Bang, bang shoot'em up 1, 2, 3!
#51
07-11-2010, 12:04 PM
 opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:
__________________
Truck Driving an occupation consisting of hours of boredom interrupted by sheer terror!! "All the coolie carriers suck. Log 70, work 80-100, paid for 50." - the Great ColdFrostyMug 
#52
07-11-2010, 12:10 PM
razorwyr said:
The U.S. Military probably would be able to defend our government against a civilian uprising, however, England thought the same thing and thus the US was born.
The American military today would not HAVE that problem of supply. Even with our BEST and MOST able military forces currently overseas in some stupid war, I'd bet that there are enough troops, and DEFINITELY enough supplies "in country" to win such a war. 
Also, you are forgetting one major thing, a lot of the military would be torn on which side to fight. They would feel allegiance to their nation obviously, but at the same time your military members are probably the largest statistical owners of guns. If even only half of the military opted on the civilian side, that cuts the force to protect the government down to roughly a little over 1 million people, however, the "army" that would rise up against it would be much much larger.
Remember that the SOUTH was overwhelmingly in favor of Slavery and "states' rights" during the Civil War... yet they were vanquished by a MAJORITY of our Federal military, AND overwhelming supplies.
Considering the military would likely not use large grade weapons against a mostly unarmed civilian population of any country let alone itself, by sheer numbers, the civilian force most likely would be able to overrun the government.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#53
07-11-2010, 04:08 PM
razorwyr said:
Ah.... but the British had only a MINIMAL contingency of troops in America at the time, and their supply lines stretched all the way across the ocean to England! In fact, it took the help of the French Navy to interrupt/blockade those supply ships to eventually WIN the war for the Americans. The American military today would not HAVE that problem of supply. Even with our BEST and MOST able military forces currently overseas in some stupid war, I'd bet that there are enough troops, and DEFINITELY enough supplies "in country" to win such a war. It might surprise you how much of our "supplies" are made outside of the U.S. YOU are now assuming that the "battle" would be over GUN RIGHTS. I don't believe, unless the government actually tried to BAN ALL GUNS, that this would be the spark that set off the revolution. From what I'm hearing out there, mostly from the TEA PARTY, the issue is more of taxation and SPENDING... and maybe a little "socialist" fearmongering. I don't believe our military would be "split" over THAT kind of political dismay. Remember that the SOUTH was overwhelmingly in favor of Slavery and "states' rights" during the Civil War... yet they were vanquished by a MAJORITY of our Federal military, AND overwhelming supplies. The Civil War was not about slavery, Hobo. It was about states rights and over taxation of southern textiles by an over reaching centralized government. And I am not sure that most of the south was pro slavery. You underestimate our Federal govenment and its troops. Remember Sheridan?? He burned down nearly HALF of the cities of the South! I certainly don't believe we would use NUKES on our own people, but... let's not AGAIN test the will of our government and its troops to WIN a war for the survival of "the Union" at ALL costs against "radical" domestic terrorists! WACO was NOT the Alamo! :hellno: I believe you are referring to Sherman instead of Sheridan. It was referred to as "Sherman's March to the Sea." The destruction was devastating. Who would have thought that an American president would have sent troops to attack civilians? Who would have thought that a U.S. president would have been responsible for the destruction of about half the known U.S. and more than 600,000 casualties? I think that this president would be capable of such destruction against the American people. One man's hero is another's terrorist.
#54
07-11-2010, 05:08 PM
Quote:
Also, you are forgetting one major thing, a lot of the military would be torn on which side to fight. They would feel allegiance to their nation obviously, but at the same time your military members are probably the largest statistical owners of guns. If even only half of the military opted on the civilian side, that cuts the force to protect the government down to roughly a little over 1 million people, however, the "army" that would rise up against it would be much much larger. YOU are now assuming that the "battle" would be over GUN RIGHTS. I don't believe, unless the government actually tried to BAN ALL GUNS, that this would be the spark that set off the revolution. From what I'm hearing out there, mostly from the TEA PARTY, the issue is more of taxation and SPENDING... and maybe a little "socialist" fearmongering. I don't believe our military would be "split" over THAT kind of political dismay. Remember that the SOUTH was overwhelmingly in favor of Slavery and "states' rights" during the Civil War... yet they were vanquished by a MAJORITY of our Federal military, AND overwhelming supplies.
__________________
#55
07-11-2010, 10:05 PM
Hobo, I never said he got "alot" of money. I said a huge contribution. My huge must be different from yours anything more than $10K is huge. I never said he got "alot" more than anyone else so yeah you did put some words in my mouth by insinuating that I said that thru the article you linked.
Funny how that slush fund comment is not shared by just FoxNews, I know USAToday had a piece on it, the media in Britain ate it up and ran with it. It was not something that needed to be setup, even Bill Clinton jumped to BP's defense on that. If you trace the roots carefully you will see why Clinton got upset at it. In the end the US Govt. is going to get a nice chunk of change via taxes on the fund even though it was supposed to be setup for all the victims to get money from. On top of that, the victims who receive money out of it will also have to pay the US Govt. in taxes. That part I can understand because it's considered "income" so it's taxable. IMO though, at this time they should not have to pay taxes on it since they aren't getting 100% of what they stand to lose, only a portion. Obama forced BP to set it up through the US Govt. even though BP was already handing out money to victims. If they were already doing the right thing then why force them to put money in an account the US Govt. has access to? That's right, so you can tax the living daylights out of them for each day there is money in the account. Brilliant idea on a slush fund and no wonder Clinton took him to task over it.
#56
07-12-2010, 01:25 AM
.................................................. ...
 .................................................. .......Stinkin' Liberals!!! All I know is, last time I sat in one of those Denny"s places.......everyone looked like they wanted to shove a shotgun in their mouth.
__________________
#57
07-12-2010, 08:17 AM
GMAN said (In bold type for effect?)
I believe you are referring to Sherman instead of Sheridan.
They WERE both Union Generals, and (in my haste,) I made a mistake! :eek2:
It was referred to as "Sherman's March to the Sea." The destruction was devastating.
No argument there.
Who would have thought that an American president would have sent troops to attack civilians?
Who would have thought that a U.S. president would have been responsible for the destruction of about half the known U.S. and more than 600,000 casualties?
I think that this president would be capable of such destruction against the American people. One man's hero is another's terrorist.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev. Last edited by golfhobo; 07-12-2010 at 08:40 AM.
#58
07-12-2010, 08:20 AM
All I know is, last time I sat in one of those Denny's places.......everyone looked like they wanted to shove a shotgun in their mouth.
Um.... but doesn't this discussion belong in the "Flying J" thread?
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#59
07-12-2010, 08:38 AM
Hobo, I never said he got "alot" of money. I said a huge contribution. My huge must be different from yours anything more than $10K is huge. I never said he got "alot" more than anyone else so yeah you did put some words in my mouth by insinuating that I said that thru the article you linked.
I listed BP as an example of a large corp who gave him a bunch of money
And a HUGE contribution is not the same as "a lot of money" to you. You've obviously won the war of semantics on this one. I must be mistaken. :roll: BTW.... the article I linked was because I said "I" had heard (from other sources) about the so-called HUGE contribution he had received. OTHERS insinuated that it was MORE than anyone else got. OTHERS were making a big deal about it, so I went looking for the facts. I just happened to be responding to YOUR post when I related what I had found out. "I'M" not the one who brought it up. I wonder who that was?  It couldn't have been YOU.... cuz your EXACT words couldn't possibly have been meant to relate your opinion on the matter. In fact, in light of your backpeddling, the fact that he even GOT a contribution from them must not really have even been on your mind! :hellno::lol:
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
#60
07-12-2010, 09:09 AM
razorwyr said:
Was gun rights and an all out gun ban not what was stated previously would spark such a revolution? If not, then I apologize, my comments were not warranted.
MY point was that the whole Tea Party movement.... that DOES seem to espouse armed revolution.... is about many things, including taxation, "socialism" and a few other things. I dont believe that movement is JUST about gun rights, but they seem to be "displaying" them as their "Second Amendment remedies" for ALL that they see wrong with the way our government is heading. AND to their credit, they don't blame it ALL on Obama. MANY of them are just aggravated at the ENTIRE government platform and direction. But again.... no need to keep apologizing for your thoughts or posts. No one ELSE does! :lol: Things get heated here at times. Everyone has an opinion.... and a (1st Amendment) RIGHT to it! I just like to debate issues. The others here just like to HATE on me! :lol2: No, seriously... speak your mind, and don't take it personally if I (or anyone else... not likely) disagrees with you. :thumbsup:
I agree with you, I don't believe taxation or spending in today's era would be enough to spark such a revolution.
However, as Gman said, the Civil War was not fought over slavery, despite popular belief. The Civil War was indeed over states rights to govern themselves
and as GMAN also stated, most of the southern population was against slavery also. General Robert E. Lee himself was very much AGAINST slavery and not only was he in the US Army, but he attended West Point. He resigned his commission because he was torn between his national pride and what he believed was right. He fought on the side of the south because he was from Virginia and did not like what the federal government was trying to force his home state to do, which was give up its rights to govern itself.
Sorry, I must have been thinking of someone else. Your profile shows that you are from Meridian, Ms. Sometimes, I just don't have time to check ALL my facts before I respond. My apologies.
Back to topic though, I do believe an all out gun ban would cause such a revolution and WILL probably be the destruction of the American Empire.
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between. TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!! "I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev. Last edited by golfhobo; 07-12-2010 at 10:56 AM. |
