I'm sorry for your troubles 'Cock For Hire'. Maybe you should see a counsellor.

 

​

[FONT=Comic Sans MS,Comic Sans,Times New Roman]"I have only five words for you - from my cold, dead hands."[/FONT]​

 

[FONT=Comic Sans MS,Comic Sans,Times New Roman]Charlton Heston's Gun room photos...[/FONT]​

Gun room door​

​

Gun room ​

​

​

 

Homefront E3 2010 Backstory Trailer [HD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5yyWZ2Z6Ps​

 

You spelled counselor wrong, but its ok, your from the UK and people there cant spell for shit.




That gun room was bad ass though, and yes...


FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

 

I feel just as horrible about gun violence as anyone; this latest tragedy included. There's just no way you are going to predict if someone snaps. I haven't heard but did the guy in Arizona go through the process or was it purchased (like the vast majority of criminals) under the table? Anyway unless you develop a system like that movie where they predicted crime you're never going to avoid this kind of thing completely. If someone wants a gun they'll get one legally or otherwise. Even if they're outlawed entirely criminals will obtain them. "Gun Control" doesn't work.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote??? I said in the 70's not the 80's

You seem to want to say what ever you want weather someone said that or not.

 

So if sheriff fat ass made a call to a mental health person and said we have a real nut on our hands they would do nothing??? Maybe if he put that pork sandwich down for a moment he could have done something. He knew of this nut and responded to the house. And now he refuses to release any and all documents relating to the calls. And according to AZ law they are to me made available to any and all that ask for them.
I bet they shine a bad light on sheriff fat ass.

Let's stop making excuses for sheriff fat ass. He screwed up and good the only thing is there is no one in the main stream media that would dare make sheriff fat ass look like the actual ass he is.

 

Nice play room can we come over and play???:lol::excited:

 

Truthful words.

 

The problem with this, and I admit fully it cuts both ways, is that without stating clearly what the problem instigating the civil war is, it would be nearly impossible to determine how many troops would remain loyal to the government and how many would cross the line to the other side. I will only point out that when it came down to it, quite a number of the Revolutionary War generals started their careers in service to the British Crown, and the vast majority of the Confederate leadership were West Point trained and commissioned officers prior to war breaking out.

If I remember correctly, the Revolution was split about evenly along the lines of Liberty, Loyalty, and Don't Carety. So Washington had about 30% of the country backing him. The largest problem being that his recruits were farmers, and thus were needed to run their farms. That's not a situation that would hold today, as farming is no longer the primary occupation of American citizens. The South, I believe, enjoyed much broader support for secession.

I would need 5% of all legal gun owners match the numbers fielded by the military if you lined them up shoulder to shoulder, from the lowliest buck private to the most decorated of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Modern voting polls show roughly 40% of the nation's population supporting one party over the other, with about 20% sitting somewhere in the middle. Coming up with troops is not a problem.

Insurgencies don't normally rely on support staff for their needs. Normally each unit is required to support itself from its own available skills and resources. For a country like Afghanistan, this is normally accomplished through barter or intimidation of the locals. In a major country like the US, this would involve going to the grocery store, Home Depot, etc. Or they could go straight to the source and raid arms factories and storage depots. Hell, a large enough and determined enough force could probably even raid a military depot if they had a little bit of information prior.

But your right, they'd be pressed on how to communicate. Well, unless they had access to a few radio sets. Or their cell phones. The internet might be useful for coordinating, I guess. I mean, don't people use it already for setting up things like political rallies and flash mobs? Then there's satellite phones, twitter, hell if you want to get really old fashioned maybe they can use beepers!

So in other words, the government is going to round all this stuff up and keep it in specially designated areas? Gee, wonder what insurgents might do about that.

And you're still relying on conventional warfare tactics! The easiest way for any insurgency to deal with these tactics. This brings me up to the reference on the Iraq and Afghan insurgencies. Those insurgents are, in general opinion of our military, idiots. They spray'n'pray rather than aim and manage their fire, they'll make head on charges, etc.

Instead look more at a conflict like Vietnam. Lots of booby traps, ambushes, hit and run type attacks. Its one of the oldest laws of the book (just ask Sun Tzu!) that if you're facing a superior opponent due to ground or weapons, then you don't. You wait till you have the advantage or simply strike where they aren't.

The US is a pretty big country. There are lots of places you can hit if you want to cause some major chaos. Power plants, dams, government buildings, factories, air ports, merchant docks... Military bases are a little trickier, depending on the base. Easier to hit air force or naval installations if you want to go for military targets. Then maybe National Guard bases, followed by the Army and Marines. The idea again is to raid not seize. You want take what you can carry, no more, no less. Blowing things up is better, makes for pretty explosions and covers the tracks of the guys breaking into the armory. For best effect you want your lead units to start a running battle with the base guards, though this might mean writing them off in the long run, either via capture or death.

I will admit there is a point where the military can deploy sufficient force to make combat untenable. Oh, the armored vehicles you describe aren't actually all that hard to kill. A quick google search will give you recipes for IEDs and shaped charges, and like most armored vehicles they're softer on the top, bottom, and front than they are on the sides of the rear.

Admittedly, a main line Abrams battle tank is a little tougher nut to crack. Those suckers bounce their own rounds off each other every once in a while, and their designed to crack their opposites in one shot. On the other hand, while effective in urban combat, they really don't like it. Either they stick to the roads, which is suicidally predictable, or they make their own path, incurring what is colloquially known as "collateral damage". This sort of damage tends to be rather unpopular with the owner of the store/apartment/park/entertainment center you just drove through, especially if its someone who you're aiming to keep on your side.

On the other hand, you don't need to make a hard kill on the tank, either. A soft kill can be done by knocking out the treads and drive works, turning it into a very large and expensive stationary target. Or you can do what the Soviets did, and just dropping something flammable down the crew hatch. (Though to be fair, if the hatch is open...)

On the topic of air power, well, that the military wouldn't have to worry about. As far as I know there aren't any privately owned F-22s flying about, let alone Predators. Civvy planes could probably be used in a light support role, and there are plenty of choppers available to the public, but a straight up air war is out of the question.

On the other hand, you might want ask Kimiko and Stumbler how they feel whenever the Israelis decide to level a city block just to nail a small cell of terrorists or assassinate one guy. This brings us back to the discussion of collateral damage, and if you thought driving through a building was bad, imagine how people will react when you drop it entirely...

You really don't need one, everything necessary is already in country. Though if you want to get speculative, I'm sure every major international arms dealer in existence would be willing to deal with one side or the other.

This, actually, I partially agree on. Yes, any major civil war at this point is highly unlikely, if only because there is not sufficient cause for one that I can see. While there is a lot of social debate occurring in this country, none of it seems to be even remotely threatening.

What does bother me, however, is the blind assumption that no one would possibly conceive of such a war, and that the if such a war did occur that the military would have it over by lunch. Such a belief is, to me, dangerously ignorant. The single bloodiest conflict in this nation's history is still the Civil War, and now we have much more people and many better ways to kill them. Dismissing the possibility of a threat is negligence at best, suicide at the worst.

 

Responsible gun ownership for the win.

I'm young and broke or i'd have more but I have an 8mm mauser, an sks, a glock 22 in .40, and a 300 win mag. I recently sold my saiga 12 (nice gun but I don't have a use for a shotgun) and hope to buy a FAL this summer when I can afford it. I used to proceeds from the saiga 12 to buy my girlfriend the pink handgun that she wanted for her purse. And yes, it's fugly as hell. lol

 

The Decloration of Indepenance states that We the People are the Government and run our own lives. In a communist country polititions run our lives.

 

Ignorant fuck

Learn the fucking difference between ........

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

and the .........

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

Too bad he wasn't mexican huh???

........ They'd have probably hauled his ass in.

 

I did you dumb fuck, a family member signed it. I go by our founders version not the lies on the internet.

Learn to read for reasoning> Why did they write it in the first place?

 

Fucking fool ...........

.......... the Declaration of Independence says no such thing. Look for yourself.

 

I think it's a waste of time to engage anyone that thinks the Declaration of Indpendence says that.

 

You're right

I just can't help it sometimes.