The Reality of State Secession


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Individual politicians have made statements indicating that private firearms are worthless against the might of the US military, s

I actually agree with that statement 100%, but to me it’s irrelevant. I have the right to own a gun for self defense, hunting….basically whatever reason I want to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:
6 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Individual politicians have made statements indicating that private firearms are worthless against the might of the US military, s

I actually agree with that statement 100%, but to me it’s irrelevant. I have the right to own a gun for self defense, hunting….basically whatever reason I want to. 

I disagree, from what I've read on the America constitution the point of the right to bare arms is to prevent tyranny. Also 4th gen warfare always seems to give the American army a run for its money.  Not to mention the military may be divided in the conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Highlander said:

I disagree, from what I've read on the America constitution the point of the right to bare arms is to prevent tyranny. Also 4th gen warfare always seems to give the American army a run for its money.  Not to mention the military may be divided in the conflict.

No worries. If we agreed on everything none of us would be here. Also, in the big picture like I mentioned I’m with second amendment advocates on virtually everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Highlander said:

I disagree, from what I've read on the America constitution the point of the right to bare arms is to prevent tyranny. Also 4th gen warfare always seems to give the American army a run for its money.  Not to mention the military may be divided in the conflict.

The military will most assuredly be divided in the conflict and an armed local populace will absolutely give a hesitant domestic army a run for its money.

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Highlander said:

I disagree, from what I've read on the America constitution the point of the right to bare arms is to prevent tyranny. Also 4th gen warfare always seems to give the American army a run for its money.  Not to mention the military may be divided in the conflict.

*bear arms.

And it’s not to “prevent tyranny”, it is because it’s “necessary to the security of a free state“.  There are more threats to the security of a free state, then just tyranny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neuro, I guess I misspoke myself... perhaps I should've said, "in my lifetime"... and perhaps I should've also been more specific about confiscation of "guns" specifically, as opposed to other goods. But much of my silver and gold is in the form of numismatic coins, meaning actual currency (supposedly, unlike bullion rounds and bars, not eligible for confiscation). And they can call it whatever they want, and it really doesn't matter what form I have it in... I wish them luck in trying to take it from me by force... even if the beat me, they'll never find it.

Ironhold... I agree. And by the way, I like the idea of idiot liberal politicians assuming that the military will be on their side, like assuming that law enforcement will as well. I honestly don't think they realize how far out on a very small branch they are (when making that assumption). And I tend to think their "nebulous" wording is intentional, (in comparing the weaponry available to the average citizen, to that which is available to the military) it adds the implication that anyone who is pro-gun, will at some point rise up to over throw our government. Again... what idiots. In reality, it's the pro-gun crowd who would like to see our government saved (from the bastardisation it is currently under going). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 4:11 AM, NeuroTypical said:

And it’s not to “prevent tyranny”, it is because it’s “necessary to the security of a free state“.  There are more threats to the security of a free state, then just tyranny.

The right of people to bear arms might or might not aid in maintaining the security of a free state. However, it seems that that right does seem to be adding to the insecurity of many of the citizens of that state. Is the increased security of the freedom of the state being achieved at the cost of increased insecurity of its citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The right of people to bear arms might or might not aid in maintaining the security of a free state. However, it seems that that right does seem to be adding to the insecurity of many of the citizens of that state. Is the increased security of the freedom of the state being achieved at the cost of increased insecurity of its citizens?

If it were known that most of the population was carrying, we'd have a few crazy people trying to do mass shootings, but they'd be quickly dispatched as in Indiana.  We simply would not have mass shootings anymore.

So, what insecurity are you talking about?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/21/2022 at 2:18 AM, Carborendum said:

If it were known that most of the population was carrying, we'd have a few crazy people trying to do mass shootings, but they'd be quickly dispatched as in Indiana.  We simply would not have mass shootings anymore.

So, what insecurity are you talking about?

I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads to schools feeling that its a good idea to have special external doors as a form of protection. That is a response to and result of, certain beliefs about what's on the other side of those doors. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that many mothers feel in certain parts of certain cities where, when they send their children off to school, they wander if they will come home again. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads some organisations to have active shooter training drills. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity where people feel they need to carry a gun in order to protect and defend themselves. For many, that is a response driven by fear and insecurity.These kind of events and activities are far less likely to happen in societies where people feel secure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads to schools feeling that its a good idea to have special external doors as a form of protection. That is a response to and result of, certain beliefs about what's on the other side of those doors. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that many mothers feel in certain parts of certain cities where, when they send their children off to school, they wander if they will come home again. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads some organisations to have active shooter training drills. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity where people feel they need to carry a gun in order to protect and defend themselves. For many, that is a response driven by fear and insecurity.These kind of events and activities are far less likely to happen in societies where people feel secure. 

What you're describing has existed since the dawn of time.  We each assess our own risk independently, and weight that risk differently.  If you look at the number of homes in the U.S. and the number of house fires annually, you aren't likely to have a house fire this year.  However, many of us have fire extinguishers.  If you look at the number of miles driven in total each year and the number of serious car accidents per mile driven, you aren't likely to need your seatbelt, yet we mandate seat belt usage in many states and many of us wear one anyway.  My sister refuses to swim in the ocean because she's afraid a shark will eat her.  In New England, that isn't very likely at all.  However, she's passed that fear onto her children, and they makes sure everyone they go to the beach with knows they shouldn't be in the water.   

Given the number of schools in the U.S. and the number of school shootings each year, you aren't likely to need your active shooter training, or nuclear blast training, or even fire drill training.  yet we do it.  The frequency we do it is often driven by our fear, rational or not.   

The world has always had something that made them feel insecure.   As a result, they've always had something to make them feel better in response to that insecurity.    People carrying firearms doesn't add to any person's actual insecurity.  

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads to schools feeling that its a good idea to have special external doors as a form of protection. That is a response to and result of, certain beliefs about what's on the other side of those doors. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that many mothers feel in certain parts of certain cities where, when they send their children off to school, they wander if they will come home again. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads some organisations to have active shooter training drills. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity where people feel they need to carry a gun in order to protect and defend themselves. For many, that is a response driven by fear and insecurity.These kind of events and activities are far less likely to happen in societies where people feel secure. 

So, you're talking about the insecurity comes from creating "gun free zones"?  I absolutely agree.

It is like announcing,"Hey, bad guys!  We are defenseless here.  So, if you have a gun, then you will probably be able to kill a whole lot of people before you get gunned down.  So, if you want more bang for your buck, attack here."

You don't believe me?  Try putting a sign out in front of a gun abolitionist's house that says, "This house has no guns."  How do you think criminals will react?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

DId you mean to say security or insecurity?

I thought I made that clear by the remainder of my post.  Or are you being cheesy?

When you ADVERTIZE that "WE HAVE NO GUNS HERE!" Do you honestly believe that makes people safer?  It doesn't.  It actually paints a target on their heads.

Take a look at any location in the US.  The areas with more gun ownership sees less gun violence.  Areas with less gun ownership sees more gun violence. 

I'd think this is just common sense.  But I guess people just have a different mindset down under.  Statistics upon statistics back up the idea that greater gun ownership prevents gun crimes.  And it will also decrease the body count when someone wants to go on a shooting spree.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, you're talking about the insecurity comes from creating "gun free zones"?  I absolutely agree.

It is like announcing,"Hey, bad guys!  We are defenseless here.  So, if you have a gun, then you will probably be able to kill a whole lot of people before you get gunned down.  So, if you want more bang for your buck, attack here."

You don't believe me?  Try putting a sign out in front of a gun abolitionist's house that says, "This house has no guns."  How do you think criminals will react?

No, I'm talking about the insecurity that I believe many people experience as a result of too many guns being used in inappropriate ways and for inappropriate purposes. Without having done any study on the matter, I believe that such insecurity would be widespread. I also suspect that any sense of security that might result from a more widespread use and distribution of guns may in some respects be a false sense of security because there's always going to be a better, more accurate, more determined  gun-user on the other side of the fence more ready and capable to shoot you than you are him.

When its widely known or believed that many people do or might carry guns, then a logical response of those who would do harm with guns is not to go looking for those without guns, but to simply use more and better guns, more skillfully. And so the situation escalates, with a corresponding increase in insecurity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

When its widely known or believed that many people do or might carry guns, then a logical response of those who would do harm with guns is not to go looking for those without guns, but to simply use more and better guns, more skillfully.

No, that is not logical. Not at all.

Unless they have a death wish, that is exactly the opposite of what someone would do who is trying to cause as much damage or death as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads to schools feeling that its a good idea to have special external doors as a form of protection. That is a response to and result of, certain beliefs about what's on the other side of those doors. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that many mothers feel in certain parts of certain cities where, when they send their children off to school, they wander if they will come home again. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity that leads some organisations to have active shooter training drills. I'm talking about the kind of insecurity where people feel they need to carry a gun in order to protect and defend themselves. For many, that is a response driven by fear and insecurity.These kind of events and activities are far less likely to happen in societies where people feel secure. 

So you are talking about "insecurity" as a feeling rather than a state. Yes, many people do indeed feel insecure. But it is not the government's job* to make people feel secure. It is the government's job to make sure people are secure.

*Apparently, that's a politician's job.

We can no more make everyone feel secure than we can make everyone feel loved or make everyone feel cold or make everyone feel drunken. So people's feelings of insecurity are of no immediate consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

No, I'm talking about the insecurity that I believe many people experience as a result of too many guns being used in inappropriate ways and for inappropriate purposes. Without having done any study on the matter, I believe that such insecurity would be widespread. I also suspect that any sense of security that might result from a more widespread use and distribution of guns may in some respects be a false sense of security because there's always going to be a better, more accurate, more determined  gun-user on the other side of the fence more ready and capable to shoot you than you are him.

When its widely known or believed that many people do or might carry guns, then a logical response of those who would do harm with guns is not to go looking for those without guns, but to simply use more and better guns, more skillfully. And so the situation escalates, with a corresponding increase in insecurity.

I think you have it backwards.  The "insecurity" people feel as a result of gun ownership is a false sense of insecurity.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, askandanswer said:

No, I'm talking about the insecurity that I believe many people experience as a result of too many guns being used in inappropriate ways and for inappropriate purposes.

The "feeling" of insecurity that you're describing is just that.  A "feeling" that such is caused by the existence of guns.  If you can separate yourself from simple feelings and impressions and observe the actual "facts" then those feelings will go away.

FACTS say that if WIDESPREAD gun ownership is commonplace, the kinds of crimes that give you that "feeling" will all but disappear.

Something that most anti-gun nuts don't understand is that MOST people who own guns are good guys.  There is this MYTH that people outside the US are used to that says,"If you have a gun, you're the bad guy."  No, if EVERyONE had a gun, that would mean everyone is a bad guy.

SIMPLY HAVING A GUN DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD GUY.

11 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Without having done any study on the matter,

And there's the problem.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2022 at 12:17 PM, Ironhold said:

Individual politicians have made statements indicating that private firearms are worthless against the might of the US military, so there's no point in people having them anyway. 

On 7/16/2022 at 7:18 PM, Highlander said:

Also 4th gen warfare always seems to give the American army a run for its money.

The Myth: The US military is so OP that no force on earth can possibly conquer it.

The Fact: Given enough individuals working separately, but united in a cause, having simple hand guns or simple hunting rifles, the personnel of the US military can be wiped out.  And without people, the equipment and materiel is useless.

The Theory: People imagine such a showdown going on with Napoleonic warfare.  We all line up and have a ho-down. Well, of course the people with hand guns would be obliterated with hardly an effort.

The Reality: How have the Taliban been a thorn in the side of the US military for over a decade?  How is it that Afgan militia groups have been a thorn in the side of the former Soviet military?

It is said that there are more hunting licenses issued each year in the states of Texas and Louisiana than in all the standing armies of the world.  I looked into this, and it is partially true.  The statement on its face is true.  However, it does not necessarily mean "hunting with guns".  The include fishing licenses, for instance.  The best guess is that maybe half of them would indicate "hunting with firearms".

The interesting point is that (at the time I looked it up) even half of that number would be more than the US, Chinese, and Russian armies combined.

The standing order would be: Anyone with a gun, shoot at least one person in uniform or a person in a suit giving orders to someone in uniform before they get you.  Eventually, we win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The Myth: The US military is so OP that no force on earth can possibly conquer it.

The Fact: Given enough individuals working separately, but united in a cause, having simple hand guns or simple hunting rifles, the personnel of the US military can be wiped out.  And without people, the equipment and materiel is useless.

The Theory: People imagine such a showdown going on with Napoleonic warfare.  We all line up and have a ho-down. Well, of course the people with hand guns would be obliterated with hardly an effort.

The Reality: How have the Taliban been a thorn in the side of the US military for over a decade?  How is it that Afgan militia groups have been a thorn in the side of the former Soviet military?

It is said that there are more hunting licenses issued each year in the states of Texas and Louisiana than in all the standing armies of the world.  I looked into this, and it is partially true.  The statement on its face is true.  However, it does not necessarily mean "hunting with guns".  The include fishing licenses, for instance.  The best guess is that maybe half of them would indicate "hunting with firearms".

The interesting point is that (at the time I looked it up) even half of that number would be more than the US, Chinese, and Russian armies combined.

The standing order would be: Anyone with a gun, shoot at least one person in uniform or a person in a suit giving orders to someone in uniform before they get you.  Eventually, we win.

The same people who talk about "Guns won't protect you from the army!" also tend to forget that there are other ways to fight battles. 

For example, the North Vietnamese were *infamous* for their ability to turn just about anything and everything into a booby trap. Soldiers were warned not to use the same route twice when taking patrols because the North Vietnamese would quickly learn the movement patterns and rig nasty surprises for everyone. 

Anyone who's actually studied military history to any degree would know that "Let's just turn the military on the people to enforce our will!" is not going to end well if the populace has the means and desire to resist, and that any politician or pundit who says otherwise does not deserve their position of prominence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2022 at 8:35 AM, Carborendum said:

It is said that there are more hunting licenses issued each year in the states of Texas and Louisiana than in all the standing armies of the world.  I looked into this, and it is partially true.  The statement on its face is true.  However, it does not necessarily mean "hunting with guns".  The include fishing licenses, for instance.

I thought fishing in Texas was done with ordnance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Anyone who's actually studied military history

Actually, if you’ve studied military history, or history at all, you’ll know that the side with the best technology and resources usually wins the war. Are there exceptions? You bet. But yes, you’d rather have drones, nukes and stealth bomber jets than even the best civilian hardware. 
 

That’s why the militia run by the guy who also owns Jimmy’s Chicken Shack stands no chance against a professional army like the US Army. This isn’t Vietnam. Warfare has changed dramatically in the 50+ years since that war. 
 

The only chance “the people” would have against the US Armed Forces would be if they (Military) had mass, widespread mutinies. And I’m not optimistic. Soldiers are programmed to obey-I have little confidence they wouldn’t open fire on civilians if given the order. 

 

Look, I pray I’m wrong here. I’m just not naive to the technology of the Army. Your AR-15 will do absolutely nothing if they drop the bomb on Dallas. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, like I said before I’m 100% in favor of you owning an arsenal. I’m staunchly opposed to new gun control.

 

But this belief that we could take down the US military reminds me of the out of shape middle aged guy who hasn’t left his couch since 2007 but thinks he could beat up Mike Tyson because “I just go red and black out bro.” 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share