want to live in a country where everyone has an AR-15 or AK-47 slung over their shoulders for defense. If you've ever been to a place like that you know the following: They are sh**holes.

Guns as a defense against the US government is pure delusional fantasy. In terms someone who thinks like this should understand...you will lack firepower sufficient to the task. And, unless you have sufficient funds to upscale to serious 21st century firepower (guided missiles, aircraft, laser and GPS guided artillery and armor, C4ISR systems to bring it all together) you are going to lose.

There's one thing I know that is absolute fact in the 21st century...if the US military finds you and wants to kill you, you are dead. Your only hope is to not be found...shooting at professional soldiers gets you found and quickly.
[/quote]

For how many seconds do you think the 300 January 5th Proud Boys would have lasted against the people you describe above?

So, 21 and verified identity to buy a gun, and 21 and verified identity to vote. Sounds good!

Meanwhile, papers please!
https://old.reddit.com/r/ChurchOfCOVID/ ... _taken_to/

yankees60 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:54 pm For how many seconds do you think the 300 January 5th Proud Boys would have lasted against the people you describe above?

That's a loaded question because one would have to make a whole lot of assumptions the biggest one being how much of the capitol building do you want damaged or destroyed. One would also have to assume what weapons the US government brought to bare and the motivational level of the proud boys/folks at the capitol building.

My assumptions:

- 95% are posers and when confronted with professional SOF would have caved instantly. If any of them actually had infantry experience and could see who was showing up (on the US govt side) they would have known they were screwed and it was time to surrender or die shortly.

- 5% remain...cordon off the place, shut off the water and electricity and starve them out. A week maybe?

- If the above didn't work and we didn't mind some bullet holes and fragmentation damage in the capitol, couple of hours tops.

If we would have had a real president with some honor in charge at the time that's what should have been done...seal off the place, wait for people to come out and arrest everyone of them for trespassing and then begin doing what we are doing (IDing those who went beyond that).

My disgust for anyone who entered the building is near limitless. First time, and I hope the only time in my life, I felt like the United States was no better than a third world country. However, I do think some of the crowd just got caught up in the moment and afterwards realized they made a huge mistake and if they weren't beating up on cops or busting stuff up, convict them of trespassing or whatever and let them go on and live their lives. If they came forward voluntarily and said...I'm sorry, I completely screwed up I'd be great with a minor slap on the wrist and calling it good.

For those who went beyond entering the building, I'd be cool with a firing squad. That's the usual punishment for traitors to one's country.

Next to 9/11 I've never been more outraged.