If there is ever a Civil War in America, both sides will have tanks, jets and nukes.
How do you figure that? Where are the insurgents going to get them?
From the defecting military commanders who join their ranks.
Heh heh. Yeah right. That’ll happen.
Where are these defectors going to get the facilities and manpower to maintain and use these high tech weapons? Where are they even going to get the weapons. Defecting doesn’t give them any access to them.
Yes, that’s what happens in Civil Wars. That’s the nature of Civil Wars. It can’t happen any other way. That’s how Civil Wars work.
Please look up the definition of civil war and get back to me. Also, look up the meaning of defecting.
Lets put it this way. If I am IN a tank when I defect, I can drive it away. Do you understand how that works? If I am a commander of a tank battalion, and I am able to form a cabal of officers and soldiers willing to defect with me, I can defect with a tank battalion.
I mean this is kind of fundamental, elementary stuff. The US Military is made up of citizens from around the country, those citizens have access to weapons. If I defect with an Assault Rifle, a Humvee a 50 cal, and body armor, then I have an assault rifle, a humvee, a 50 cal, and body armor.
It’s really mind-boggling that this needs to be explained. I guess the us/them dogma is very ingrained for some. The military isn’t ‘them’ it’s US citizens with real thoughts, and opinions of their own.
While I don’t claim to be an expert on military matters, I am a US Navy combat veteran who participated in operations in Central America, the Levant, and the Persian Gulf. Whatever that counts for…
You might want to let Capt. Richard Koll know this. Apparently he’s suffering from the delusion that he’s a US Air Force Predator Pilot.
I have hands on experience deploying and operating the Navy’s first generation of ship-launched, unarmed UAV’s for reconnaissance and intelligence collection. We operated them in Panama, Lebanon, and the Gulf.
UAV stands for unmanned aerial vehicle. UAV’s are remotely piloted by humans, their sensors are remotely operated by humans, and their weapons are remotely deployed by humans, via a satellite data-link. UAV’s are not “drones” and the US military has a strict doctrine of not using any autonomous system (drone) capable of deploying weapons without an actual human making the targeting and firing decision.
Can we get a citation for this? A picture or a link or something? :smack: 
So your position is, in the scenario I offered, that we should live on our knees and lick the tyrant’s boot? Choosing that response for yourself is one thing, choosing that for everyone else is quite another.
Tell me if I’m correct in summing up your position on the 2nd Amendment:
-
It’s an anachronistic concept that, given the military strength of our society today, or possibly given our societal progress towards democratic rule, is irrelevant, as any form of armed resistance would be futile, or our society has progressed to the point that the threat of tyranny is non-existent.
-
The evil of guns in the hands of criminals far outweighs their legitimate utility by a peaceful law abiding citizenry. Ergo, no one should possess them but the government.
It took you enough time to Google all that.
Do you understand what “remotely piloted” means? It means there isn’t actually a person inside it to shoot in the head.
You should choose another word beside “tyrant.” It sounds ridiculous. It’s like a D&D word.
My position is that you can’t beat a superpower with small munitions. What you “should” do if you are under the heel of a superpower which massively outclasses any ability you have to fight back physically is not a question I have any answer for. I think you’re probably just boned. That doesn’t mean you have to be complacent about it. Go down with your middle finger sticking up.
Correct.
I’m saying it’s not important for people to possess them. I am not for prohibition. I think it’s a protected right. Just not an important one.
You don’t suppose he, just possibly, was referring to shooting the fellow on the ground who controls the Predator drone, do you? Because, otherwise, it would look a lot like you have willfully been misconstruing points in this thread.
Winchester Model 70 LRH. Properly scoped, of course.
Not necessarily the “BEST! GUN! EVER!” but serviceable, and currently residing in my gun safe.
:rolleyes: No; it’ll never happen here. Iraq, sure. Afghanistan? You betcha.
But we 'Merkins are immune to such human foibles.
Kinda like this war?
And I seem to recall from my time at Ft. Hood that lots of pilots like off-base titty-bars as much as the regular troops did.
Don’t need a high-powered hunting rifle to cap the flyboy bragging to Sexual Chocolate during his lap dance about how many “Bubbas” he dropped bombs on from his Predator UAV. 
They didn’t have tanks in the last civil war.
By your command.
Yes. The idea that if a Civil War broke our country apart, all of the military would monolithically side with one side, is kind of peculiar.
So your claim is gun lovers en masse voted for Obama. i doubt that. Most gun lovers are deep in the pockets of the repubs who have done nothing for them. But they say the right things and you buy it election after election.
Agree 100%. As an NRA member, I get American Rifleman, and it is relentlessly, implacably hostile to Obama. The idea that he’s in the NRA’s pocket isn’t just implausible, it’s laughable.
I’m in your position, Airman; I’m a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I not only voted for Obama but actively volunteered for his campaign. I, too, feel vindicated at least on the gun issue (there are some other things, especially the debt explosion, that I’m a bit worried about). I’m not fool enough to believe that Obama is actively friendly to gun rights, but Obama’s not fool enough to provoke a fight on the issue.
I wonder sometimes - does the NRA really believe its own rhetoric that Obama is about to snatch away all our guns? Or is it just exploiting it to try to wring money out of gullible members and drum up business for gun retailers?
The NRA is an extension of the Republican Party and is also involved in lobbying against gay rights, immigration, and racial tolerance; conversely, its record on gun rights doesn’t stand up to its rhetoric, as it’s caved again on again on issues such as mandatory federal sentences for “illegal guns” and has actually participated in the writing of anti-Second-Amendment legislation.
There are other organizations that both actually support gun rights and don’t require you to buy into a bunch of evil conservative shit to do so, which people like myself who want the entire Bill of Rights to be upheld, and aren’t salad-bar hypocrites of either side like Diogenes and the NRA, should and do join.
I think it’s perhaps a bit of both. Every interest group does the “they’re coming for your rights!” routine. In the NRA’s case, I think they are certainly exaggerating the possibility, but then again gun owners have been had before and while I am not keen on their rhetoric I think they certainly have a good case overall. As I said, this year has been the exception rather than the rule.
As far as gun purchases go, I don’t think the NRA has much to do with it. When a guy says explicitly that he wants to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, people are going to buy them up before they lose the opportunity. It’s not like there’s no precedent for it.
No, I don’t, since it would be impossible for anyone in the target area to shoot at a remote pilot.