Protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights

Horn6721 said:
Do you really trust the gov't to delete data of gun purchasers after 2 years?
Click to expand...
I trust that there will likely always be a political contingent that will ensure that this happens if it were a law. I don't trust the gov't per se, but I do trust that I can vote for someone that will make this a priority in D.C. on our behalf.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
I trust that there will likely always be a political contingent that will ensure that this happens if it were a law. I don't trust the gov't per se, but I do trust that I can vote for someone that will make this a priority in D.C. on our behalf.
Click to expand...
I trust the Americans serving in the military but not necessarily the Military.
 
I have trust in the leadership within the military, however not in our government and their often dumbass direction of our military.
The imposition of a liberal social agenda forced into the rank and file of our military will cost lives of those who serve.
And that comes from our government who couldn’t load a weapon nor direct a fire team.
To be clear- go pick up and carry your 180lb buddy just 200 yards, encouraging him to be limp as if unconscious or injured.
Now get your 22 year old “empowered” daughter to do the same.
Women are strong, I consider them equal and surperior in a lot of things.
They are not as physically strong nor are their bodies suited for 2+ weeks in the field.
I doubt that anyone who is served in a combat arms MOS would want females serving alongside of them. And that has absolutely nothing to do with equal rights.

I read an article from a girl who pushed to spend roughly a month out with a Marine infantry unit, No showers no real hygiene, MRE, etc. , Pumping with 80 pounds on her back. Period. Sometimes having other Marines pick up the slack on things that she couldn’t carry
She agreed that the challenges that women face are not conducive in a combat role.
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
Well said. The challenge is that the firepower of the state has far outpaced the firepower of you, me, and joe from down the road. Armed drones, cruise missiles, etc. The armed populace has served as a certain deterrent to countries thinking about taking a bite. But, surely not as much as the most financially backed military in the world by a large chunk.
Click to expand...

I've heard this issue raised, and I've never understood why it's raised as a reason to weaken the arms rights of the citizenry. If anything, it is a reason to expand them and weaken the arms of the government.

Having said that, having greater arms often doesn't dictate outcome. We didn't fail in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea because of a lack of firepower. We wildly outgunned every one of those places and the people we were fighting. We failed because of a lack of will and a lack of patience. They were willing to do whatever it took to survive, and we weren't willing to do whatever it took to win. There was a level of brutality we weren't willing to inflict. There was a price we weren't willing to pay. There was a number of troops we weren't working to deploy. Furthermore, our enemies knew it.

Now put that same issue in place against American civilians. Yes, the US government in theory could crush any rebellion just like it could topple the North Korean regime (after nuking the place, deploying a million troops, and basically committing genocide on the North Korean people). It can deploy drones, nuclear weapons, etc. It can take machine guns to old men, women, and children and stop anything, but would it have the will to use the firepower that it has? I don't think it would. There are legal limitations on it, and even if there weren't, when the order is issued to just blow away a bunch of American citizens because your commander in chief doesn't like their politics, how many will actually carry it out? Considering that the military is disproportionately southern, I think many would not.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I've heard this issue raised, and I've never understood why it's raised as a reason to weaken the arms rights of the citizenry. If anything, it is a reason to expand them and weaken the arms of the government.

Having said that, having greater arms often doesn't dictate outcome. We didn't fail in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea because of a lack of firepower. We wildly outgunned every one of those places and the people we were fighting. We failed because of a lack of will and a lack of patience. They were willing to do whatever it took to survive, and we weren't willing to do whatever it took to win. There was a level of brutality we weren't willing to inflict. There was a price we weren't willing to pay. There was a number of troops we weren't working to deploy. Furthermore, our enemies knew it.

Now put that same issue in place against American civilians. Yes, the US government in theory could crush any rebellion just like it could topple the North Korean regime (after nuking the place, deploying a million troops, and basically committing genocide on the North Korean people). It can deploy drones, nuclear weapons, etc. It can take machine guns to old men, women, and children and stop anything, but would it have the will to use the firepower that it has? I don't think it would. There are legal limitations on it, and even if there weren't, when the order is issued to just blow away a bunch of American citizens because your commander in chief doesn't like their politics, how many will actually carry it out? Considering that the military is disproportionately southern, I think many would not.
Click to expand...
I would not call any actions in the Middle East as failure. See ISIS, those idiots got their asses handed to them.
These people do not fight as a country, they fight as independent tribes.
Once our dependence on oil is over, they will all go back to killing each other and being nomads.
 
NRHorn said:
I would not call any actions in the Middle East as failure. See ISIS, those idiots got their asses handed to them.
These people do not fight as a country, they fight as independent tribes.
Once our dependence on oil is over, they will all go back to killing each other and being nomads.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about ISIS. I'm talking about the Iraq War and the Afghan War.
 
Well, okay.
Where did the US combat ISIS at?
No I didn’t mention the Taliban but the same type radical jihad forces, I was really referring to both when I said Isis or ISIL
 
Oh Bidens evacuations without a plan.
Yes, I agree.
But my point is the Taliban and ISIS would agree they were soundly defeated.
The first Gulf War, was the most overwhelming defeat next to Grenada.
 
Yes the gov't has weaponry that dwarfs the citizen, but I would also suggest that a substantial portion of the FBI, CIA, LEO's, military etc would not obey an unconstitutional effort against the citizenry even if directed to do so. Looks like about 9% or so are going to refuse the vaccine and that is not even asking them to conduct harmful acts against fellow citizens. They make movies about charismatic generals rolling out coups but the military community is just as divided as the rest of America (maybe a little more conservative) and many would disobey the order if given.
 
NRHorn said:
But my point is the Taliban and ISIS would agree they were soundly defeated.
Click to expand...

Not the Taliban. They consider correctly that they won a war against the US. War isn't a damage count or who scored more points.

Victory in war is defined by which side achieved their political goals. In the Afghanistan case it was the Taliban.
 
NRHorn said:
But my point is the Taliban and ISIS would agree they were soundly defeated.
Click to expand...

You mean the Taliban that now runs Afghanistan? We "negotiated" an exit in which we left US citizens and green card holders behind to potentially get raped by hordes of thugs or have their heads severed. That isn't victory. That's being so desperate to leave that you take the 12-incher with no KY jelly just to get out.
 
Last edited:
You mean Biden abandoned. That he did.

What I stated was that we overpowered both ISIS and the Taliban.
You also cannot win a “war” against a country that’s not a country.
The only way to “win” is to occupy that land of 1000 tribes.
We crushed the Iraqi regime. We crushed the Taliban in battle as well as ISIS.
Headed back to the football forums.
Hookem
 
271382779_4855081517901391_4429131662631926545_n.jpg
 
Mr. Deez said:
I've heard this issue raised, and I've never understood why it's raised as a reason to weaken the arms rights of the citizenry. If anything, it is a reason to expand them and weaken the arms of the government.

Having said that, having greater arms often doesn't dictate outcome. We didn't fail in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea because of a lack of firepower. We wildly outgunned every one of those places and the people we were fighting. We failed because of a lack of will and a lack of patience. They were willing to do whatever it took to survive, and we weren't willing to do whatever it took to win. There was a level of brutality we weren't willing to inflict. There was a price we weren't willing to pay. There was a number of troops we weren't working to deploy. Furthermore, our enemies knew it.

Now put that same issue in place against American civilians. Yes, the US government in theory could crush any rebellion just like it could topple the North Korean regime (after nuking the place, deploying a million troops, and basically committing genocide on the North Korean people). It can deploy drones, nuclear weapons, etc. It can take machine guns to old men, women, and children and stop anything, but would it have the will to use the firepower that it has? I don't think it would. There are legal limitations on it, and even if there weren't, when the order is issued to just blow away a bunch of American citizens because your commander in chief doesn't like their politics, how many will actually carry it out? Considering that the military is disproportionately southern, I think many would not.
Click to expand...

No need to do a thought experiment here. What's the track record for armed, paid, uniformed employees of the State not obeying orders given to them? About as close to zero as you can get.

The mayor of any big city in America could order the cops to conduct a no knock, no search warrant, 4 AM raid on their political enemies, and the only questions they would get would be related to the amount of chargeable overtime.

There are several places you do not want to be in this world. Between a bear and her cubs, swimming with sharks with an open leg wound, etc. Add to that relying on uniformed members of the State to not do what they have been told.
 
Last edited:
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
Yes the gov't has weaponry that dwarfs the citizen, but I would also suggest that a substantial portion of the FBI, CIA, LEO's, military etc would not obey an unconstitutional effort against the citizenry even if directed to do so. Looks like about 9% or so are going to refuse the vaccine and that is not even asking them to conduct harmful acts against fellow citizens. They make movies about charismatic generals rolling out coups but the military community is just as divided as the rest of America (maybe a little more conservative) and many would disobey the order if given.
Click to expand...

Again, uniformed, armed, paid agents of the State are going to do exactly whatever they are told to do. The first group you mentioned, the KGBI, has had exactly zero agents quit from the fact that they've turned into the USA's secret police force, raiding the homes and offices of political enemies like Project Vertis, or from them lying to the FISA courts for warrants to spy on Americans.

The CIA is probably even worse in terms of being entirely a left-wing controlled organization, as most of its staff sits around the DC area, and is made mostly of Ivy League grads, of whom a higher percentage voted for the Commie Green candidate for President than did for Trump.

Look, the ability to get your employees to fire on fellow citizens and send them off to internment camps doesn't happen overnight. A methodical program is put in place to separate those groups of people from the rest of society in terms of belonging, being allowed to function in society (much like how those without the Wuhan shot are denied entry or fired from their jobs), what they must wear (like yellow stars), how they are shown in entertainment (ever see a positive portrayal of a conservatives or heaven's knows a Trump supporter in the movies or on TV?).

Then when the time comes to fire on US citizens or send them off to interment camps, as FDR did in WWII, it's not really your fellow citizen you are killing, its those hate filled racist terrorist insurrectionists who are engaging in sedition from Our Democracy!!!

There is no chance the KGBI, CIA, or the military will not obey orders to kill US citizens, if and when the order is given, or to round various enemies of the state up and ship them off to camps. Place your trust and faith not in them, and plan accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Damn Duck. Huge black pill. I hope those would not comply who identify with the "other" group they are ordered to harm. But looking at police around the world enforcing vaccine passports violently, says you are mostly right.
 
mchammer said:
Are these commentators in disbelief ducking morons?

Click to expand...

Leftist don't want you to have firearms, so that they can better round you up later. There's no consistency in their viewpoints for citizens in other countries having firearms, nor any needed.

It's like the Soviet Union banning the private ownership of firearms, and shoveling AK-47's out of cargo planes in 3rd world counties. Different goals, different actions.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
Leftist don't want you to have firearms, so that they can better round you up later. There's no consistency in their viewpoints for citizens in other countries having firearms, nor any needed.

It's like the Soviet Union banning the private ownership of firearms, and shoveling AK-47's out of cargo planes in 3rd world counties. Different goals, different actions.
Click to expand...
I’m a pro gun leftist. I just think you have a duty to assure I’m not a person legally not allowed to own a weapon before you sell me one.
 
I do assume it. For it's the government, not me, that released someone back into society from the prison or crazy house they were in.

Otherwise, what's the government saying?

"This person is too dangerous to have a firearm"

"OK, are you going to keep this dangerous person locked up?"

"No, we're going to let him go, probably without a bond as that's racialist, and even if he's a convicted felon we'll let him vote in the next election so he can vote Democrat. Now it's your job to fully research the background and history of this person who's free to do as he pleases in society. Thanks!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top