The Left is Correct about 'Assault Rifles'

[rightwinger]

Does not matter. The US government had planes, tanks, etc at their disposal, and still lost. It was the man with a rifle that defeated the US

Both the Viet Cong and Taliban LIVED THERE

They were not going anywhere.
US Troops were deployed half a world away in unpopular wars.
The public just grew tired of senseless deaths

 

[80zephyr]

Both the Viet Cong and Taliban LIVED THERE

They were not going anywhere.
US Troops were deployed half a world away in unpopular wars.
The public just grew tired of senseless deaths

But we live HERE. The belief that "minute men" in this country could not win a war with our government is ridiculous. Unless everyone fighting the government is holed up in one place, planes and tanks are useless. Unless the government could live with collateral damage by killing US citizens loyal to the government.

 

[Doug1943]

You keep assuming that those on your side of the Revolution will be right versus the batshit crazy zealots who believe the conspiracies they read on the internet.

No, I don't assume that. I don't know what will happen. At the moment, the Right has a terrible leadership, and terrible people feeding it 'news' -- all crazy conspiracy theories, as you say. It doesn't speak well for the conservative base, but ... it is the human norm.

However, no one knows the future. The Left is working successfully to implement its insane policies on race and sex in all American institutions, including the military. At the same time, neo-cons under another name are running its foreign policy, leading us pretty quickly towards real war, and probable defeat in the South China Sea ... plus we're probably going to see a huge economic crisis.

I don't know how this will affect American domestic politics. And there is the role of accident in history. Perhaps Jesus will decide to call Mr Trump to his reward, opening the way for someone more intelligent and less narcissistic. We might see a real resurgence of Black violence, pushing the suburbs back towards the Republicans.

Since no one knows the future, we -- the patriots -- need to do things that put us in the best position for whatever is coming, and which do not impose huge costs, including opportunity costs, on us now.

So wise patriots will move to a 'Red State' if they are not already in one, will avail themselves of their 2A rights, will prepare in other sensible ways, will organize at the local level, and will do their best to be close to the ranks of the American military, either by direct service, or via organizations like the USO.

And then ... if some crisis that shatters the framework of American democracy comes ... we will have to do as Napoleon is reported to have said, "On s'engage et puis… on voit" (One engages and then ... one sees.)

 

[Doug1943]

But we live HERE. The belief that "minute men" in this country could not win a war with our government is ridiculous. Unless everyone fighting the government is holed up in one place, planes and tanks are useless. Unless the government could live with collateral damage by killing US citizens loyal to the government.

You're right, but ... in civil wars, there is a lot of killing and forced expulsions. You pretty quickly end up with one side concentrated in one area (or areas), the other side in different areas. People who find themselves at odds with the men holding the guns in their area who are not killed or driven out, keep quiet.

Note also that we are VERY dependent today on an economic/technical network -- the 'supply chain' -- to eat and drink.
If you can cut off a city from its food and water ... you don't have to demolish buildings.

America is so large that we can foresee a dozen scenarios taking place simultaneously. Rural areas largely 'Red', urban areas largely 'Blue'. And then there's the racial dynamic. If patriots are smart (not guaranteed!) they will move heaven and earth to avoid appearing like 'white supremacists'.

But whatever happens, it is very conceivable that the 'Blue' side will have whites as a minority, with their largest civilian armed contingents being Cartel employees and the brothers on the block. That should be interesting.

Let's hope it doesn't happen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is that why you want to put up a sign in front of your house bragging that you have guns?

When did I say I want to do that?

 

[Doug1943]

Does not matter. The US government had planes, tanks, etc at their disposal, and still lost. It was the man with a rifle that defeated the US

I absolutely do not want to disparage the idea of a the 'man with a rifle', with respect to American patriots. Let everyone who loves their country equip himself accordingly, and join together with other patriots, similarly-equipped, in his local area, and prepare to deal with emergencies of all kinds.

BUT ... don't kid yourself about civilians vs a real military. The 'man with a rifle' in Vietnam was typically an NVA regular, commanded by men who had spent 20 years fighting the French, supplied by the Soviet Union and China ... and not just with rifles:

"Communist forces were principally armed with Chinese and Soviet weaponry though some VC guerrilla units were equipped with Western infantry weapons either captured from French stocks during the first Indochina war, such as the MAT-49, or from ARVN units or requisitioned through illicit purchase.

In the summer and fall of 1967, all Viet Cong battalions were reequipped with arms of Soviet design such as the AK-47 assault rifle and the RPG-2 anti-tank weapon. Their weapons were principally of Chinese or Soviet manufacture. The period up to the conventional phase in the 1970, the Viet Cong and NVA were mostly limited to mortars, recoilless rifles, and small-arms and had significantly lighter equipment and firepower relative to the US arsenal, relying on ambushes, with superior stealth, planning, marksmanship, and small-unit tactics to face the disproportionate US technological advantage.

Many divisions within the NVA would incorporate armoured and mechanised battalions including the Type 59 tank., BTR-60, Type 60 artillery and rapidly altered and integrated new war doctrines following the Tet Offensive into a mobile combined-arms force.[9] The North Vietnamese had both amphibious tanks (such as the PT-76) and light tanks (such the Type 62) used during the conventional phase. Experimental Soviet equipment started being used against ARVN forces at the same time, including Man-portable air-defense system SA-7 Grail and anti-tank missiles including the AT-3 Sagger. By 1975 they had fully transformed from the strategy of mobile light-infantry and using the people's war concept used against the United States."
[Weapons of the Vietnam War - Wikipedia]

For some reason this article does not mention the Chinese 12.5 mm (.50 cal.) machine gun, or the 122mm rockets. [122 rocket – My Vietnam Experience]

Nor is the American patriot population capable of the sort of dogged, decades-long warfare the Vietnamese (and Chinese) waged against their Western occupiers and their local puppets. This is not a moral criticism, it just represents the reality of a nationalist, impoverished peasantry vs an urban and semi-urban, well-off, Western population.

An American civil war would almost certainly be over quickly, unless it becomes an inter-states conflict. If the military (including federalized National Guard units) remains intact and loyal to the government, it will win.

It is unlikely to remain so to a government widely seen -- ie by the great majority of the population -- as illegitimate. But the opposite is also true. Thus the importance of intelligent, savvy political leadership on the side of the patriots, and of patriots being, insofar as possible, within and around the military.

Hollywood has done a lot to destroy America. One of the worst things they did and do was to make films with a 'Rambo' theme, leading people to think that the Lone Hero can beat the Organization. He can't. We need our own Organization.

​

 

[Independentthinker]

The basic argument of the Left, that 'assault rifles' are not necessary for personal defense, is correct. (Let's define 'assault rifle' as a semi-automatic rifle which can take magazines of 20 rounds or more, and whose rounds carry more than XXX foot-pounds of kinetic energy. [A gun enthusiast can fill in 'XXX' -- in otherwords, excluding a .22].)

I've seen posts positing a woman using one to fend off a rapist in a park, but, come one, no one is going to carry their AR15 in public on a routine basis, not even Kyle Rittenhouse. If you're going out in public, you need a concealed-carry permit and good-calibre handgun. (Yes, I know liberals want to ban those too, but, it's like their child-grooming efforts: a step at a time. They're not stupid.)

For home defense, a handgun or shotgun -- depending on your ease of using them -- is better than an AR15, in my personal opinion -- you don't want a .556 round travelling three hundred yards into the bedroom of your neighbor's children. Biden is right about that, in my opinion. But you can look at a dozen videos arguing both sides if you go to YouTube and put in 'AR15 vs Shotgun'.

So ... what's the point of an AR15 (or AK or any other 'assault rifle')? It's to partially fulfill the intent of the men who wrote the Second Amendment: that the people should be as well-armed as the government.

Of course, the advance of military technology over the last 250 years has made that impossible. You and a few neighbors with AR15s will not be a match for an A10, or even a Marine rifle company. Any conflict between civilian patriots and the government will be over in three days, and the last two of them will be spent putting the patriots in body bags.

However, unless the patriots are very very stupid -- 6 January level stupid, which is not ruled out, as 6 January itself showed -- there isn't going to be any conflict between the united, cohesive forces of the government, and the patriot movement. So long as the US is a law-governed democratic republic, or is believed to be that by a majority of its citizens, there must not be any armed conflict between patriots and the government.

What there could be is the disintegration of a cohesive government, and general chaos. We can think of a hundred different scenarios leading to this. In which case, patriots should be as well-armed as possible.

And of course every patriot who has not done his military service yet, and is under the age of 36, should enlist in the National Guard. (Army National Guard)

I sum it up like this: As long as we let known bad guys run around loose there are going to be bad guys running around loose. We shouldn't have to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens just to try keeping assault rifles out the hands of bad guys who shouldn't be running around loose in the first place.

 

[Doug1943]

I sum it up like this: As long as we let known bad guys run around loose there are going to be bad guys running around loose. We shouldn't have to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens just to try keeping assault rifles out the hands of bad guys who shouldn't be running around loose in the first place.

I agree completely. As for 'running around loose', why not just cut the trigger fingers off of anyone convicted of using a firearm in a felony ... or, if we want to be soft, using one in a second felony. And then let them go. Do it under anesthetic and it wouldn't be cruel, do it often enough and it wouldn't be unusual. And I'll bet it would cut the armed robberty rate dramatically.

I mean, hell, the Left wants to cut the penises off of little boys. This is nothing compared to that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For home defense, a handgun or shotgun -- depending on your ease of using them -- is better than an AR15, in my personal opinion

An AR15 pistol in a major pistol caliber - 9 40 10 45 - is better for home defense than a handgun or shotgun.

So ... what's the point of an AR15 (or AK or any other 'assault rifle')? It's to partially fulfill the intent of the men who wrote the Second Amendment: that the people should be as well-armed as the government.

 

[Doug1943]

An AR15 pistol in a major pistol caliber - 9 40 10 45 - is better for home defense than a handgun or shotgun.


View attachment 748566

Well, I won't argue with that, having no experience of one. And I may be prejudiced against the AR. I got to fire a lot rounds out of its granddaddy about 50 years ago, and while it was fun, I could never get over the feeling that I was handling a Mattel plastic toy. I was the squad BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) man in high school ROTC and it was my first love.

Whatever, something's better than nothing. And for serious social encounters between organized groups, the AR is the one you want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree completely. As for 'running around loose', why not just cut the trigger fingers off of anyone convicted of using a firearm in a felony ... or, if we want to be soft, using one in a second felony. And then let them go. Do it under anesthetic and it wouldn't be cruel, do it often enough and it wouldn't be unusual. And I'll bet it would cut the armed robberty rate dramatically.

I mean, hell, the Left wants to cut the penises off of little boys. This is nothing compared to that.

The courts would never allow such a thing, but what can be done is upping the penalties for using firearms in crime. No plea bargains either.

* Caught with a stolen firearm, minimum 10 years in prison.
* Felon caught with a stolen firearm, minimum 15 years in prison.
* Felon caught carrying a non-stolen firearm, 10 years in prison.
* Using a firearm in a crime, minimum 20 years in prison.
* Using a firearm in a murder, death penalty or life in prison with no parole.
* Straw buyers, minimum 5 years in prison.

Go after the people that are not supposed to have guns and people that use guns for nefarious reasons instead of going after the law abiding citizens.