On 3/17/2024 11:35 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:34:22 -0500, "X, formerly known as \"!Jones\"" <x@y.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:28:10 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
>> Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The purpose of 2A is to ensure that government does not disarm
>>> the people.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>>> One reason the people are entitled to be armed is
>>> explained quite well in the Declaration of Independence.
>
> x two.
>
>> No, it isn't. "People are entitled to be armed" is never even
>> mentioned. Even if it were, the DOI isn't a foundational document.
>> The Constitution never suggests that it's OK to overthrow *this*
>> government.
>>
>> That's generally the position of most governments, BTW.
>
> Which just increases the hilarity of 2A guys saying a hundred militiamen with hunting
> rifles are going to compete against an M1 Abrams, four Bradleys and two dozen highly
> trained combat troops armed with state of the art, full auto rifles, grenades, MANPADS,
> body armor, night vision, encrypted communications and air strike capability.
>
> I can't wait to see a bunch of rednecks armed with shotguns and AR15s go up against an
> F-35. The barn would be a smoldering hole in the ground before the pilot got close enough
> to get a visual on the target. :)
>
There's your problem, you think your scenario is how it would
be fought. You think that government leadership wouldn't be
the first to go. You think civilian fighting forces wouldn't
be embedded in a noncombatant population that government couldn't
use advanced military armament against. You forget the lessons we
learned sending combat troops into North Vietnam and Afghanistan.
You forget that there are ten times more skilled, military-trained
civilian vets who are already pissed. You forget that much of the
current military is in the National Guard and a considerable number of
active duty federal military who also will be on the civilian's side.
It wouldn't be a hundred militiamen against two dozen combat troops.
It would be fifty million citizens, ten million of whom were trained
as combat troops, against one million active duty combat troops many
of whom are not going to take up arms against their brothers, mothers,
and cousins. And the combined civilian armory up to and including
Barret 50 caliber rifles, sniper rifles and those "hunting rifles"
you sneer at that are superior to any small arms the military has,
etc. is also a hundred times the current military's.
And THAT, not the military's supposed technological superiority,
is why things will never come to that.

On 3/19/2024 5:43 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:34:38 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>
>> There's your problem, you think your scenario is how it would
>> be fought.
>
> Here's your problem: You think a bunch of guys with hunting rifles is going to prevail
> against the best trained, best equipped fighting force that has ever been on this planet.
>
You forget/ignore, "retired" veterans. Pick your group - infantry,
snipers, marines, Green Berets, Seals, Delta Force, etc. For each
group, there are at least ten times more citizen former members who
have received the same training as the active duty personnel.

Taking a closer look at numbers, the USA has only 1.3 million active
duty military. Probably 3/4 are support personnel, so call it 300
thousand fighting troops. If only 1 in 10 armed civilians took up
arms that would still be 9 million, of whom a whole shitload are
veterans with the same training as the active duty guys. So the
government troops would be outnumbered by at least 300 to 1.

You don't understand what you mean by "hunting rifles." "The people"
have 20 million + AR-15s. They're semiautomatic, and federal law makes
it illegal to convert them to automatic fire, but it's technically
not hard to do and if SHTF it would be done. So 10 to 20 million
civilian full-auto M-4 assault rifles using the same ammo as the
infantry.

There are probably 100 times as many times as many sniper rifles
in civilian hands as in military hands. The military's sniper rifles
are mostly M24s and M2010. News flash, those are just renamed Remington
Model 700 rifles, one of the most common "hunting rifles" ever made.
The M107 sniper rifle is a renamed Barrett M82; citizens own thousands
of them - and know how to use them.
Even the new Barrett Multi-Role Adaptive Design (MRAD) rifle has
civilian counterparts that are actually superior in design.

Plus, the civilian market includes rifles that the military doesn't
provide, high-precision ultra-long range machines that are proven
accurate to over two miles, again with tens of thousands of civilians
who have trained and know how to hit a man-size target at 1,200 years.

Actually, just about any modern "hunting rifle" would function just
fine and dandy as a long range sniper rifle. So 50 to 100 million
rifles in civilian hands capable of taking out military brass at
a thousand yards.

Sidearms? The military uses the EXACT SAME pistols sold to the
civilian market in numbers that dwarf military sales.

Name the small arm, no matter what weapon you focus on, the civilian
armory dwarves the military's.

> Not to mention all the "Tory" loyalists who'll be calling the FBI
> hotline to tell them what buildings your ammo stashes are in.
>
There is no centralized ammo stash to call in a strike on.