Brady Campaign Shitstorm has started

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You wrote " An armed populace can overthrow a GOV that does not represent them."

So how will your peashooter stand up to an M1 tank or an Apache, or an A10?

You keep claiming how the US Army is getting its ass kicked in Iraq....The same way.

The Army is not getting it's ass kicked. It is simply failing to achieve Bush's stated goal (whatever the latest one may be).

You and your buddies wouldn't stand a chance against trained US infantrymen with their current weaponry. It's not 1776 any more.

Do you think your son will suddenly forget how to shoot once he leaves the military? A fair number of the people you're speaking of ARE ex-military...and most of the serious sorts spend a WHOLE lot more time on the range than the average 11 Boom-Boom does, any combat time excluded.

I doubt he will forget, but equally, I doubt he will have access to the heavy weapons, mortars, etc. that his unit uses. Nor will he get much air support.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

You wrote " An armed populace can overthrow a GOV that does not represent them."

So how will your peashooter stand up to an M1 tank or an Apache, or an A10?

1) It won't but doesn't have to because the government cannot use heavy weapons against resistance that's indistinguishable from the non-combatants. Especially when it doesn't want to obliterate its own industrial and tax base.

2) That's why the second ammendment says "arms" and not "handguns, shotguns, and rifles." In the founding fathers' time wealthy merchants had privately owned canon and warships.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

You wrote " An armed populace can overthrow a GOV that does not represent them."

So how will your peashooter stand up to an M1 tank or an Apache, or an A10?

1) It won't but doesn't have to because the government cannot use heavy weapons against resistance that's indistinguishable from the non-combatants. Especially when it doesn't want to obliterate its own industrial and tax base.

2) That's why the second ammendment says "arms" and not "handguns, shotguns, and rifles." In the founding fathers' time wealthy merchants had privately owned canon and warships.

Well, THAT is a different issue. On the whole I'd have more respect for a militiaman owning a RPG launcher than a handgun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The Army is not getting it's ass kicked. It is simply failing to achieve Bush's stated goal (whatever the latest one may be).

You and your buddies wouldn't stand a chance against trained US infantrymen with their current weaponry. It's not 1776 any more.

Their goal is pacification of a rebel force. And they not succeeding.

How is that different from a homeland situation? (Other than Americans won't tolerate the Army getting overzealous in destroying multiple buildings to hit a suspected cell).

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

The Army is not getting it's ass kicked. It is simply failing to achieve Bush's stated goal (whatever the latest one may be).

You and your buddies wouldn't stand a chance against trained US infantrymen with their current weaponry. It's not 1776 any more.

Their goal is pacification of a rebel force. And they not succeeding.

How is that different from a homeland situation? (Other than Americans won't tolerate the Army getting overzealous in destroying multiple buildings to hit a suspected cell).

Sherman used some pretty strong tactics against rebels and their supporters.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Army is not getting it's ass kicked. It is simply failing to achieve Bush's stated goal (whatever the latest one may be).

You and your buddies wouldn't stand a chance against trained US infantrymen with their current weaponry. It's not 1776 any more.

Their goal is pacification of a rebel force. And they not succeeding.

How is that different from a homeland situation? (Other than Americans won't tolerate the Army getting overzealous in destroying multiple buildings to hit a suspected cell).

Sherman used some pretty strong tactics against rebels and their supporters.

Sherman was involved in a conflict between nominally independant states with well defined borders.

Our second civil war isn't going to be that simple.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sherman used some pretty strong tactics against rebels and their supporters.

and it worked how well? More Americans dead than all the other wars combined. The Union side lost ~360,000 men, close to 15% of the combatents. And that, as Drew points out, was against a clearly defined enemy with clearly defined yet sparsely populated territory and marked uniforms.

In Iraq, the enemy is indistinguishable from the rest of the population. But if you view Arabs as inferior, maybe it's not so hard to shoot first and save your own ass. At home, racism won't be a crutch for a shitty assignment - a lot of soldiers won't follow the sort of orders necessary to squash a revolt. Would only work if the revolt were minority based, which I find unlikely.

[jm951 0]

Those who think the US military would blindly follow orders to fire on their own populace are sadly mistaken. Some soldiers would, but the vast majority would refuse or suddenly become horrible shots.

[bozo 0]

Quote

Those who think the US military would blindly follow orders to fire on their own populace are sadly mistaken. Some soldiers would, but the vast majority would refuse or suddenly become horrible shots.

You must have been missing school the day they taught the history class about Kent State....right?

bozo
Pain is fleeting. Glory lasts forever. Chicks dig scars.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Those who think the US military would blindly follow orders to fire on their own populace are sadly mistaken. Some soldiers would, but the vast majority would refuse or suddenly become horrible shots.

You must have been missing school the day they taught the history class about Kent State....right?

You missed school the day they differentiated between "some" and "most" and "all." Right?

[jm951 0]

I was watching Kent state on a bw TV with rabbit ears, didn't have to learn about it after the fact in a classroom. Note that the Nat Guard troops were using M1 rifles (each with capacity of 8 rounds) chambered for a 3006 round. They "only" killed 4 out of how many shots fired on unarmed demonstrators? If each of the Nat Guard guys took careful aim at a body, and only fired say 2 shots, what would the body count have been? Think that one through for a minute. Either they were really horrible shots, or a bunch of guys were bird hunting.

I know quite a few military folks, both my sons are military. The average soldier would either refuse the order or shoot high. There will be a couple that would go ahead and do the deed. For more information about this phenom, read "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Note the effective rate of fire of infantry in COMBAT against a defined enemy. Think they'll maintain that same lousy percentage against their family, friends and countrymen?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Those who think the US military would blindly follow orders to fire on their own populace are sadly mistaken. Some soldiers would, but the vast majority would refuse or suddenly become horrible shots.

Even if the people they're targetting are allegedly child mollesters, terrorists, drug dealers, white supremists, or cultists?

The government has a lot of lattitude in defining who the enemy is.

[jm951 0]

Go read Grossman before making that assertion.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The Army is not getting it's ass kicked. It is simply failing to achieve Bush's stated goal

3,000 plus American dead. They seem to do a pretty good job even without all the modern toys. In Vietnam they did pretty well also.

Quote

You and your buddies wouldn't stand a chance against trained US infantrymen with their current weaponry. It's not 1776 any more.

Your arguments could have been from 1776. The British had modern weapons and the Americans had some real crap....We won anyway.

Also, I am former 11B. I have an AR15. So, I have the same training and except for the Full Auto function the SAME weapon as an average soldier.

You need to read some on why the idea of the Russians attacking the US with troops was considered a stupid idea.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

Quote

The Army is not getting it's ass kicked. It is simply failing to achieve Bush's stated goal

3,000 plus American dead. They seem to do a pretty good job even without all the modern toys. In Vietnam they did pretty well also.

Quote

You and your buddies wouldn't stand a chance against trained US infantrymen with their current weaponry. It's not 1776 any more.

Your arguments could have been from 1776. The British had modern weapons and the Americans had some real crap....We won anyway.

Also, I am former 11B. I have an AR15. So, I have the same training and except for the Full Auto function the SAME weapon as an average soldier.

You need to read some on why the idea of the Russians attacking the US with troops was considered a stupid idea.

Shitty analogy, the Nazis attacking the USSR with troops was also a bad idea, and the USSR didn't have any equivalent to the 2nd amdt.

AND not every gun toting civilian has 11B training.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Go read Grossman before making that assertion.

Even if only 2% of those of us who would suffer no remorse from killing engage each other, there are going to be lots of deaths.

Grossman said that by Vietnam 70% of front-line troops were firing their weapons. That's a recipe for masacre.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The Army is not getting it's ass kicked. It is simply failing to achieve Bush's stated goal

3,000 plus American dead. They seem to do a pretty good job even without all the modern toys. In Vietnam they did pretty well also.

Quote

You and your buddies wouldn't stand a chance against trained US infantrymen with their current weaponry. It's not 1776 any more.

Your arguments could have been from 1776. The British had modern weapons and the Americans had some real crap....We won anyway.

Also, I am former 11B. I have an AR15. So, I have the same training and except for the Full Auto function the SAME weapon as an average soldier.

You need to read some on why the idea of the Russians attacking the US with troops was considered a stupid idea.

Shitty analogy, the Nazis attacking the USSR with troops was also a bad idea, and the USSR didn't have any equivalent to the 2nd amdt.

AND not every gun toting civilian has 11B training.

No, not every civilian has 11B training - but anyone who is fairly serious about it puts a LOT more rounds downrange per year than the average soldier (combat time excluded)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jm951 0]

70% firing is a far cry from 70% hitting anything, especially if the target isn't clearly an enemy combatant.

[warpedskydiver 0]

AND not every gun toting civilian has 11B training.

[jm951 0]

Quote

AND not every gun toting civilian has 11B training.

That is true John, some have far better training.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I know quite a few cops who have stated that if there was ever a gun round up, including house to house searches they will quit on the spot rather than be killed in droves.

One Lt's position was that police would lose approximately 20 men per block.

I argued that number as being optomistic.

[SkyDekker 1,156]

[warpedskydiver 0]

yep you are smarter than anyone in the whole wide world.

I consider everyone better trained and smarter than I will ever be.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Shitty analogy, the Nazis attacking the USSR with troops was also a bad idea, and the USSR didn't have any equivalent to the 2nd amdt

So the fact that Russian Generals thought that invading the US *due to the average person having weapons was a bad idea* means nothing?

Got it.

Quote

AND not every gun toting civilian has 11B training.

Nope, but many insurgents had no official training....Like in the US revolution, Vietnam, Iraq....ect.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Shitty analogy, the Nazis attacking the USSR with troops was also a bad idea, and the USSR didn't have any equivalent to the 2nd amdt

So the fact that Russian Generals thought that invading the US *due to the average person having weapons was a bad idea* means nothing?

Got it.

Quote

AND not every gun toting civilian has 11B training.

Nope, but many insurgents had no official training....Like in the US revolution, Vietnam, Iraq....ect.

Why did the USSR generals think invading France or Italy was a bad idea, then? Afraid of civilians armed with garlic?