843 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

Having breakfast in Southern Utah yesterday...

 

[freedom78]

This just in!  Nazi war machine would have been beaten back, if France didn't have gun control.

 

lulz

 

https://www.national...r-2-resistance/

 

NR gets fucking sillier every day.

[Its Cousin]

Did you read the article?

It cannot prove, of course — and doesn’t purport to — that a stronger French tradition of gun rights could have radically altered history, or that America’s more libertarian gun policies strike the right balance among all the relevant priorities. What it does do is force readers to entertain a simple question: When a hostile and brutal power takes over, do you want your countrymen to have guns at hand, or not?

... and

As for the French, “frontal armed resistance against the heavily armed and experienced Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS would have been suicide,” Halbrook concedes. But “guerrilla warfare would have been more of an option with better arms, particularly after D-Day.” The Resistance fought valiantly and helped to liberate Paris and win the war. But it was hamstrung by a lack of equipment...

[Mr. Roboto]

We had a shooting in one of our highschools here the other day. Just a murder with a gun. Only one so far this year, they had two last year. Just the way it is, we can't change anything. People kill people, not guns. Even if they are 16 and at school. 

 

On the way home from my folk's house yesterday I saw a pick up with a big flag flying out of the back. It had an Ak 47 with the words "Come and get it" underneath. Just another angry white guy (in his late 20s) all whipped up about his guns being taken away. 

[freedom78]

Did you read the article?

It cannot prove, of course — and doesn’t purport to — that a stronger French tradition of gun rights could have radically altered history, or that America’s more libertarian gun policies strike the right balance among all the relevant priorities. What it does do is force readers to entertain a simple question: When a hostile and brutal power takes over, do you want your countrymen to have guns at hand, or not?

... and

As for the French, “frontal armed resistance against the heavily armed and experienced Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS would have been suicide,” Halbrook concedes. But “guerrilla warfare would have been more of an option with better arms, particularly after D-Day.” The Resistance fought valiantly and helped to liberate Paris and win the war. But it was hamstrung by a lack of equipment...

 

Yes, I read it.  It perpetuates the myth that armed citizens are a threat to the modern militaries of their age.  My original comment may have been an exaggeration, but look at the title.  You don't ask that question, to that audience, and expect them to give a well reasoned "no, it made no difference".  By simply asking the question, you're validating the claims of a somewhat ludicrous position.  And since some on the right believe gun rights are necessary, not for personal defense but to "water the tree of liberty", the piece is feeding into that in an unhealthy way.

 

So, yes, I read and, no, I know the author doesn't really believe that untrained French citizens with shotguns were going to push back the Nazis...but since that's so obvious, why do those crazies need to even ask that question?

[Its Cousin]

the myth that armed citizens are a threat to the modern militaries of their age.

History is replete with examples of poorly armed insurgencies defeating well-armed contemporary armies. Off the top of my head, the US military faced a Vietcong resistance that was initially(at least until the Strategic Hamlet Program) very poorly armed... often with WWI era bolt action rifles. Same with the Mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets. Too, after we invaded Iraq, we played hell against people armed with little more than rifles and improvised devices.

Typically, in a war for autonomy, or an insurgency against an occupying power, the rebels don't have to win; they just have to not loose.

Re shotguns: with the proper ammo, they are very effective combat arms in urban centers and dense foliage(and my personal favourite gun).

Back to the article, the resistance in France was never able to acquire sufficient weapons in appreciable quantities to really effect the war in anything other than minor operations. Had they been better equipped, they might've tied up troops that were instead sent east or to Italy. I think that is what the author was getting at.

And, I agree with you about the teabagger nuts and their "blood of liberty" stuff .

[freedom78]

History is replete with examples of poorly armed insurgencies defeating well-armed contemporary armies. Off the top of my head, the US military faced a Vietcong resistance that was initially(at least until the Strategic Hamlet Program) very poorly armed... often with WWI era bolt action rifles. Same with the Mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets. Too, after we invaded Iraq, we played hell against people armed with little more than rifles and improvised devices. Typically, in a war for autonomy, or an insurgency against an occupying power, the rebels don't have to win; they just have to not loose. Re shotguns: with the proper ammo, they are very effective combat arms in urban centers and dense foliage(and my personal favourite gun). Back to the article, the resistance in France was never able to acquire sufficient weapons in appreciable quantities to really effect the war in anything other than minor operations. Had they been better equipped, they might've tied up troops that were instead sent east or to Italy. I think that is what the author was getting at. And, I agree with you about the teabagger nuts and their "blood of liberty" stuff .

 

"Defeat" is a subjective word and I don't at all disagree that in asymmetric conflicts an insurgency can succeed via guerrilla tactics, despite being conventionally weaker and less well armed.  But that alone isn't enough and rarely if ever grants a conventional victory, wherein the opposing side loses territory and surrenders. 

 

If you're to ask whether a violent revolution "against tyranny" (aka healthcare ) would succeed in this country, my first and only question would be "which side was the army on?" 

[Its Cousin]

 

"Defeat" is a subjective word...

Yeah, that was a piss poor choice of a word... probably should've written "obtained their strategic objective".

[Its Cousin]

The shooter at the Kroger store in Louisville yesterday said "whites don't kill whites" when confronted by an armed citizen. They exchanged fire with both missing.

He killed two black folks at the shopping center.

[Its Cousin]

The Pit shooter posted this on GAB before he started his rampage(HIAS is a Jewish immigration group):





GAB has scrubbed his profile, but a Twitter user saved a bunch of it. Some pretty disturbing shit.

https://web.archive....r.com/a/cwB9QkR

[Mr. Roboto]

Sick fuck ^^

 

The white supremacists have had a great week. Wonder where they get their inspiration from?

[Its Cousin]

^^^ Like cockroaches coming out of the woodwork since der Furher seized control. The fucker in Louisville tried to get into a black church before he killed the people at the grocery store. Local news reported that there was a meeting there an hour before... would've been much worse.

[Mr. Roboto]

I'm afraid it's only going to get worse....I'm really sick of this insanity.

 

I'm also sick of the "both sides" bullshit. Seriously, fuck anybody who says that. 

[Its Cousin]

As you know, I have long been a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but I am seriously reconsidering my position. Over the last few years, I have had a lot of mixed feelings about it. I still support it, but goddamn, something has to be done.

[freedom78]

So you rant and rave about an illegal immigrant terrorist caravan and, surprise surprise, some whackjob goes and shoots up a synagogue that helps refugees.

 

Is nothing beyond us anymore?