Never Surrender

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Regular Joe, Jan 19, 2015.

  1. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    15,212
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then explain how they are different. They are different, but how about you enlighten us as to your opinion.
     
  2. Defender of Freedom

    Defender of Freedom Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Messages:
    563
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Would you agree that the militia is locally founded by citizens, aka colonists? Disarm/destroy makes little difference in terms of its effect. Also, the disarming of the Germans and the imprisonment of the Japanese during WW2 were wrong, same goes for that of the British empire. The British military was the strongest military in the world at the time, the colonists were up against the same odds as we would be. In this outbreak as well, much of the American military would be in disarray due to many soldiers siding with the rebels.
     
  3. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bravo! Imnotreallythere isn't considering that the resistance would gain weaponry, leadership, command, organization and logistics by means of usurpation from those who are currently in military service.
    I know of a militia that has been in existence since before the end of the Civil war that has been operating in exactly this manner ever since then. The Pentagon knows who they are, what they have, how they operate, and what to expect from them. The Pentagon has no desire for a contest with them, or with the Fifty Million or so Americans who would stand for the preservation of America.
    The Pentagon knows that America WILL prevail. It's the idiot ******* social parasite agenda that has been in effect since the assassination of JFK that thinks differently.
    I sincerely hope this post genuinely bothers a LOT of people. If the ******* social parasite agenda continues, there can be no alternative but the very worst civil cataclysm that humankind has known.
     
  4. Freedom18

    Freedom18 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    This does anger me a bit, but it also enlightens me because we can find viable alternatives. We all know gun control in America is a joke because guns are so darn widespread and its so ingrained into the culture of the more conservative populace, who would probably form a pretty significant resistance belligerent in the event of some kind of revolt in itself. I think any kind of direct militarized force would best be re-constructed now, in the endless voids of the Deep Web, well out of site of the public eye, even the Pentagon if I'm not letting my liberal optimism underestimate Washington. A collection of underground communication networks would be established, under a variety of different code names. These would be small, close-knit, hard-line groups committed to one political affiliation which wouldn't have a name, and committed to the saving of America from its very plausible dismal future.

    America's progression to authoritarian society will both be sugar-coated by liberalism(gun control, mass surveillance etc. are ok as long as I can watch my TV show, and unconditional support for "complete equality with everyone holding hands") and brutally enforced by conservatism(the shooting of Mike Brown, choking of Eric Garner, wars in the Middle East etc.). This will not go down lightly with the older generation and those of the younger generation who are informed. I do still believe in the gradualism theory, but it also seems likely the government could lose control of things in the event of an unanticipated stock market crash or some misfire by the 0.1% or whoever controls everything if anyone.

    And in that event(s), could lead to worst case scenario, a second American Civil War. This is obviously super unlikely though, and I think the real war is an information war, which has been waged since the beginning of civilization. The war is the journey to finding what works in a society, or whatever makes us sleep at night, or whatever fills are basic needs so we can reach self realization. Throughout history we strive for this by fighting, some with weapons, some with words, and in our 21st century America the front line is definitely words. The manipulation of rhetoric, the spreading of ideas. So in that case, my proposal is to strive for these revolutionary pockets to be intelligent and working for the improvement of society, because it's what we want, the best America we can be.

    As a side note, I'm aware I was pretty harsh on both of the US' main political parties. oh well
     
  5. Imnotreallyhere

    Imnotreallyhere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Who says they will be operating against their family or friends? No single person knows the vast majority of the people in this country. The military has already fired on Americans. Check out Kent State May 4, 1970. Those were National Guardsmen firing on people from their own state. Far from ceasing to operate their 'military junk', they used it.

    The military are not citizens, as you seem to believe. They do not enjoy the same rights as a citizen. They are subject to a different code of justice.

    Further, their loyalties are more likely to be to the government that feeds and supplies them and to their buddies than to any given face in a crowd. Particularly if that crowd is shooting at them. If you and your buds can pull off a coup that only kills politicians, your scenario might work. But I don't think you can.
     
  6. Imnotreallyhere

    Imnotreallyhere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Certainly there is a difference between destroying an arsenal and disarming individuals. And there would be a difference in the effect as well. Individuals being allowed to keep weapons, for instance.

    Further, the British military was not the strongest or best in the world at the time. In 1775 they numbered just about 45k and were spread out all over the world. That would be why the Brits had to hire Hessian mercenaries. Mercenaries aren't what you call elite troops.

    Next, Brit supply lines stretched across an ocean. This meant supplies, reinforcements and replacements were expensive and required a long lead time.

    And lastly, all the colonists had to do was make it more expensive for the Brits to stay than it would be to leave.

    None of this would pertain to an American revolt against the current gov't. The US military is currently the largest and most expensive in the world, the supply lines would be short and overland, and the gov't would be fighting for its life, so cost would not be an object.
     
  7. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Tin soldiers and Nixon comin'...
    That was an era when the hippy kids were really bothering the military. It was an entirely different scenario than the current political divisions that would set off a revolt in the current era.
    No doubt, if there were to be a new revolution, there would be huge casualties on both sides. A few years back, the US entered an agreement with Canada where troops can be exchanged between the countries in the event of civil "unrest". I haven't seen any references, but I suppose the same situation stands with the UN.
    I don't like to dwell on how the whole thing would go, but we have more veterans now from the last 2 wars than Canada has in their whole active military. A large number of our veterans and current active military are very well aware of the abuses that our CONUS has suffered lately, and are not happy about it. I fear that if a revolt got started, and they all had to choose sides, the rebels would be a very large and determined force.
    It's not "my" little scenario. I'm too old, drug dependent (prescriptions) and weak to be out there getting anyone fired up. It's a scenario that has been in the minds of a lot of people for a long time.
     
  8. Imnotreallyhere

    Imnotreallyhere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The sand in your scenario's gears comes down to this: how many active duty military would stick to the gov't. I think that most would. Your rebellion would not have the support it would require from the PEOPLE, let alone the military. It would be painted the same as militias are painted now groups of fanatics with extremist political views. Once you started shooting, you would lose even more popular support and with it get even less military support.

    For a look at what happens to an insurrection by trained (or at least veteran) militia, look up Shays' rebellion. Didn't really change much, just got some people killed.
     
  9. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hold up a sec. You're leaving a huge amount of stuff out here. It would depend on what caused the rebellion, who was effected, and what the Cuckoo Birds in power were trying to do. This whole discussion has already been "what iffed" to death.
    I seem to remember a ways back on this thread where I asked about personal opinions regarding "never surrender". Like today, for example. My nice friend had gone down range with his Polaris thing to retrieve our targets. The kiddies a few yards from our shooting position started shooting while he was out there.
    They had guns!! They were shooting!! My nice friend is a Marine Vet, and I'm Navy. We don't surrender.
    I yelled to them: "What the F@*K do you think you're doing?" THEY surrendered.
    As for Shays' rebellion, it changed the Constitution. That's what people kill and get killed for.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion
     
  10. Imnotreallyhere

    Imnotreallyhere Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The Constitution was already going to change. In the opinion of at least some historians, the effect of the rebellion was minimal.

    IMO, the kids just learned or were reminded of something about shooting safety. I doubt they handed you their weaponry. Still, I suppose it's possible, so the question must be asked: Did they surrender their guns? Or did they simply see sense?
     
  11. Regular Joe

    Regular Joe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,758
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You might say they "saw sense". They saw old guys with serious equipment. I don't think they were smart enough to understand that Old Guys Rule, but they did get the serious equipment part.
     

Share This Page