Hmmm...perhaps if we had millions of citizens with guns, Russia would stop bothering us......Ukraine may finally understand the 2nd Amendment.

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

News Flash: Citizens walking around with handguns are not going to successfully defend themselves against Russian armored tank divisions, artillery with armor piercing shells, and air launched missiles. This isn't the old west skippy. You're living in a fantasy world.

I won't be totin just a pistol, bud. Trust me...lol

 

[Abatis]

I do find this amusing. The faction of my gun owning brothers that have guns to over throw the government (if it gets too liberal) and repel foreign invaders watch too much TV. They seem to think they would be running around screaming "Wolverines" from the hilltops picking off commies with reckless abandon. I carry everyday all the time. But it is not to overthrow the government. Almost childlike simplicity.

Childlike simplicity is forgetting (or being so young and dumb and not knowing) that liberals were wringing their hands and whining that the USA was in a quagmire and losing bad in Iraq back in 2006 at the height of the insurgency.

Thing is, at the height of the resistance, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents ranged between 8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence). With 160,000 troops in country our guys enjoyed at worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage.

Anti-gun leftist ignoramuses either never knew or never acknowledge that the principle behind the armed citizenry in the USA, is that the "standing army" would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word Madison used) by a ratio of 1 solider opposed by 17 armed citizens.

So back to Iraq, imagine if there were 2.8 million insurgents opposing our 160K troops (Madison's 17-1 ratio) and many of them were very familiar with American heavy weapon platforms and endeavored to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up?

Well, in the USA today we fall short of Madison's ratio for the number of "standing army" (active duty and reserve armed forces) that he put at 1% of the total population; today we have about 2.15 million citizens in the military . . . To those are "opposed" 80 million armed citizens, so on that side we better Madison's ratio a bit, pushing it to each member of the "standing army" being "opposed" by 37 armed citizens.

Back to Iraq, how much of a losing quagmire would we have been in, if our 160K guys were facing 6 million goat fucking, AK toting insurgents?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Yep...
A deer rifle at 400 yards comes to mind.

I can hit that distance with an iron sight M-16.

 

[mak2]

Childlike simplicity is forgetting (or being so young and dumb and not knowing) that liberals were wringing their hands and whining that the USA was in a quagmire and losing bad in Iraq back in 2006 at the height of the insurgency.

Thing is, at the height of the resistance, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents ranged between 8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence). With 160,000 troops in country our guys enjoyed at worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage.

Anti-gun leftist ignoramuses either never knew or never acknowledge that the principle behind the armed citizenry in the USA, is that the "standing army" would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word Madison used) by a ratio of 1 solider opposed by 17 armed citizens.

So back to Iraq, imagine if there were 2.8 million insurgents opposing our 160K troops (Madison's 17-1 ratio) and many of them were very familiar with American heavy weapon platforms and endeavored to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up?

Well, in the USA today we fall short of Madison's ratio for the number of "standing army" (active duty and reserve armed forces) that he put at 1% of the total population; today we have about 2.15 million citizens in the military . . . To those are "opposed" 80 million armed citizens, so on that side we better Madison's ratio a bit, pushing it to each member of the "standing army" being "opposed" by 37 armed citizens.

Back to Iraq, how much of a losing quagmire would we have been in, if our 160K guys were facing 6 million goat fucking, AK toting insurgents?

One of the things that is wrong with a two party system is you have the right politically, and the left, both of which are sub groups of stupid. There is no way one could depend on either party encompassing all of anyone's beliefs, if you have well reasoned beliefs. You for example have a group of ideas about anyone that disagrees with you about anything, if they do they are lazy, stupid, ignorant, socialist, and on and on. It does require less effort to just spew the party line about everything you encounter that disagrees. But try thinking about stuff. I think that is the big problem in the country nowdays, there are two groups, if any disagreement one calls the other racist, and they call them socialist. That is political discourse nowdays. You have to agree completely with the right, or you are an evil commie trying to steal you shit for free and kill you. I have been carrying a firearm since 1980. I carry for self defense and defense of others. I have never put myself in a position I had to use it. I vote. I don't have day dreams about overthrowing my country except on election day. I remember when we were winning Viet Nam. It wasn't the commies that stopped us, it was US politicians. Russia or China lands in America everything will glow anyway, anyone else would be wiped out. The difficulty in taking Afghanistan is there is no strong central government. A country would have to control all the small clans to control the country. We could if we wanted to. We don't, we were just there to burn ammo.

 

[Abatis]

One of the things that is wrong with a two party system is you have the right politically, and the left, both of which are sub groups of stupid. There is no way one could depend on either party encompassing all of anyone's beliefs, if you have well reasoned beliefs. You for example have a group of ideas about anyone that disagrees with you about anything, if they do they are lazy, stupid, ignorant, socialist, and on and on. It does require less effort to just spew the party line about everything you encounter that disagrees. But try thinking about stuff. I think that is the big problem in the country nowdays, there are two groups, if any disagreement one calls the other racist, and they call them socialist. That is political discourse nowdays. You have to agree completely with the right, or you are an evil commie trying to steal you shit for free and kill you. I have been carrying a firearm since 1980. I carry for self defense and defense of others. I have never put myself in a position I had to use it. I vote. I don't have day dreams about overthrowing my country except on election day. I remember when we were winning Viet Nam. It wasn't the commies that stopped us, it was US politicians. Russia or China lands in America everything will glow anyway, anyone else would be wiped out. The difficulty in taking Afghanistan is there is no strong central government. A country would have to control all the small clans to control the country. We could if we wanted to. We don't, we were just there to burn ammo.

And the problem with liberalism is, it breaks brains. You flop from one liner throw away posts to wall of gibberish throw away posts.

 

[mak2]

And the problem with liberalism is, it breaks brains. You flop from one liner throw away posts to wall of gibberish throw away posts.

Brilliant reply. Didn't mean to break your brain.

 

[Abatis]

Brilliant reply. Didn't mean to break your brain.

My brain is fine; yours is a disjointed, projection filled ramble.

Did you rebut my statements of recent history?
No.
Did you rebut my statements of founding period history?
No.
Did you rebut my statements about anything or prove my math wrong?
No.
Did your rant address anything I said?
No.
Did your post do anything except fulfill precisely the left vs. right conflict you purported to criticize?
No.

*PLONK*

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now why would I do that?
I'm not Ukrainian.
Now if they invaded America thats a whole different animal.
I would use Asymmetrical Warfare like the Afghans did. And of course I would have the support of the US military.
It worked very well against the russian and US troops.

You're speaking Greek to his fucking retarded ass.

For me, the wife and I will use a 125cc dirt bike with a rifle and mil-dot scope zeroed at 300 yards. We would stay within 600 yards and outside 300 yards, making artillery/tanks useless (too close) and small arms ineffective.

Zeroed at 300 yards with a 10x mil-dot scope, I can calculate wind and drop without taking my eyes off of the target. (Google "Aguilar Mid-Range Sniping System)

Shoot one target. Hop on the back of the bike and move away. Rinse and repeat.

I will bet me and Mrs. Bootney could hold up an entire division for days doing that.

This motherfucker does nothing but repeat what other dumb fucks tell him to say. He is a clue-fuck of the highest order.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I do find this amusing. The faction of my gun owning brothers that have guns to over throw the government (if it gets too liberal) and repel foreign invaders watch too much TV. They seem to think they would be running around screaming "Wolverines" from the hilltops picking off commies with reckless abandon. I carry everyday all the time. But it is not to overthrow the government. Almost childlike simplicity.

According to the DOJ, there are 30,000,000 armed and dangerous militiamen in The United States. There's no army in existence that has the combat power to defeat that many riflemen.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yep...
A deer rifle at 400 yards comes to mind.

EXACTLY.

Too close for artillery and outside small arms range. If you plunk and move, you could probably hold up the entire army for weeks. Hell, you don't even have to hit anything. They just have to hear the snap followed by the report. They hear that every 30 minutes or so they stay right where they are, taking cover.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Aguilar Mid-Range SniperMethod --Flash Cards

Aguilar System

 

[mak2]

EXACTLY.

Too close for artillery and outside small arms range. If you plunk and move, you could probably hold up the entire army for weeks. Hell, you don't even have to hit anything. They just have to hear the snap followed by the report. They hear that every 30 minutes or so they stay right where they are, taking cover.

Speaking of childlike simplicity.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You're speaking Greek to his fucking retarded ass.

For me, the wife and I will use a 125cc dirt bike with a rifle and mil-dot scope zeroed at 300 yards. We would stay within 600 yards and outside 300 yards, making artillery/tanks useless (too close) and small arms ineffective.

Zeroed at 300 yards with a 10x mil-dot scope, I can calculate wind and drop without taking my eyes off of the target. (Google "Aguilar Mid-Range Sniping System)

Shoot one target. Hop on the back of the bike and move away. Rinse and repeat.

I will bet me and Mrs. Bootney could hold up an entire division for days doing that.

This motherfucker does nothing but repeat what other dumb fucks tell him to say. He is a clue-fuck of the highest order.

Yep...not only that you can bet the US military would support us with semtex and other heavy weapons.

 

[mak2]

Too much TV.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

EXACTLY.

Too close for artillery and outside small arms range. If you plunk and move, you could probably hold up the entire army for weeks. Hell, you don't even have to hit anything. They just have to hear the snap followed by the report. They hear that every 30 minutes or so they stay right where they are, taking cover.

Yep...and they cant be everywhere at once.
Once you know where they're located you set up ambushes on the road for when they do venture out.
And of course you have roadside bombs so you have very little chance of being caught doing it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Too much TV.

No it's called common sense.
The Afghans did it why couldnt we?

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Your extremism on guns is wearing thin around here and getting you into trouble you can't contend with.

With whom?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

With whom?

That was my thought when he posted that shit.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

That was my thought when he posted that shit.

I am just wondering if Donald believe he is in some type of position of power that can dictate what is written on this board and if so when did that happen?

I don’t always agree with the OP but they have been here long enough that I doubt what they post is getting them in any true trouble…

Well maybe in China where Donald is most likely from…

 

[Donald H]

I am just wondering if Donald believe he is in some type of position of power that can dictate what is written on this board and if so when did that happen?

Obviously not. Ask the moderators.

I don’t always agree with the OP but they have been here long enough that I doubt what they post is getting them in any true trouble…

What 'they' are you talking about?

Well maybe in China where Donald is most likely from…

No, but on certain issues, my heart is in China and with China.
Why not stop the deliberate spamming Bruce?