Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[Dagosa]

You summed it up nicely. It bothers the hell out of that we have been sending our youth all over the world to get “maimed and killed“so the Military Industrial Complex can show a profit.

That is one reason I liked Trump as President and probably one of the main reasons the Swamp hated him. Trump did not start wars in far off places for little or no reason.

We will be lucky if the demented old fool in office right now doesn’t manage to get us into a full out nuclear war with Russia that will put us back in the Stone Age.

Fact check: Trump joins Carter, Ford and Nixon among presidents without a new war

The claim that President Donald Trump is the first U.S. leader since Dwight D. Eisenhower without a new war is false.

www.usatoday.com

You summed it up nicely. It bothers the hell out of that we have been sending our youth all over the world to get “maimed and killed” so the Military Industrial Complex can show a profit.

That is one reason I liked Trump as President and probably one of the main reasons the Swamp hates him. Trump did not start wars in far off places for little or no reason.

It was Biden who withdrew from Afghanistan, not Trump. It’s Biden who is keeping Russia from overtaking Europe in order to keep our soldiers free from fighting. It’s Biden who supports NATO so the nuclear and Russia threat is mitigated by a cohesive allied force and not left to America Alone.

 

[2aguy]

It was Biden who withdrew from Afghanistan, not Trump.

And he did it in a way that made the situation worse.....

 

[Batcat]

It was Biden who withdrew from Afghanistan, not Trump. It’s Biden who is keeping Russia from overtaking Europe in order to keep our soldiers free from fighting. It’s Biden who supports NATO so the nuclear and Russia threat is mitigated by a cohesive allied force and not left to America Alone.

Suppose Texas broke away from the United States and 30 years later the United States wants to regain control so it invades Texas.

Russia and China provides Texas with arms and technology to resist. Consequently Texas is winning.

Is that so different from what we are doing in Ukraine?

I am not real fond of supplying arms to the Ukrainians as we are depleting the arms we may need to fight a war that directly involves us. We have no obligation to defend Ukraine.

I see this war as a way to make our military-industrial complex rich again. Big whoop. Our taxpayer dollars in action. Money we could use to close our Mexican border for good.

Let’s not forget the Ukraine has a terrible reputation for corruption. Do we know for sure where all the money we are sending them is going? Also Joe Biden may have profited from some of that good old time corruption while our VP during Obama’s days in office and perhaps Ukrainians are buying some of Hunter’s paintings today. Joe may still be getting his 10% cut.

Corruption concerns involving Ukraine are revived as the war with Russia drags on

Since the start of the war with Russia, the Biden administration has mostly ignored Ukraine's corruption history. Questions resurfaced about its suitability as a recipient of massive infusions of aid.

www.npr.org

Biden Corruption Runs Through Ukraine, Russia, and China

townhall.com

There are rumors Putin is not mentally all there perhaps because of medicine he is taking for an illness. He is threatening to use nuclear weapons and we may end up in WWIII.

If Russia is such a big threat to the rest of Europe let the Europeans supply weapons to the Ukrainians. Why are always bailing Europe out of the messes it creates for itself? Especially when the Europeans stick their nose up at us and ridicule us.

 

[WinterBorn]

Suppose Texas broke away from the United States and 30 years later the United States wants to regain control so it invades Texas.

Russia and China provides Texas with arms and technology to resist. Consequently Texas is winning.

Is that so different from what we are doing in Ukraine?

I am not real fond of supplying arms to the Ukrainians as we are depleting the arms we may need to fight a war that directly involves us. We have no obligation to defend Ukraine.

I see this war as a way to make our military-industrial complex rich again. Big whoop. Our taxpayer dollars in action. Money we could use to close our Mexican border for good.

Let’s not forget the Ukraine has a terrible reputation for corruption. Do we know for sure where all the money we are sending them is going? Also Joe Biden may have profited from some of that good old time corruption while our VP during Obama’s days in office and perhaps Ukrainians are buying some of Hunter’s paintings today. Joe may still be getting his 10% cut.

Corruption concerns involving Ukraine are revived as the war with Russia drags on

Since the start of the war with Russia, the Biden administration has mostly ignored Ukraine's corruption history. Questions resurfaced about its suitability as a recipient of massive infusions of aid.

www.npr.org

Biden Corruption Runs Through Ukraine, Russia, and China

townhall.com

There are rumors Putin is not mentally all there perhaps because of medicine he is taking for an illness. He is threatening to use nuclear weapons and we may end up in WWIII.

If Russia is such a big threat to the rest of Europe let the Europeans supply weapons to the Ukrainians. Why are always bailing Europe out of the messes it creates for itself? Especially when the Europeans stick their nose up at us and ridicule us.

"We have no obligation to defend Ukraine."

No obligation other than the fact that we made a promise to defend them if they would give up the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.

But I guess we can promise anything to get what we want, and then turn our back after.

 

[Vastator]

"We have no obligation to defend Ukraine."

No obligation other than the fact that we made a promise to defend them if they would give up the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.

But I guess we can promise anything to get what we want, and then turn our back after.

Wouldn't be the first time...

 

[Batcat]

"We have no obligation to defend Ukraine."

No obligation other than the fact that we made a promise to defend them if they would give up the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.

But I guess we can promise anything to get what we want, and then turn our back after.

A promise is not a treaty.

Does the U.S. have an obligation to protect Ukraine?

A political science professor from James Madison University said the United States technically doesn't have to do anything.

www.wave3.com

***snip***


The U.S. did make a deal in 1994 with Ukraine, known as the Budapest Agreement. Ukraine actually had the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile. This was because the newly-founded Ukraine ended up with the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons in their territory after the Soviet Union collapsed.

This agreement meant that Ukraine would destroy the weapons and the U.S., United Kingdom (U.K.), and Russia would guarantee Ukraine staying secure. This, however, is not a treaty.

“The Iran nuclear deal was an agreement, just like the Budapest Agreement in 1994. So, the next president can just no longer honor it. That’s exactly what Trump did with the Iran nuclear deal. If it’s a treaty, it’s law and you cannot revoke it,” said Kaussler.

If Russia were to invade a NATO country like Poland, the U.S. would have to respond under law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wouldn't be the first time...

No it would not.

A promise is not a treaty.

Does the U.S. have an obligation to protect Ukraine?

A political science professor from James Madison University said the United States technically doesn't have to do anything.

www.wave3.com

***snip***


The U.S. did make a deal in 1994 with Ukraine, known as the Budapest Agreement. Ukraine actually had the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile. This was because the newly-founded Ukraine ended up with the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons in their territory after the Soviet Union collapsed.

This agreement meant that Ukraine would destroy the weapons and the U.S., United Kingdom (U.K.), and Russia would guarantee Ukraine staying secure. This, however, is not a treaty.

“The Iran nuclear deal was an agreement, just like the Budapest Agreement in 1994. So, the next president can just no longer honor it. That’s exactly what Trump did with the Iran nuclear deal. If it’s a treaty, it’s law and you cannot revoke it,” said Kaussler.

If Russia were to invade a NATO country like Poland, the U.S. would have to respond under law.

We have ignored treaties so often it is expected.

But if you make a promise, as a nation, you keep it.

 

[Batcat]

No it would not.


We have ignored treaties so often it is expected.

But if you make a promise, as a nation, you keep it.

No it would not.


We have ignored treaties so often it is expected.

But if you make a promise, as a nation, you keep it.

You have things reversed.

Does the U.S. have an obligation to protect Ukraine?

A political science professor from James Madison University said the United States technically doesn't have to do anything.

www.whsv.com

The U.S. did make a deal in 1994 with Ukraine, known as the Budapest Agreement. Ukraine actually had the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile. This was because the newly-founded Ukraine ended up with the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons in their territory after the Soviet Union collapsed.

This agreement meant that Ukraine would destroy the weapons and the U.S., United Kingdom (U.K.), and Russia would guarantee Ukraine staying secure. This, however, is not a treaty.

“The Iran nuclear deal was an agreement, just like the Budapest Agreement in 1994. So, the next president can just no longer honor it. That’s exactly what Trump did with the Iran nuclear deal. If it’s a treaty, it’s law and you cannot revoke it,” said Kaussler.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have things reversed.

Does the U.S. have an obligation to protect Ukraine?

A political science professor from James Madison University said the United States technically doesn't have to do anything.

www.whsv.com

The U.S. did make a deal in 1994 with Ukraine, known as the Budapest Agreement. Ukraine actually had the third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile. This was because the newly-founded Ukraine ended up with the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons in their territory after the Soviet Union collapsed.

This agreement meant that Ukraine would destroy the weapons and the U.S., United Kingdom (U.K.), and Russia would guarantee Ukraine staying secure. This, however, is not a treaty.

“The Iran nuclear deal was an agreement, just like the Budapest Agreement in 1994. So, the next president can just no longer honor it. That’s exactly what Trump did with the Iran nuclear deal. If it’s a treaty, it’s law and you cannot revoke it,” said Kaussler.

We have revoked and ignored treaties plenty of times. It is nothing new.

The fact that another nation takes us at our word is very surprising, given our track record.

We made a promise to get what we wanted. Now that the promise is expected to be kept, there is all the "it cost too much!" ranting. How much is honor and integrity worth?

 

[Dagosa]

Suppose Texas broke away from the United States and 30 years later the United States wants to regain control so it invades Texas.

WHY WOULD WE EVER WANT the second biggest jerk water state in the union back ? (Behind FA)

Russia and China provides Texas with arms and technology to resist. Consequently Texas is winning.

Is that so different from what we are doing in Ukraine?

I am not real fond of supplying arms to the Ukrainians as we are depleting the arms we may need to fight a war that directly involves us. We have no obligation to defend Ukraine.

I see this war as a way to make our military-industrial complex rich again. Big whoop. Our taxpayer dollars in action. Money we could use to close our Mexican border for good.

Let’s not forget the Ukraine has a terrible reputation for corruption. Do we know for sure where all the money we are sending them is going? Also Joe Biden may have profited from some of that good old time corruption while our VP during Obama’s days in office and perhaps Ukrainians are buying some of Hunter’s paintings today. Joe may still be getting his 10% cut.

Corruption concerns involving Ukraine are revived as the war with Russia drags on

Since the start of the war with Russia, the Biden administration has mostly ignored Ukraine's corruption history. Questions resurfaced about its suitability as a recipient of massive infusions of aid.

www.npr.org

Biden Corruption Runs Through Ukraine, Russia, and China

townhall.com

There are rumors Putin is not mentally all there perhaps because of medicine he is taking for an illness. He is threatening to use nuclear weapons and we may end up in WWIII.

If Russia is such a big threat to the rest of Europe let the Europeans supply weapons to the Ukrainians. Why are always bailing Europe out of the messes it creates for itself? Especially when the Europeans stick their nose up at us and ridicule us.

 

[WinterBorn]

One thing people forget, when they dismiss the idea of an armed population fighting against a totalitarian gov't military and police, is that the new will be reporting on it. A couple of favorable sources, and the US gov't would be willing to come to the table and talk.

A man, armed to the teeth, goes against a squad of US Marines and suffers the consequences. By the time the media finishes, he was just lost. "He was going to the store for his invalid grandmother, and they attacked him. He was a kind man who always had good manners and loved stray dogs."

 

[2aguy]

One thing people forget, when they dismiss the idea of an armed population fighting against a totalitarian gov't military and police, is that the new will be reporting on it. A couple of favorable sources, and the US gov't would be willing to come to the table and talk.

A man, armed to the teeth, goes against a squad of US Marines and suffers the consequences. By the time the media finishes, he was just lost. "He was going to the store for his invalid grandmother, and they attacked him. He was a kind man who always had good manners and loved stray dogs."

Kurt Schlichter has a good look at this topic....

Kurt Schlichter - Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.

Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.

Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.


And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.

For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.


But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.

 

[Batcat]

WHY WOULD WE EVER WANT the second biggest jerk water state in the union back ? (Behind FA)

Plenty of people are leaving California and going to Texas. Florida is also getting a lot of people moving from blue states. Florida is now known as The Free State of Florida because of our excellent Governor Ron De Santis.

People U-Hauling out of NY, California — heading to Texas, Florida: study

People are U-Hauling it out of Democratic-run New York and California every day — and flocking to lower-taxed places including Republican-led Texas and Florida.

nypost.com

 

[Dagosa]

Plenty of people are leaving California and going to Texas. Florida is also getting a lot of people moving from blue states. Florida is now known as The Free State of Florida because of our excellent Governor Ron De Santis.

People U-Hauling out of NY, California — heading to Texas, Florida: study

People are U-Hauling it out of Democratic-run New York and California every day — and flocking to lower-taxed places including Republican-led Texas and Florida.

nypost.com

They ‘re moving to Florida for one reason, taxes.
That will change as their flood insurance increases to more then their property tax. In the next twenty years, Florida will be in a land management crisis. Really ? When DeSantis runs nationally, he’ll have claim anti abortion and Medicare, SS cutter.

His state is filled with fat old retirees who love the tax cuts. That will all change shortly. Florida will live on the Federal aid doorstep as each year climate change devastates the state. He’d better move out while he can.

 

[GHook20]

You are absolutely, 100% right! You hit the nail on the head with this subject. I'm not a gun guy. But I do have two words for people who disagree with you.... Ruby Ridge.

The days when someone can grab their musket and challenge the government is over. It is near impossible otherwise we would see it done in NK, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Iran and throughout Africa. It doesn't happen anymore. Drones, tanks, helicopters, body armor, planes, and most importantly surveillance equipment makes it impossible.

Take Ukraine. If we didn't provide them with Western style weaponry, the incompetent Russian army would have taken the country. They needed sophisticated Western weapons to do that, not semi-automatic guns.

But this post was old and before the election. So many bad things were going on in the country and we have such an unpopular President the GOP should have routed the Demorats. However, even Fetterman (a brain dead man) won over a highly competent doctor! Lake, who was amazing, lost to a mental midget in AZ. Warnock won in GA.

Why did we lose? Abortion and guns! If AZ and GA go blue, then forget ever getting the senate back or winning the a Presidential election.

 

[GHook20]

One might point out that handguns are responsible for 90%+ of the homicides in America, but have you ever been to the shooting range? Passed 20 feet and it is hard to hit a stationary object, much less a moving object. No doubt you can still inflect damage, but not as easy. Short range weapons like handguns and shotguns should be the what is protected most. Going above that should be additional requirements.

 

[Vastator]

The days when someone can grab their musket and challenge the government is over. It is near impossible otherwise we would see it done in NK, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Iran and throughout Africa. It doesn't happen anymore. Drones, tanks, helicopters, body armor, planes, and most importantly surveillance equipment makes it impossible.

Take Ukraine. If we didn't provide them with Western style weaponry, the incompetent Russian army would have taken the country. They needed sophisticated Western weapons to do that, not semi-automatic guns.

But this post was old and before the election. So many bad things were going on in the country and we have such an unpopular President the GOP should have routed the Demorats. However, even Fetterman (a brain dead man) won over a highly competent doctor! Lake, who was amazing, lost to a mental midget in AZ. Warnock won in GA.

Why did we lose? Abortion and guns! If AZ and GA go blue, then forget ever getting the senate back or winning the a Presidential election.

It doesn’t happen till it does. We mortals all operate under the same biological rule set. Normalcy bias CAN be fatal…

 

[M14 Shooter]

The days when someone can grab their musket and challenge the government is over.

Of course it is.
But today, we have AR-15s - you know, weapons of war.

Drones, tanks, helicopters, body armor, planes, and most importantly surveillance equipment makes it impossible.

Think asymmetric.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Short range weapons like handguns and shotguns should be the what is protected most.

These are the weapons of war the well-regulated militia are supposed to use?

Going above that should be additional requirements.

"All bearable arms". No distinction.

 

[2aguy]

The days when someone can grab their musket and challenge the government is over. It is near impossible otherwise we would see it done in NK, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Iran and throughout Africa. It doesn't happen anymore. Drones, tanks, helicopters, body armor, planes, and most importantly surveillance equipment makes it impossible.

Take Ukraine. If we didn't provide them with Western style weaponry, the incompetent Russian army would have taken the country. They needed sophisticated Western weapons to do that, not semi-automatic guns.

But this post was old and before the election. So many bad things were going on in the country and we have such an unpopular President the GOP should have routed the Demorats. However, even Fetterman (a brain dead man) won over a highly competent doctor! Lake, who was amazing, lost to a mental midget in AZ. Warnock won in GA.

Why did we lose? Abortion and guns! If AZ and GA go blue, then forget ever getting the senate back or winning the a Presidential election.

Hey……you do know that NK, Cuba, Venezuela and Belarus took guns away from their citizens…….right….they don’t have any freaking guns……