If Trump Shot Wayne LaPierre on 5th Avenue...

[Captainnumnuts]

I think everyone has their own preconceived notions about Trump and the NRA. Trump has stated repeatedly in the past that he wants some type of gun control regulation. He equally wants people to defend themselves on a leveled playing field same as the bad guys.

 

[Captainnumnuts]

Well, I replied to it, so, there is that.

I replied to yours in a way. Truth be known, Trump is really an Independent with his own agendas he thinks is best for everyone. He went the Republican way because he seen a way to leverage it to his advantage. It pisses off many of the Republicans. The Demoquacks see him as a traitor to the Democratic Party. Somehow the Liberals have managed to seize control of the Democrats and heavily influenced them.

Yes, President Trump always looks to take credit for everything. No doubt, he gets in his own way at times. He's learning politics and business sense don't mix like he thought they would. He wants to win at any cost even if it means stepping back to concede sometimes.

 

[Aglaopheme]

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...eral-background?amp&__twitter_impression=true

A White House spokesperson said Monday that President Trump would back improving the federal background check system.

"The President spoke to Senator [John] Cornyn (R-Texas) on Friday about the bi-partisan bill he and Sen. [Chris] Murphy (D-Conn.) introduced to improve Federal Compliance with Criminal Background check Legislation," the White House said in a statement.

"While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the President is supportive of efforts to improve the Federal background check system."

 

[Captainnumnuts]

How did this become a political thread? I guess that's bound to happen when Trump's name is mentioned.

 

[phrodeau]

How many Supreme Court justices have to die before the gun nuts feel safe about the 2nd Amendment?

 

[jaF0]

The AMC Javelin was a pretty cool car. Even the Ambassador wasn't all bad.

Now the Pacer .... don't get me started, but at least it would carry a big sandwich.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

The AMC Javelin was a pretty cool car. Even the Ambassador wasn't all bad.

Now the Pacer .... don't get me started, but at least it would carry a big sandwich.

My first girlfriend had a Javelin. It kinda cool and I got some ass in it so it'll always have a soft spot with me. And wet spot come to think of it.

 

[Hypoxia]

I think I'll play a drinking game; toss back a shot every time Hypoxia uses the phrase well-regulated militia outside of its historical context.

Ah, historical context. N!ggers were fractional persons and !njuns were un-persons, so y'all go away now, y'hear? Women didn't count for much either. 'Arms' were muzzle-loaders and yes, a troupe of armed citizens *could* stand off a contemporary military force. Not like now. You'll use your AR15 against armed drones and MOABs? Right.

I know the argument. "Well, them primitive ragheads is kicking ass on our troops in the MidEast." That's because the MidEast ain't shit. Ragheads don't pose an existential threat to USA. You want an armed standoff against US forces? That didn't go so well at Waco or Ruby Ridge. The gov't has more and bigger guns and your "assault-style rifle" won't overthrow it.

Of course the Founders didn't really mean "well-regulated militia," did they? Big joke, ha ha. They meant rag-tag rogues shooting other citizens. You have the right (and responsibility) to kill or be killed. Right.

What is WRITTEN is, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." IMHO "well-regulated" means Congress or legislatures set rules for qualification and continued membership, for regular inspection and training drills, for rewards and punishments. A fucking ORGANIZATION, y'know. Not an informal, self-declared anti-gov't 'militia' aka a gang of self-righteous thugs. Better look up 'insurrection'.

 

[richard_daily]

Ah, historical context. N!ggers were fractional persons and !njuns were un-persons, so y'all go away now, y'hear? Women didn't count for much either. 'Arms' were muzzle-loaders and yes, a troupe of armed citizens *could* stand off a contemporary military force. Not like now. You'll use your AR15 against armed drones and MOABs? Right.

A group of whiners who said "please send snacks" held off the federal government for several weeks a few years ago, if I recall.

If those losers can do it, anyone can.

 

[Hypoxia]

The AMC Javelin was a pretty cool car. Even the Ambassador wasn't all bad.

Now the Pacer .... don't get me started, but at least it would carry a big sandwich.

My family had a brand new (then) 1961 Rambler Classic station wagon. AMC and its predecessor made very advanced vehicles... till George Romney, Mitt's father, took over. Much bad management. After being Franco-American Motors briefly, finally had to sell to Chrysler, briefly Mercedes-Chrysler, now Fiat-Chrysler. Americans have trouble with car brands. Parts of Chrysler may be sold to China. You ready for Chinese Jeeps?

I used to live atop a hill with two pacers parked at the bottom. They stayed there after a river flood covered them. I think they're kudzu planters now.

ObTopic: How about if Tromp and LaPew play 'chicken' on 5th Ave with Pacers?

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

A group of whiners who said "please send snacks" held off the federal government for several weeks a few years ago, if I recall.

If those losers can do it, anyone can.

Only because the government didn't want to bomb them out of existence. You honestly think they would have had a chance against even a single M1?

 

[richard_daily]

Only because the government didn't want to bomb them out of existence. You honestly think they would have had a chance against even a single M1?

Yes. Because of the court of public opinion.

The same reason why you can hold of the US government is the same reason why we still have a terrorist problem in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemin...

Because killing people with vast disparity of force creates more insurgents.

Ask the Israelis how safe the F16s they use to bomb civilians makes them.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Yes. Because of the court of public opinion.

The same reason why you can hold of the US government is the same reason why we still have a terrorist problem in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemin...

Because killing people with vast disparity of force creates more insurgents.

Ask the Israelis how safe the F16s they use to bomb civilians makes them.

That's not the point tho. Talking about actually fighting the government. Civilian militias stand no chance whatsoever.

 

[richard_daily]

That's not the point tho. Talking about actually fighting the government. Civilian militias stand no chance whatsoever.

Yes, they do. For the reasons I just laid out.

Goat farmers laid the best laid plans of the strongest military in the world to waste.

Rice patty farmers did the same.

If you think the best armed civilian population in the world would have a harder time, you're sorely mistaken.

 

[Hypoxia]

A group of whiners who said "please send snacks" held off the federal government for several weeks a few years ago, if I recall.

If those losers can do it, anyone can.

The operative phrase is "existential threat". We don't swat pests till they become real bothers. If a pest threatens to really hurt us, we stomp it into the mud. If it ain't an existential threat, don't worry much. If it DOES threaten existence, kill it.

Insurrectionists should remember that gov't is bigger and less moral than they. Don't bother it too much.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Yes, they do. For the reasons I just laid out.

Goat farmers laid the best laid plans of the strongest military in the world to waste.

Rice patty farmers did the same.

If you think the best armed civilian population in the world would have a harder time, you're sorely mistaken.

Perhaps I did not explain properly. You got a militia who have decided to have a stand off against the US government. The government decides they don't wanna fuck around and they attack with a couple M1A1's, maybe a B2 for good measure.
Do you really believe they have a snowballs chance?

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Of course now that I think about it if the're gonna use a B2 then why waste time with the M1's. One bomb, insurgents all gone.
Or the reverse. The tanks would make short work of them, too.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Yes, they do. For the reasons I just laid out.

Goat farmers laid the best laid plans of the strongest military in the world to waste.

Rice patty farmers did the same.

If you think the best armed civilian population in the world would have a harder time, you're sorely mistaken.

However I do agree in a wider conflict you are probably right. On the other hand Americans have been so safe and so spoiled for so long that we may not fight back in numbers big enough to matter.

 

[richard_daily]

Perhaps I did not explain properly. You got a militia who have decided to have a stand off against the US government. The government decides they don't wanna fuck around and they attack with a couple M1A1's, maybe a B2 for good measure.
Do you really believe they have a snowballs chance?

Yes, because ideas are bulletproof.

Afghanistan and Vietnam are proof of that.

It's best to learn from the mistakes of history, rather than to repeat them.

 

[richard_daily]

Of course now that I think about it if the're gonna use a B2 then why waste time with the M1's. One bomb, insurgents all gone.
Or the reverse. The tanks would make short work of them, too.

That rah rah strategy sounds great, but has failed to work in the real world, every time it's been implemented.

Did the use of a MOAB last year stop the insurgency in Afghanistan?

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

Yes, because ideas are bulletproof.

Afghanistan and Vietnam are proof of that.

It's best to learn from the mistakes of history, rather than to repeat them.

You keep making it something else. I'm not talking about any of that. A single incident between our military and a militia where the government doesn't give a shit.
Who wins that fight? Not who wins down the road. Not who wins hearts and minds. Who wins that particular fight and nothing else.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

That rah rah strategy sounds great, but has failed to work in the real world, every time it's been implemented.

Did the use of a MOAB last year stop the insurgency in Afghanistan?

It stopped the fuck out of the guys in the bunker. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the wider conflict.

 

[LIVINRFANTASIES]

Denny

If Trump Shot Wayne LaPierre on 5th Avenue...

Would it happen at high noon at the Long Branch saloon?

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

That rah rah strategy sounds great, but has failed to work in the real world, every time it's been implemented.

Did the use of a MOAB last year stop the insurgency in Afghanistan?

I'm arguing because my original point had nothing to do with any of that but in the real world it's true that this shit usually makes it worse.
But we have done it. Waco was close enough to this scenario to count. Of course the fallout was pretty much as described.

 

[richard_daily]

I'm arguing because my original point had nothing to do with any of that but in the real world it's true that this shit usually makes it worse.
But we have done it. Waco was close enough to this scenario to count. Of course the fallout was pretty much as described.

Waco created more enemies of the government. Far more than the people killed in that incident.

Who wins that battle? That depends on how you define the battle.

If your goal is to kill a few people who are extremists, then yes, bombing the shit out of someone works fine. However, in the real world, those bombings have reprocussions and the wakes of those actions ripple in ways that the people doing the bombing are far too short sighted to understand or recognize. That's why we lost in vietnam, why we have lost in afghanistan, and why we lost in iraq.

Isis at best count had 800-1100 fighters in the caliphate last year, against the best trained and equipped army in the world. They still held out for years, and continue to remain a threat... why?