Arapahoe HS Shooting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cricket2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crossbones said:
I think it’s a fantasy that any group of armed citizenry could last more than a few minutes against the US military today.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that the lines between the citizenry and the military a clearly drawn, which is not the case. After all, the military is made up of citizens. They have families. Many have regular jobs or their spouses do. They have mortgages and car payments and are chasing the American dream just like everyone else.

And they are tired of the same old government bull hockey as you and I are.

The “government” that stands to be defeated is not the US military; it’s the people in Washington that call the shots and make the laws (while exempting themselves from those laws). Except maybe for a few high ranking generals in the Pentagon, it is not implausible that the military will lead the charge against the government.
 
Mumbles140 said:
Sorry, again, my words have betrayed me. I don’t believe they had the same technology in Vietnam that we have now in terms of laser guided missiles, drone strikes, and other advanced war machines the current US government has access to.
Click to expand...
They did have access to laser guided munitions In 1972, the Air Force used them to destroy the Paul Doumer Bridge in Hanoi, for example.

nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=18095

And radio controlled drones were used as early as WW-II
warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/the-secret-drone-mission-that-killed-joseph-kennedy-jr.html

The technology has certainly improved since then, but it was available and used.
 
Mumbles140 said:
And yes, ordinary citizens built them, but those same type of ordinary citizens are also working for the government
Click to expand...
And again you are assuming that these citizens are blindly loyal to the government which is not necessarily true.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
You are assuming that the lines between the citizenry and the military a clearly drawn, which is not the case. After all, the military is made up of citizens. They have families. Many have regular jobs or their spouses do. They have mortgages and car payments and are chasing the American dream just like everyone else.

And they are tired of the same old government bull hockey as you and I are.

The “government” that stands to be defeated is not the US military; it’s the people in Washington that call the shots and make the laws (while exempting themselves from those laws). Except maybe for a few high ranking generals in the Pentagon, it is not implausible that the military will lead the charge against the government.
Click to expand...
So are we needing to arm ourselves with grenade launchers against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the like if the military is siding with us and leading us into battle?
 
Brendan said:
They did have access to laser guided munitions In 1972, the Air Force used them to destroy the Paul Doumer Bridge in Hanoi, for example.

nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=18095

And radio controlled drones were used as early as WW-II

The technology has certainly improved since then, but it was available and used.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the military history lesson. How many foreign combatants were specifically targeted and killed using drones?

If anyone is making the argument that our military in Vietnam or the American Revolution is just as advanced in technology as ours currently is, then I believe that person to be a fool. If no one else is making this claim, I don’t see why the content of my words is being ignored in favor of targeting minor details to show that my specific wording didn’t accurately portray American military tactics and technologies from 40 and 240 years ago.
 
Mumbles140 said:
So are we needing to arm ourselves with grenade launchers against Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the like if the military is siding with us and leading us into battle?
Click to expand...
Yes. The best defense is a good offense.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
And again you are assuming that these citizens are blindly loyal to the government which is not necessarily true.
Click to expand...
AGAIN, if everyone is against the government but the die-hard party members and institutionalists, why are you afraid that we must arm ourselves to the teeth to battle senators and bureaucrats?
 
Mumbles140 said:
AGAIN, if everyone is against the government but the die-hard party members and institutionalists, why are you afraid that we must arm ourselves to the teeth to battle senators and bureaucrats?
Click to expand...
Who said “everyone”? There are going to be loyalists. There were those loyal to England in the revolution and there were southerners loyal to the North during the Civil War. The overwhelming majority might be in favor of coup, but 100% participation of the citizenry is as unlikely as 100% loyalty to the government.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
You are assuming that the lines between the citizenry and the military a clearly drawn, which is not the case. After all, the military is made up of citizens. They have families. Many have regular jobs or their spouses do. They have mortgages and car payments and are chasing the American dream just like everyone else.

And they are tired of the same old government bull hockey as you and I are.

The “government” that stands to be defeated is not the US military; it’s the people in Washington that call the shots and make the laws (while exempting themselves from those laws). Except maybe for a few high ranking generals in the Pentagon, it is not implausible that the military will lead the charge against the government.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. A tyrannical government in the United States could not be overturned without the existing military turning against it. The armed citizenry wouldn’t be the people to defeat this tyrannical government.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
Who said “everyone”? There are going to be loyalists. There were those loyal to England in the revolution and there were southerners loyal to the North during the Civil War. The overwhelming majority might be in favor of coup, but 100% participation of the citizenry is as unlikely as 100% loyalty to the government.
Click to expand...
You implied the overwhelming bulk of the military, and lots of government scientists and weapons specialists. Seems like a pretty good crowd to have on our side, especially if they are likely to ‘lead the charge.’

Typo (brain works faster than fingers!)
 
Crossbones said:
Yes, I agree. A tyrannical government in the United States could not be overturned without the existing military turning against it. The armed citizenry wouldn’t be the people to defeat this tyrannical government.
Click to expand...
But the Armed Citizenry is, at least in part, made up of members of the military. Don’t you get it? The citizenry and the military are not discrete and separate groups. Soldiers who are equally fed up with their government as civilians are part of the citizenry.
 
Lost_Sheep said:
But the Armed Citizenry is, at least in part, made up of members of the military. Don’t you get it? The citizenry and the military are not discrete and separate groups. Soldiers who are equally fed up with their government as civilians are part of the citizenry.
Click to expand...
One of the comments of defenders of the Second Amendment is the need to be armed to fight the tyranny of the government, and this clearly refers to non-military personnel, whatever you would like to call it. So, based on that distinction, I commented that these people could not hold their own against the government’s military. My point is that the Second Amendment does not protect us from a tyranny, but the support of active military would be required (which doesn’t fall under the Second Amendment).

I think you agreed with me on that point; I’m sorry that we are now quibbling on semantics and perhaps I wasn’t as careful with the language as I could have been.
 
Mumbles140 said:
Thank you for informing me about military weaponry - that was something I was not aware of. However, didn’t James Holmes use a machine-gun type weapon? " He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15 semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which malfunctioned after reportedly firing about 45 rounds". A 100 round drum? Really?

And please don’t demean or belittle me. I do not find guns scary, I’ve fired a Glock 9mm, S&W Revolver, .357 Magnum, semi-auto AR-15, and a 12 gauge shotgun. Most of my friends own weapons both for hunting and home defense, so I’m around them quite frequently.
Click to expand...
-Sorry, I wasn’t directing the scary in quotes at you. The media and some anti-gun advocates have gone out of their way to hype up the looks of weapon in order to better sell their line of thinking. The " “scary” " and anything that came across as demeaning or belittling wasn’t directed at you, especially since you’ve made it clear you are unfamiliar with firearms, or any specific person. I apologize if I sounded like I was picking on you or trying to be mean.
-Frankly I wouldn’t use such a large magazine. It makes more sense to use smaller magazines and learn how to conduct a combat reload (easy to learn and do). All you are asking for when using such a large mag is for your arms to tire out faster and causing problems for yourself if you have a malfunction. Much easier to use smaller mags and just do a combat reload to clear the malfunction (well most malfunctions, there are some malfunctions which would require you to physically remove a stuck round or casing).
-Additionally, the size of the magazine really doesn’t matter. The only difference between a 100 round, 30 round, or 10 round external magazine in terms of sending rounds down range is seconds (which unless you are on a target range you will have as you move from target to target). The only impact the size of a magazine would have on rounds down range would be if the magazine was internal (like the M1 Garand) and you had to reload the magazine one round at a time (no clips like the M1 Garand or speed loaders).
 
Crossbones said:
One of the comments of defenders of the Second Amendment is the need to be armed to fight the tyranny of the government, and this clearly refers to non-military personnel, whatever you would like to call it. So, based on that distinction, I commented that these people could not hold their own against the government’s military. My point is that the Second Amendment does not protect us from a tyranny, but the support of active military would be required (which doesn’t fall under the Second Amendment).

I think you agreed with me on that point; I’m sorry that we are now quibbling on semantics and perhaps I wasn’t as careful with the language as I could have been.
Click to expand...
-A ragtag group of individuals with just small arms couldn’t possibly take on the US military? Tell that to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military isn’t designed for long term asymmetrical warfare. The US law enforcement agencies are in even worse shape.
-Support of the military in protection against tyranny of the State is actually in the 2nd Amendment, hence the states’ ability to organize and raise armed militias (i.e. the National Guard).
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-Sorry, I wasn’t directing the scary in quotes at you. The media and some anti-gun advocates have gone out of their way to hype up the looks of weapon in order to better sell their line of thinking. The " “scary” " and anything that came across as demeaning or belittling wasn’t directed at you, especially since you’ve made it clear you are unfamiliar with firearms, or any specific person. I apologize if I sounded like I was picking on you or trying to be mean.
-Frankly I wouldn’t use such a large magazine. It makes more sense to use smaller magazines and learn how to conduct a combat reload (easy to learn and do). All you are asking for when using such a large mag is for your arms to tire out faster and causing problems for yourself if you have a malfunction. Much easier to use smaller mags and just do a combat reload to clear the malfunction (well most malfunctions, there are some malfunctions which would require you to physically remove a stuck round or casing).
-Additionally, the size of the magazine really doesn’t matter. The only difference between a 100 round, 30 round, or 10 round external magazine in terms of sending rounds down range is seconds (which unless you are on a target range you will have as you move from target to target). The only impact the size of a magazine would have on rounds down range would be if the magazine was internal (like the M1 Garand) and you had to reload the magazine one round at a time (no clips like the M1 Garand or speed loaders).
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying that comment, and you are correct, the media does like to portray those weapons as big and scary things. I think a lot of people involved in the gun debate (myself included) would benefit greatly from a gun safety course. Even if it is purely educational and they don’t even have to touch a gun. From my experience, the safest person to be around guns is someone who owns a gun - I know that sounds redundant, but they are always cognizant of any risks (such as someone holding a gun, turning to talk to someone, and not realizing they are pointing a gun at a person).
 
tjones80 said:
Repeal the second amendment.
Click to expand...
Even if the 2nd Amendment would be repealed (highly unlikely) that doesn’t mean that the people are going to gleefully turn in their guns. It just might start the war that gun bans would try to prevent.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
-A ragtag group of individuals with just small arms couldn’t possibly take on the US military? Tell that to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military isn’t designed for long term asymmetrical warfare. The US law enforcement agencies are in even worse shape.
-Support of the military in protection against tyranny of the State is actually in the 2nd Amendment, hence the states’ ability to organize and raise armed militias (i.e. the National Guard).
Click to expand...
So, you are saying the insurgents are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan? It seems like they are taking huge losses and the only reason that it isn’t worse for them is the reluctance to risk civilian casualties. If a tyrannical government exists, then I wonder if it would care one way or another on civilian casualties.

It doesn’t state in the actual 2nd amendment that it is there to guard against a tyranny, just that it is necessary to have a well-regulated militia for the security of the state. It may be some’s interpretation that it is to protect against a tyrannical government, but it doesn’t say so, and I generally dislike the insistence of some to use the personal interpretations of some of the Founding Fathers as a guide to what it meant, as, if that’s what it was supposed to mean, they should have just said so.

Personally, I think it is very difficult to put this amendment in a 21st century context because the founding fathers as a whole were very weary of standing armies. When a crisis arouse, a new army was formed and that was generally acceptable. I’m not sure we can really understand how they would interpret the idea of spending almost a trillion dollars a year on a standing army and that army could basically destroy anything it felt like anywhere in the world within minutes of deciding to destroy it. I honestly think they would all be initially horrified at the military we have today until they understood the context to why it exists and I’m not sure they would draw the same conclusions today that they did at the end of the 18th century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top