(03-19-2018 02:51 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:43 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:38 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Edit: Many gun owners have little to no training. Let alone military/militia training. It is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be

True.


But guess which group does have overwhelming amount of training compared to the other.


I'll give you a hint.....it ain't the ones who will be going to battle wearing pink puzzy hats. Most likely they'll be wearing Mossy Oak or Realtree.

Reminds me of when those two were riding around in an old car with the back seat taken out and one of them was shooting through a hole in the trunk killing people at gas stations, moving their yard, or entering a mall. The press was astonished that someone was so accurate that they could kill at a distance of 70 or 80 yards......must be military they claimed.

I told the old lady, the press needs to visit most any state in the south in the month of Nov and they'll see pick up loads of youngsters on the way to the camp who can kill a deeer at 200 yards with a high powered rifle.

Yup.


Growing up I wasn't allowed to even try to shoot a deer rifle until I could hit a drink can at 100 yards with a .22 rifle. I wasn't allowed to hunt with said deer rifle until I could hit a paper plate stuck on a round bale at 200 yards.

Hitting a deer at 200 yards is a lot different than shooting a human at 200 yards, Now add in bullets being fired back at you and all the other chaos of battle.

It's even more different than wearing a pussey hat and sipping a soy latte. What part of the military and the police are MAGA do demwits not understand.


Bring it

(03-19-2018 03:27 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:46 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:38 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  The South thought the same thing and are still butthirt how that turned out.

The South was martially superior to the Union invaders. That war, like most wars do, came down to logistics.

Logistics wouldn't be a problem for the right in a future civil war.

A loss is a loss. If you go by that last election map the right would start off with the upper hand but would eventually get cutoff just like the last time.

I don't see that at all.

All the right would have to do is seize or blockade a couple Atlantic harbors and play defense along the front range until we starved the east out. They don't produce enough food to last too awful long before the inner cities tear themselves apart.

Illinois would fall fairly quickly since the only reason it went blue was Chicago. The rest of the Great Lakes states between it and aid went red and the southern 2/3rds of the state did as well. Chicago would fall quickly.

Colorado & New Mexico could theoretically get resupplied from Mexico but they are surrounded as well.

The west coast would present a challenge but if we picked the rest off piecemeal we could hold them in place using the advantages our terrain gives us until we could concentrate our entire force on them.

The problem you have is you are concentrating on the big picture map instead of the nationwide county map. The blue on that map is a couple of large concentrations on either coast and a bunch of easily isolated pockets elsewhere. The idea that the left could cut off the right is absurd when you look at that picture.

What is the plan for the ports you are going to take? Even if you manage to take a couple there is no way you can take enough to starve out anyone.

This is not Red Dawn. No one is going to do an air drop invasion of flyover country. Not because of the people but because there is no strategic value in doing so. So what you have in the national map, you know the one you said I was not looking at but which is exactly the one I was thinking of, is the woefully spread army defending “targets” on no importance. Not that they don’t many plenty to the people that live there.

LOL

Nothing of importance?


It's the breadbasket of this country. You don't eat for a week and you aren't going to fight. Even in true blue Commiefornia the food producing regions are red.

Six of the ten largest ports, including the top two, are red.

The overwhelming majority of US nuclear weapons bases are red.

An ever increasing amount of manufacturing capabilities are moving to red areas to escape the socialistic policies in the blue areas.

This countries entire list of integrated steel mills? In red states.

The only facility in this country producing tritium (and soon to be only mixed oxide fuel facility) is in a deep red state.

Pretty sure we call that treason.
[/quote]


You forgot, only Demons can call any acts treasonous. They are pure and clean as a lamb...patriots. Pfft, even I laughed at my own post.

(03-19-2018 03:49 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 03:27 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:46 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The South was martially superior to the Union invaders. That war, like most wars do, came down to logistics.

Logistics wouldn't be a problem for the right in a future civil war.

A loss is a loss. If you go by that last election map the right would start off with the upper hand but would eventually get cutoff just like the last time.

I don't see that at all.

All the right would have to do is seize or blockade a couple Atlantic harbors and play defense along the front range until we starved the east out. They don't produce enough food to last too awful long before the inner cities tear themselves apart.

Illinois would fall fairly quickly since the only reason it went blue was Chicago. The rest of the Great Lakes states between it and aid went red and the southern 2/3rds of the state did as well. Chicago would fall quickly.

Colorado & New Mexico could theoretically get resupplied from Mexico but they are surrounded as well.

The west coast would present a challenge but if we picked the rest off piecemeal we could hold them in place using the advantages our terrain gives us until we could concentrate our entire force on them.

The problem you have is you are concentrating on the big picture map instead of the nationwide county map. The blue on that map is a couple of large concentrations on either coast and a bunch of easily isolated pockets elsewhere. The idea that the left could cut off the right is absurd when you look at that picture.

What is the plan for the ports you are going to take? Even if you manage to take a couple there is no way you can take enough to starve out anyone.

This is not Red Dawn. No one is going to do an air drop invasion of flyover country. Not because of the people but because there is no strategic value in doing so. So what you have in the national map, you know the one you said I was not looking at but which is exactly the one I was thinking of, is the woefully spread army defending “targets” on no importance. Not that they don’t many plenty to the people that live there.

LOL

Nothing of importance?


It's the breadbasket of this country. You don't eat for a week and you aren't going to fight. Even in true blue Commiefornia the food producing regions are red.

Six of the ten largest ports, including the top two, are red.

The overwhelming majority of US nuclear weapons bases are red.

An ever increasing amount of manufacturing capabilities are moving to red areas to escape the socialistic policies in the blue areas.

This countries entire list of integrated steel mills? In red states.

The only facility in this country producing tritium (and soon to be only mixed oxide fuel facility) is in a deep red state.

Oh and to add to the list California isn't going to be able to last too long once the red states they depend on to provide their water and power leave them dry and in the dark.

(03-19-2018 12:23 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  A what if scenario was presented and a possible outcome from that scenario was the president not following the law. Now if the political party in power was different you guys would be screaming about tryranny and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not so enthusiastic when the people who want to bear arms don’t share your same political views. Ish gets real right?

Seek help.

Probably also be advisable that you not try to speak for a bunch of people you don't know the first thing about.

But first, seek help.

(03-19-2018 12:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:23 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  A what if scenario was presented and a possible outcome from that scenario was the president not following the law. Now if the political party in power was different you guys would be screaming about tryranny and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not so enthusiastic when the people who want to bear arms don’t share your same political views. Ish gets real right?

Not really.

If it ever came down to civil war between the two political spectrums in this country we would mow through y'all like a Dixie Chopper through the first grass of spring.

Bearing arms is more than just the possession, it's possessing the knowledge and proficiency to use them when the time comes. Y'all will be too busy looking for your 30 round clips to do much practice and your pink puzzy hats will make target acquisition that much easier with our deer rifles.

This one just full of lulz. Well put.

(03-19-2018 03:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:01 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Attempting to trigger another unhinged, alt-left terrorist like james t. hodgkinson or floyd lee corkins.

Quote:Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) reportedly took time during a Huntington, New York, speech to suggest that people should take up arms against President Trump.
Roll Call reports the Suozzi talked of putting pressure on Trump, saying, “This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly. Because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

An audience member responded by asking the essence of the Second Amendment and Suozzi said, “The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms.”

According to the New York Post, nervousness was evident among attendees. National Republican Campaign Committee spokesman Chris Martin said, “This video is incredibly disturbing. It’s surreal to watch a sitting member of Congress suggest that his constituents should take up arms against the president of the United States.”

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2...ssion=true

Pretty sure we call that treason.

Or perhaps intention to incite.

(03-19-2018 05:22 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:23 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  A what if scenario was presented and a possible outcome from that scenario was the president not following the law. Now if the political party in power was different you guys would be screaming about tryranny and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not so enthusiastic when the people who want to bear arms don’t share your same political views. Ish gets real right?

Not really.

If it ever came down to civil war between the two political spectrums in this country we would mow through y'all like a Dixie Chopper through the first grass of spring.

Bearing arms is more than just the possession, it's possessing the knowledge and proficiency to use them when the time comes. Y'all will be too busy looking for your 30 round clips to do much practice and your pink puzzy hats will make target acquisition that much easier with our deer rifles.

This one just full of lulz. Well put.

Can see the news report now

"This is Wold Blitzer with The Situation Room. We go to CNN war correspondent Clarissa Ward on the scene at the Battle for Jersey City. Clarissa tell us what happened today."

"Well Wolf the People's Democratic Republic of Amerikan forces launched a counterattack to try and blunt the Patriot forces drive into the city. The attack was led by PDRA Special Forces, the famous 'Pink Berets' but it was an absolute massacre. Patriot forces turned away the counterattack with accurate sniper fire that decimated the first wave. The second wave from the PDRA was able to fire off only one volley before they discovered they only had clips, not magazines for their arms and half their forces were now suffering from PTSD from firing the AR15s. It turned into a rout when Patriot cavalry forces led by the 1st Virginia Hussars flanked the PDRA lines while the 2nd Palmetto Dragoons severed the PDRA supply lines including the destruction of three-quarters of their soy latte supply. The PDRA forces were last seen clutching their coloring books and fidget spinners as they haphazardly retreated through the Holland Tunnel for the dubious safety of a Manhattan Island that has no food since the last of the animals at the Central Park Zoo were butchered a week ago."

(03-19-2018 03:27 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:46 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:38 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  The South thought the same thing and are still butthirt how that turned out.

The South was martially superior to the Union invaders. That war, like most wars do, came down to logistics.

Logistics wouldn't be a problem for the right in a future civil war.

A loss is a loss. If you go by that last election map the right would start off with the upper hand but would eventually get cutoff just like the last time.

I don't see that at all.

All the right would have to do is seize or blockade a couple Atlantic harbors and play defense along the front range until we starved the east out. They don't produce enough food to last too awful long before the inner cities tear themselves apart.

Illinois would fall fairly quickly since the only reason it went blue was Chicago. The rest of the Great Lakes states between it and aid went red and the southern 2/3rds of the state did as well. Chicago would fall quickly.

Colorado & New Mexico could theoretically get resupplied from Mexico but they are surrounded as well.

The west coast would present a challenge but if we picked the rest off piecemeal we could hold them in place using the advantages our terrain gives us until we could concentrate our entire force on them.

The problem you have is you are concentrating on the big picture map instead of the nationwide county map. The blue on that map is a couple of large concentrations on either coast and a bunch of easily isolated pockets elsewhere. The idea that the left could cut off the right is absurd when you look at that picture.

What is the plan for the ports you are going to take? Even if you manage to take a couple there is no way you can take enough to starve out anyone.

This is not Red Dawn. No one is going to do an air drop invasion of flyover country. Not because of the people but because there is no strategic value in doing so. So what you have in the national map, you know the one you said I was not looking at but which is exactly the one I was thinking of, is the woefully spread army defending “targets” on no importance. Not that they don’t many plenty to the people that live there.

Of course none of this is ever gonna happen, unless some other mass catastrophe happens first, Yellowstone goes Hydro or something. But.

Who do you think is going to be better suited for an extra-military "war". As in, largely civilians forces challenging one another-

Those that spend their weekends in the woods, hunting, fishing, making fires for heat and cooking, sleeping outdoors?

OR

Those holed up in their high-rise condominiums, watching TV behind their gated neighborhoods or occupying the section 8 areas of town the former 2 groups would never dream of setting foot in?


I'd bet on the people thatactually know WTF they're doing.

(03-19-2018 05:37 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

That actually surprises me about Va and NC not being a shade or two darker. Guess those concentrations of people in the sovereign State of northern Virginia and places like Tri-cities, Charlotte etc., dilutes the numbers.

(03-19-2018 12:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:May 30, 2010—Sharron Angle, a candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator in Nevada, tells the Reno Gazette-Journal that a recent increase in gun sales nationwide "tells me that the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways." These comments echo ones made by Angle in January, when she told conservative radio show talk host Lars Larson, "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take [U.S. Senator from Nevada] Harry Reid out."

And yes, they're both in the wrong.

But.... are they? Really???

(03-19-2018 12:38 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:23 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  A what if scenario was presented and a possible outcome from that scenario was the president not following the law. Now if the political party in power was different you guys would be screaming about tryranny and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not so enthusiastic when the people who want to bear arms don’t share your same political views. Ish gets real right?

Not really.

If it ever came down to civil war between the two political spectrums in this country we would mow through y'all like a Dixie Chopper through the first grass of spring.

Bearing arms is more than just the possession, it's possessing the knowledge and proficiency to use them when the time comes. Y'all will be too busy looking for your 30 round clips to do much practice and your pink puzzy hats will make target acquisition that much easier with our deer rifles.

The South thought the same thing and are still butthirt how that turned out.

Short of secession, the US military can not operate on US soil. That is to say, the US military can not operate on US soil. Not only that, most of the military would side with the libertarian issues, so I'm thinking the opposition would just look like a bunch of Iraqi republican guard, giving up with their unchambered ARs held over their heads.

(03-19-2018 03:48 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 02:51 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 01:43 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:45 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  True.


But guess which group does have overwhelming amount of training compared to the other.


I'll give you a hint.....it ain't the ones who will be going to battle wearing pink puzzy hats. Most likely they'll be wearing Mossy Oak or Realtree.

Reminds me of when those two were riding around in an old car with the back seat taken out and one of them was shooting through a hole in the trunk killing people at gas stations, moving their yard, or entering a mall. The press was astonished that someone was so accurate that they could kill at a distance of 70 or 80 yards......must be military they claimed.

I told the old lady, the press needs to visit most any state in the south in the month of Nov and they'll see pick up loads of youngsters on the way to the camp who can kill a deeer at 200 yards with a high powered rifle.

Yup.


Growing up I wasn't allowed to even try to shoot a deer rifle until I could hit a drink can at 100 yards with a .22 rifle. I wasn't allowed to hunt with said deer rifle until I could hit a paper plate stuck on a round bale at 200 yards.

Hitting a deer at 200 yards is a lot different than shooting a human at 200 yards, Now add in bullets being fired back at you and all the other chaos of battle.

It's even more different than wearing a pussey hat and sipping a soy latte. What part of the military and the police are MAGA do demwits not understand.


Bring it

You really should stop the roids rage boy.

(03-19-2018 05:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 05:37 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

That actually surprises me about Va and NC not being a shade or two darker. Guess those concentrations of people in the sovereign State of northern Virginia and places like Tri-cities, Charlotte etc., dilutes the numbers.

That map also doubles for relative concentrations of deplorables.

(03-19-2018 06:33 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:38 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:23 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  A what if scenario was presented and a possible outcome from that scenario was the president not following the law. Now if the political party in power was different you guys would be screaming about tryranny and the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not so enthusiastic when the people who want to bear arms don’t share your same political views. Ish gets real right?

Not really.

If it ever came down to civil war between the two political spectrums in this country we would mow through y'all like a Dixie Chopper through the first grass of spring.

Bearing arms is more than just the possession, it's possessing the knowledge and proficiency to use them when the time comes. Y'all will be too busy looking for your 30 round clips to do much practice and your pink puzzy hats will make target acquisition that much easier with our deer rifles.

The South thought the same thing and are still butthirt how that turned out.

Short of secession, the US military can not operate on US soil. That is to say, the US military can not operate on US soil. Not only that, most of the military would side with the libertarian issues, so I'm thinking the opposition would just look like a bunch of Iraqi republican guard, giving up with their unchambered ARs held over their heads.

Yes they can operate on US soil. While not likely it can be done. How the military, and the individuals who serve, respond would depend on the events leading up to the trigger event.

(03-19-2018 09:54 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 05:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 05:37 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

That actually surprises me about Va and NC not being a shade or two darker. Guess those concentrations of people in the sovereign State of northern Virginia and places like Tri-cities, Charlotte etc., dilutes the numbers.

That map also doubles for relative concentrations of deplorables.

Sparsely populated areas.

(03-19-2018 09:59 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 09:54 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 05:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 05:37 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

That actually surprises me about Va and NC not being a shade or two darker. Guess those concentrations of people in the sovereign State of northern Virginia and places like Tri-cities, Charlotte etc., dilutes the numbers.

That map also doubles for relative concentrations of deplorables.

Sparsely populated areas.

Yeah, those areas that put food on everyone's tables. Or do you assume food comes from the grocery store?

Bwahahahaha

(03-19-2018 10:30 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

Bwahahahaha

Same thing in the civil war.