Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Americans who are not cowardly could put up a good fight. Also, there are millions of veterans in the US that won't go along with tyranny/gun confiscation should it happen.

Afghanistan is giving Uncle Sam all it can handle with IED's and AK-47's....for more than a decade. You can't just drone bomb the whole country.....it costs too much money.

different country different people and not comparable.

America first and foremost has an infrastructure that's advantageous to a military. There are also easier logistics trains.

If the American government decided to just simply put troops in the streets you would see far more troops and far more tanks, and armored personal carriers and aircraft and everything else then they could ever put in Afghanistan.

Basically Troops would broil out of their bases and armories and have key control over cities in a matter of hours.

Plus average Joe American six pack with a m-16 is not in any way comparible to a Afghan tribesman that has learned to live in the harshest environments and make due and been basically fighting since the Soviets invaded.

The average American might be brave, but the average american compared to an Afghan tribes men is soft.

IF there was a governmental takeover in the States an insurgency would die fast and hard due to the facts of America just simply having more tools to use quicker then they had in Afghanistan.

And just because Joe 6 pack is a veteran doesn't mean much. Hell I'm a vet, I can shoot straight I was decently trained, but I would probably be mowed over in the first 10 minutes of a insurgency.

The rebels in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria aren't some poorly trained schlubs, they are well trained, and tough and have generations of handed down knowledge in how to fight invaders.

American's would have to learn on the fly and build that mentallity.

The Wolverines in the real world would have been smashed by artillary or an air strike as soon as the satellite registered the heat from the fire, and a surveillance aircraft listened in on Jeb telling the rest of those weasels to never cry again.

Then what's left would have been scooped up with spoons, put in a plastic baggy and sent to an unmarked grave.

[missdpuck]

Yeah, I think we'd be wiped out pretty quick. Poof.

[chemgear]

Florida again:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...officials-say/

Three people are dead and two are injured after a gunman went on a shooting spree Saturday morning at two locations in Union County near Lake Butler, which is about an hour southwest of Jacksonville.

Union County Sheriff Jerry Whitehead says Hubert Allen, Jr. walked into Pritchett Trucking where he used to work and shot David Griffis, reports WCJB-TV, adding that Griffis is in critical condition at UFHealth in Gainesville.

[JonDuke]

Ugh. I know it's only been a few days, but I hate seeing this page bumped.

[tjinaz]

IF there was a governmental takeover in the States an insurgency would die fast and hard due to the facts of America just simply having more tools to use quicker then they had in Afghanistan.

And just because Joe 6 pack is a veteran doesn't mean much. Hell I'm a vet, I can shoot straight I was decently trained, but I would probably be mowed over in the first 10 minutes of a insurgency.

Quite a few assumptions.

First of all you assume the military would blindly follow these orders. I can assure you they would not. The vast majority of the military and I can say from experience 90% of the combat arms and 99.999% of the special ops community are the exact type of people that would be extremely sympathetic to these "insurgents". Not only would they likely not execute these orders, they would more likely to join the rebellion and take all their toys with them.

America first and foremost has an infrastructure that's advantageous to a military. There are also easier logistics trains.

If the American government decided to just simply put troops in the streets you would see far more troops and far more tanks, and armored personal carriers and aircraft and everything else then they could ever put in Afghanistan.

Basically Troops would broil out of their bases and armories and have key control over cities in a matter of hours.

The nature of Insurgency is as Mao put it "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Look at the break down politically of the US. The gun control crowd controls urban centers and the coasts. Those are their allies. The rest are fairly solidly red states that would harbor and breed insurgents. Where does the food come from? Where does the power come from? Where does the oil come from? Just like A-stan, nearly the entire heartland of the US would be equivalent of Kandahar. You say the US has an infrastructure that is advantageous to the military. I disagree. If there were an insurgency they would have to garrison and patrol thousands of miles of powerlines, rail lines, power plants, dams, canals, water treatment facilites where the vast majority of the geographic areas contain civilians that are at best compliant, at worst openly hostile.

You are correct about the tools though but you also forget the insurgents have a much better tool set as well. Does you average tribesman have access to sophisticated encryption technology and the vast communication networks the average american does. The crypto is so advanced now brute force breaking of AES 256 is listed at over a billion years with a super computer. Its how all the banking is kept secure. I can send messages to anyone I know with this technology and without a key the military can't even break it. Sure the NSA snoops it but most people don't bother to encrypt.

The rebels in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria aren't some poorly trained schlubs, they are well trained, and tough and have generations of handed down knowledge in how to fight invaders.

American's would have to learn on the fly and build that mentallity.

Would they? As stated earlier the vast majority of the US military and the ground pounders in particular would either be the insurgents or be sympathetic to them. These are the very people that train guerillas world wide. The Insurgency/Counter insurgency experts would be aligned with the local resistance against the government. The Escuela de las Americas would have a whole new meaning but would be equally as ruthless. Hell it might even still be at Benning turning out rebels.

Bottom line is this. Did you see the liberals lining up at the recruiting office when 9-11 happened? Not so much. The vast majority of the ground pounders are red staters that were eager to fight and possibly die for their cause. You could make the same technology argument in 1776. The British had cannons, frigates, where the Americans had hunting rifles. The time and technology have changed but the root of who wins and loses hasn't. You can have all the drones, jets and tanks in the world but unless you can target them on only insurgents it will just feed it. What commander will publish that order when there is the possibility of a veteran Joe 6 pack rebel who isn't afraid to die that knows where he lives and who his family is.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Nm

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by chemgear

Florida again:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...officials-say/

Three people are dead and two are injured after a gunman went on a shooting spree Saturday morning at two locations in Union County near Lake Butler, which is about an hour southwest of Jacksonville.

Union County Sheriff Jerry Whitehead says Hubert Allen, Jr. walked into Pritchett Trucking where he used to work and shot David Griffis, reports WCJB-TV, adding that Griffis is in critical condition at UFHealth in Gainesville.

The killer was the step-grandfather of Buffalo Bills star running back C.J. Spiller.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Quite a few assumptions.

First of all you assume the military would blindly follow these orders. I can assure you they would not. The vast majority of the military and I can say from experience 90% of the combat arms and 99.999% of the special ops community are the exact type of people that would be extremely sympathetic to these "insurgents". Not only would they likely not execute these orders, they would more likely to join the rebellion and take all their toys with them.



The nature of Insurgency is as Mao put it "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Look at the break down politically of the US. The gun control crowd controls urban centers and the coasts. Those are their allies. The rest are fairly solidly red states that would harbor and breed insurgents. Where does the food come from? Where does the power come from? Where does the oil come from? Just like A-stan, nearly the entire heartland of the US would be equivalent of Kandahar. You say the US has an infrastructure that is advantageous to the military. I disagree. If there were an insurgency they would have to garrison and patrol thousands of miles of powerlines, rail lines, power plants, dams, canals, water treatment facilites where the vast majority of the geographic areas contain civilians that are at best compliant, at worst openly hostile.

You are correct about the tools though but you also forget the insurgents have a much better tool set as well. Does you average tribesman have access to sophisticated encryption technology and the vast communication networks the average american does. The crypto is so advanced now brute force breaking of AES 256 is listed at over a billion years with a super computer. Its how all the banking is kept secure. I can send messages to anyone I know with this technology and without a key the military can't even break it. Sure the NSA snoops it but most people don't bother to encrypt.



Would they? As stated earlier the vast majority of the US military and the ground pounders in particular would either be the insurgents or be sympathetic to them. These are the very people that train guerillas world wide. The Insurgency/Counter insurgency experts would be aligned with the local resistance against the government. The Escuela de las Americas would have a whole new meaning but would be equally as ruthless. Hell it might even still be at Benning turning out rebels.

Bottom line is this. Did you see the liberals lining up at the recruiting office when 9-11 happened? Not so much. The vast majority of the ground pounders are red staters that were eager to fight and possibly die for their cause. You could make the same technology argument in 1776. The British had cannons, frigates, where the Americans had hunting rifles. The time and technology have changed but the root of who wins and loses hasn't. You can have all the drones, jets and tanks in the world but unless you can target them on only insurgents it will just feed it. What commander will publish that order when there is the possibility of a veteran Joe 6 pack rebel who isn't afraid to die that knows where he lives and who his family is.

You too are making quite a few assumptions. If no one will heed the orders, what are you so afraid of?

Liberal leaders who promote gun control are sympathetic or are allied with an authoritarian government that will assault it's people?

The "ground pounders" may have been somewhat more "red", but that has far more to do with economic reasons than valor. Poor people go to war. It's an unfortunate fact

[tjinaz]

You too are making quite a few assumptions. If no one will heed the orders, what are you so afraid of?

Not no one. There will be some but it will be quite a split. Nothing, when dealing with people is ever that absolute.

Liberal leaders who promote gun control are sympathetic or are allied with an authoritarian government that will assault it's people?

Actually in this country ... Yes. . The two factions are ideologically divided on the fundamental role of the government. One side believes in the smallest government interference in people's lives, the other that government knows best and should control much more of people's lives. The second amendment is viewed as a fail safe built into the constitution against authoritarian government. Any government that tries to remove it will not be viewed as friendly by a very large part of the population.

The "ground pounders" may have been somewhat more "red", but that has far more to do with economic reasons than valor. Poor people go to war. It's an unfortunate fact

Maybe in the Vietnam era with a conscription army not in a volunteer military. They no longer tell you what your job is. The recruit picks their career field and signs a contract. If I am poor and chose to join the military for strictly economic reasons why would I chose combat arms instead of a technical field? It is uncomfortable, dangerous. and leads to no career on the outside. The vast majority do it because it is a calling. Maybe they hunted their whole lives or their father or grandfather was infantry or maybe they just want adventure or to fight. Same with Special Ops but much more to the extreme. That truly is a calling, very smart people putting themselves through great hardship because they want to make a difference. The poor kid forced to be a bullet catcher died out in 1973.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Actually in this country ... Yes. . The two factions are ideologically divided on the fundamental role of the government. One side believes in the smallest government interference in people's lives, the other that government knows best and should control much more of people's lives.

What "side" is that? What do these people call themselves? What party do they traditionally vote for?

I mean sure, I've heard of these liberal scumbags that want to run everyones lives and all that, and I've heard of these conservatives that want to dictate who is allowed to get married, that want to put more people in prison to appear "hard on crime", want to control women's rights, want to have their preferred deity publicly revered, and all sorts of other "interfering" stuff, but I've yet to see evidence of the "side that believes in the smallest government interference...".

[Vulcan]

The thing is the people sponsoring movements like the Tea Party and the NRA are big business. If you think big government is controlling, wait until big business dictates your life, if they aren't already. The brainwashed rubes suggesting an armed revolt are playing into the hands of big business. I'm lost for words for the insanity of where this conversation has gone.

[tjinaz]

When there only are two parties it is easy to pick a side. While my descriptions are vague that is how they are marketed and how the parties are seen.

The key fact and how it relates to this thread is that a very large portion of the American public believes the second amendment as a fail safe against tyranny. That was its intent when it was written and any attempt to modify it or remove it will be viewed as loss of a key protection from the people against an authoritarian government.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

When there only are two parties it is easy to pick a side. While my descriptions are vague that is how they are marketed and how the parties are seen.

Yeah, fair enough. Conservatives don't want the government to interfere in people's lives and they've made their case. I can respect that. The fact that they insist that the government interferes in the private lives of Americans doesn't mean that they don't hate government interference in the private lives of Americans.

But whatever. I've got other things to do. I have to go to the store. I hate olives. They disgust me. I'm going to buy a jar of olives.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Not no one. There will be some but it will be quite a split. Nothing, when dealing with people is ever that absolute.

hunh? you sounded pretty absolute here.

Originally Posted by tjinaz

First of all you assume the military would blindly follow these orders. I can assure you they would not. The vast majority of the military and I can say from experience 90% of the combat arms and 99.999% of the special ops community are the exact type of people that would be extremely sympathetic to these "insurgents". Not only would they likely not execute these orders, they would more likely to join the rebellion and take all their toys with them.

[tjinaz]

hunh? you sounded pretty absolute here.

I said they would be sympathetic to that cause. They could relate to it with a much higher percentage than the average american. The "gun culture" and military especially combat jobs are highly interconnected. Why would someone who is anti gun sign up to carry one for years as their primary job function? This shouldn't be a big step in logic.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Why would someone who is anti gun sign up to carry one for years as their primary job function? This shouldn't be a big step in logic.

There is a difference between being pro-gun control and anit-gun.

I am pro-gun control and I did 7 years in, including a tour in a very violent place.

You cannot compare the culture of the military with the civilian culture.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

I said they would be sympathetic to that cause. They could relate to it with a much higher percentage than the average american. The "gun culture" and military especially combat jobs are highly interconnected. Why would someone who is anti gun sign up to carry one for years as their primary job function? This shouldn't be a big step in logic.

So, you're basically talking about a situation that is happening in Egypt right now, but the Muslim Brotherhood would be played by the pacifist Liberals in America. Yeah, that sounds pretty realistic. good thing those ideals from 250 years ago are alive and well and keeping Murica safe.

[tjinaz]

There is a difference between being pro-gun control and anit-gun.

I am pro-gun control and I did 7 years in, including a tour in a very violent place.

You cannot compare the culture of the military with the civilian culture.

I don't know your background, time of service, MOS or branch. But thank you for your service. So I cannot speak to your situation but I can say among those I served with they are very gun friendly and while there are a small number of exceptions they are few. We typically have a shoot day at our reunions. While they vary somewhat in political tilts most are small c conservatives and even those that vote democrat they are all pro 2nd amendment. Eventually all service members become civilians so they are part of the culture.

Having served how would you characterize the politics of your typical infantryman, tanker, artilleryman or pilot? Would you say they lean towards 2nd amendment or restriction.

So, you're basically talking about a situation that is happening in Egypt right now, but the Muslim Brotherhood would be played by the pacifist Liberals in America. Yeah, that sounds pretty realistic. good thing those ideals from 250 years ago are alive and well and keeping Murica safe.

Wow.. good point what ever it is...

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Wow.. good point what ever it is...

govt gone wild, oppresses the population, army takes over, kicks out the head of state. because they don't agree with him. but do agree with the armed citizens?.... isn't that your scenario?

[tjinaz]

Where the govt orders the military to fill the streets to begin collecting all the privately owned weapons and a large portion of the military refuses. I believe this all started with mikey_the_rednecks comment and the subsequent dogpile from you and the rest of the "new american politics" crowd.

I don't think it would ever come to that but one version of a that senario was brought up and I disagreed on how it would play out.