(03-19-2018 12:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:36 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(03-19-2018 12:33 PM)shere khan 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?

Do it. See how it works out

Thanks for proving my point

It appears that this has become the all-new "go to" phrase when someone doesn't want to put their ideas out there properly.

IMO, that phrase is the new version of "whatever".

Please explain how his/her post does not prove my point...

Soy boys talk shite. Tell em to step up and they melt like butter on asphalt

(03-19-2018 12:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  First off I have no fanstasies about this. I personally think the investigations will continue until Trump loses in 2020 or just decides not to run. But if it happens the way you say it does then why do we need guns?

The Second Amendment allows Americans the right and ability to individually protect our rights and safety on our own, with firearms.

(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.

(03-19-2018 12:42 PM)Kaplony 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.

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.

(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:  

(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.

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.

I've said before, I'll say it again.

Recent trivial armed resistance in Baltimore, NYC, and Ferguson has resulted in a local near collapse of order because the police are not equipped or trained for even loosely organized urban warfare.

(03-19-2018 01:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I've said before, I'll say it again.

Recent trivial armed resistance in Baltimore, NYC, and Ferguson has resulted in a local near collapse of order because the police are not equipped or trained for even loosely organized urban warfare.

Police are MAGA.

Oh and not to mention the fact that the right has been prepping the battlefield for years by engaging in chemical warfare against the left.






Be sure to drink your soy

(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.

(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.

Leftwing parents need to stop doing drugs before conceiving children. Living proof it messes kids up for life.

(03-19-2018 02:02 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Leftwing parents need to stop doing drugs before conceiving children. Living proof it messes kids up for life.

Right...drug use or abuse is clearly a left-wing issue only.

(03-19-2018 02:02 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Leftwing parents need to stop conceiving children.

(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:  

(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.

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.

yet the left still ******* about hillary won the popular vote...

(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.

(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.

While I have yet to be in an actual gunfight I have a good deal of tactical training both during and after my dabble in law enforcement using both VR and the wax simunition that hurts a hell of a lot more than a paintball or airsoft pellet.

I think I'll be fine. Care to try me?

(03-19-2018 02:47 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 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:  

(03-19-2018 12:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  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.

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.

yet the left still ******* about hillary won the popular vote...

Have you ever seen me do it? She lost. Trump is President until he is not.

(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.

(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:  

(03-19-2018 12:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  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.

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.