So you do recognize the role. Your conjecture on my understanding was wrong.And I think you overestimate it. Even the Spanish partisans relied on British support during the Peninsular War, which is where at least some view modern guerilla tactics arose. It also helped that in that case Napoleon had most definitely bitten off more than he could chew.
I was referring to the rebel zone comment. There wouldn’t be just one area to attack. in a 2A movement, the whole country would have supporters and members. I was referring to a guerilla action versus outright full-blown war.Step 1 will be depriving rebel zones of allies
Yes, you are, we aren’t talking soft bans where a cheaper alternative is available.You’re missing it so badly that this really is my last shot.
only in uniting Ireland, they weren’t eliminated as you think rebels will be.As most rebels do, they failed.
I’m astonished that the straw man continues. Well, maybe I’m not. Some thoughts:Make no mistake, I’m not against the Irish. I was merely defending the point that rebellions fail the vast majority of the time. Those that succeed have substantial foreign help.
This us in the context of guns in America. Against the greatest conventional military power in the world, American rebels would have no shot. The idea that middle aged men with AR15s within a Walmart culture would have any shot is just lunacy. And no outside aid of any real scale will come because it will invoke the wrath of the greatest military power on the planet at the moment.
This is wishful thinking if the anti-rights progressives. We currently can’t stop the flow of drugs across the border, not that progressives want to. But even if they did, I don’t think the” Swalwell Solution”, internationally or domestically, would be any more than a threat.And no outside aid of any real scale will come because it will invoke the wrath of the greatest military power on the planet at the moment.
Straw man?I’m astonished that the straw man continues.
A couple points;Yet the anti-rights progressives claim these millions of law abiding Americans should give up their arms. Pathetic.
Assuming you could convince a foreign government to openly supply a rebellion against the greatest conventional and nuclear military power on the planet (and you most certainly could not), you’d see the deployment of the national guard along the borders. And where the border was cluttered (Nogales, for example) eminent domain would be wielded to rapidly de-clutter it. And the full cooperation of Mexico and Canada in stopping foreign aid would be happily available as the US is responsible for the vast majority of the consumption of their foreign exports.We currently can’t stop the flow of drugs across the border, not that progressives want to. But even if they did, I don’t think the” Swalwell Solution”, internationally or domestically, would be any more than a threat.
Off topic.In fact, the only “resistance” is by progressives.
Of course they wouldn’t. They’d turn their guns inward on the traitorous rebels and evil domestic terrorists that wanted to disrupt the safety and security of American life. As has been done several times in American history.Also being continued here is an idiotic notion that American troops would turn their weapons inward in defense of tyranny.
you put too much faith in the ability of the feds to stop smuggling, they haven’t been successful yet, but you are free to think they will be on this 1 item.The price of black market rifles will never achieve long term stability for quite some time because the entrance of replacements wont exist.
The seizure comes at a time when confiscations of gun parts, munitions, explosives and fireworks have increased 18% over last year, across the United States’ 328 ports of entry, Ruiz told NPR.
but they didn’t eliminate the rebels as you think they will in the states.Place whatever “bandaid” you want, the territory is under the sovereign rule of the UK.
New Jersey can’t get LCM’s turned inNew York State enacted one of the nation’s strictest gun control laws. But three and a half years later, state records obtained after a lengthy court battle show that a key provision of the New York Safe Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act — mandatory registration of assault weapons — has been roundly ignored by gun owners in Ulster County and across the state.
what have the authorities done to make the people comply with these laws?How many of New Jersey’s 1 million or so gun owners have complied with the ban by turning LCMs in to law enforcement agencies? Approximately zero, judging from an investigation by Ammoland writer John Crump.
You mean like middle age guys in the Walmart era?Using over-broad, divisive language is forbidden by the rules of conduct on these forums,
Then I wasn’t talking about you, was I ?I’m not arguing for anyone giving up anything they already own.
And common availability is spoken of in Heller and Miller. Automatic weapons were not widely owned. Semiautomatic civilian firearms, such as the AR-15, are very widely held. In fact, semiautomatic rifles are by far the most widely held rifle. If you’re speaking of AR-15’s, you and I both know that rifles in general and AR-15’s in particular, account for a very tiny fraction of the gun homicides. There are an estimated 8 million to 10 million AR-15’s. Fewer than 20 have been used shootings. Targeting AR-15’s is targeting the law abiding. The major issue is illegal handguns in the major cities.Just like the automatics that Americans have already “given up”, grandfather exemptions would surely apply - especially as we’re both aware of how common they are.
Oh, I thought the national guard would be going house to house. Or is the plan for the military to do that.Assuming you could convince a foreign government to openly supply a rebellion against the greatest conventional and nuclear military power on the planet (and you most certainly could not), you’d see the deployment of the national guard along the borders.
None of the four.Off topic.
Divisive.
Irrelevant.
And false.
This seems to be such a low view of our sons and daughters in the military to believe they would attack their families for fighting against a government turned tyrannical.Of course they wouldn’t. They’d turn their guns inward on the traitorous rebels and evil domestic terrorists that wanted to disrupt the safety and security of American life. As has been done several times in American history.
“Assault weapon” is a politically contrived term, the meaning of which changes based on which civilian firearm and their law abiding owners are being targeted.I do not get the focus on ‘assault weapons’. To start with it is a strange term; Nazi Germany and Sovjet Union assaulted Poland mainly with bolt action rifles… . An AR-15 is just a semi-automatic rifle. It has similar characteristics as the mini-14 which looks less dangerous. An assault weapon is a gun with selective fire (semi auto, burst or full auto).
People who responsibly own guns do it for hunting and for self-protection. I see no problem with rifles, shotguns, and pistols. There is no reason for individuals to own weapons designed specifically for combat situations.well why do the general public specifically need firearms? Just look at the lives they take. The US has had multiple shootings, London has had multiple shootings. Did God really put us on this earth for us to kill each other?
It isn’t my militia. It is America’s militia. But let me ask you: if Trump declared himself president at the end of his elected term, and canceled elections, whose side would the military be on?If you want to hold the idea that the military of the federal government and your “militia” would be allies, then fine. I’ll chalk it up as another quasi-religious belief.
The overwhelming number of civilian owned firearms are just that; civilian firearms. Only a tiny fraction are military weapons designed for combat. The vast majority of firearms are civilian semiautomatic arms , rifles and handguns, and well over 99.999% of the legally owned arms are never used in crimes.People who responsibly own guns do it for hunting and for self-protection. I see no problem with rifles, shotguns, and pistols. There is no reason for individuals to own weapons designed specifically for combat situations.
Which other constitutionally protected and enumerated rights can we include under these?Additionally we need more monitoring and mandatory wait periods and training around gun ownership. Also mandatory across the board background checks.
how do you do this with sales between criminals? after all that is the sales we want to stop, right?Also mandatory across the board background checks.