Pennsylvanians ask feds to help disarm intimidating small-town militia
95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=daschnek;41740072]Not the federal government, but rather, the local county government he seems to be trying to take hostage[/QUOTE]
Local governments have a state funded national guard and federal government funded military to back them up if they are attacked, you still aren't convincing me that they should be frightened.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;41740097]The government has nothing to fear from citizens armed with hunting rifles and shotguns when they have guided missiles, drones, and assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
That's essentially what we thought going into Afghanistan.
I totaly didn't expect that at the end
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;41739991]You think a militia can sway a federal government that has substantial military might behind it? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
The government has entire manuals on procedure on the event of foreign invasion and operating with domestic militia units to quickly press invasion forces from the mainland. It's estimated that in the event of an invasion, militia units, along with federal forces, could push an invasion from the mainland within a week of invasion, the largest bulk of this problem comes from organizing communications between militia units and federal forces. After the invasion force is effectively pushed from an area, militias, along with local surviving law enforcement and a small force of federal troops are essentially just there to keep the local populations in check, I.E. martial law, to prevent looting and to act as a defensive force in the event of bands of surviving invaders.
Honestly, the militia system would be way more effective if they had a system in place to register with the government so they could obtain proper channels of communication in the event of an invasion.
In reality, a domestic threat, such as a complete government military police state, cannot be beaten with a militia in this day and age, they would be squashed in a matter of hours by drones and other forms of air superiority.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41739842]Attacking these guys would be unconstitutional, and would only strengthen the Militia Movement.[/QUOTE]
Isn't the militia movement mostly composed primarily of disaffected, rural, white, right-wing Christians?
Certainly they were much stronger in the 90s, but ever since a blac- I mean "socialist" president was elected it's had a bit of a revival.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;41740119]That's essentially what we thought going into Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
That's because Afghanistan has had Taliban influence spreading propaganda for a few decades, plus a complete lack of communication outside of localized areas. The Taliban and other Radical forces prevent all forms of worldly communication with most Afgani's because it keeps them as their only source of information. There are villages in Afghanistan that didn't know the war with the soviets ended until the Americans came in and were like, "uhm, what the fuck? That war has been over for many years now mate."
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;41740119]That's essentially what we thought going into Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Except Afghanistan has no gun control laws, or stringent background checks, or any of the things that limit arms ownership in the US. We also gave them a shitton of military armaments back in the day, so I'm pretty sure the average insurgent is moderately better armed or has better access to military-grade weapons than the average Joe who goes hunting maybe twice a year.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41740147]Isn't the militia movement mostly composed primarily of disaffected, rural, white, right-wing Christians?
Certainly they were much stronger in the 90s, but ever since a blac- I mean "socialist" president was elected it's had a bit of a revival.[/QUOTE]
That's because a majority of gun owners happen to be in rural areas, where gun ownership is usually for hunting and/or livestock purposes. The majority of people that live in rural areas happen to be White and Christian. There are plenty of non-white people that own guns around here, but White Christians happen to be the majority, and thus, they have the majority of the guns.
Shocking that a majority group would have more of something than a minority right?
[editline]6th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kuro.;41740159]Except Afghanistan has no gun control laws, or stringent background checks, or any of the things that limit arms ownership in the US. We also gave them a shitton of military armaments back in the day, so I'm pretty sure the average insurgent is moderately better armed or has better access to military-grade weapons than the average Joe who goes hunting maybe twice a year.[/QUOTE]
My buddy always says, "You know who's firing at you because if it sounds like military grade weaponry, it's the Taliban, but when you hear like, one shot, or something jam, it's one of the villagers thinking you're a threat to his goats or something." He told me about how if the villagers had guns, they were really old ass guns, half of them were rusted and he was amazed they worked. He met an Afghani who had a legitimate 1700's French musket, in semi-beat up condition, yes, but it was still in tact.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;41739858]Kick the opressive corporate system out first.[/QUOTE]
With our GUNS!
[QUOTE=Jetpack Bear;41739947]I live in Schuylkill county, Pottsville represent[/QUOTE]
Hey I've passed by there a few times.
Yeah, I wouldn't want these fucking nutjobs running around with guns in my backyard either.
[QUOTE=draugur;41740168]That's because a majority of gun owners happen to be in rural areas, where gun ownership is usually for hunting and/or livestock purposes. The majority of people that live in rural areas happen to be White and Christian. There are plenty of non-white people that own guns around here, but White Christians happen to be the majority, and thus, they have the majority of the guns.
Shocking that a majority group would have more of something than a minority right?[/QUOTE]
The demographic also covers survivalists, conspiracy theorists, mall ninjas, and whackers nicely as well.
Legitimate militias are already organized, that usually being the National Guard.
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;41740117]Local governments have a state funded national guard and federal government funded military to back them up if they are attacked, you still aren't convincing me that they should be frightened.[/QUOTE]
Uh isn't that who they're asking to back them up right now?
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;41740117]Local governments have a state funded national guard and federal government funded military to back them up if they are attacked, you still aren't convincing me that they should be frightened.[/QUOTE]
Has to be a national emergency to have the national guard called in, and it needs to be confirmed a warzone for the actual military to play in.
what kind of gun is he using in all of his videos
[QUOTE=Aspen;41740297]what kind of gun is he using in all of his videos[/QUOTE]
An Automatic Cop Killer 16, and a Child Slayer 47. Both Chambered in 26 caliber.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41740286]Uh isn't that who they're asking to back them up right now?[/QUOTE]
Uh, yeah. But they haven't been attacked yet have they?
I'm just saying until they break some actual laws leave them alone because they have every right to exist. Doing otherwise is unconstitutional.
Whenever I see this kind of news I immediately think of this (from 5:46):
[video=youtube;_EU3707iSzNI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU3707iSzNI&feature=player_detailpage&t=343[/video]
[QUOTE=Kuro.;41740097]The Second Amendment is basically null and void at this point in history. The right to bear arms and the right to use those arms to overthrow a rogue government is worthless when the government is infinitely better armed than the populace. The government has nothing to fear from citizens armed with hunting rifles and shotguns when they have guided missiles, drones, and assault rifles and the willingness to use them on people they treat as 'potential enemy combatants' (aka basically every American citizen, according to the scope of the NSA's domestic surveillance program).[/QUOTE]
[img]http://puu.sh/3VDOn.png[/img]
[QUOTE=SnakeHead;41740318]Uh, yeah. But they haven't been attacked yet have they?
I'm just saying until they break some actual laws leave them alone because they have every right to exist. Doing otherwise is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]I wouldn't call having your own private militia blocking the exits of a meeting hall and passively suppressing dissenters a constitutionally protected form of speech and expression.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;41740097]The Second Amendment is basically null and void at this point in history. The right to bear arms and the right to use those arms to overthrow a rogue government is worthless when the government is infinitely better armed than the populace. The government has nothing to fear from citizens armed with hunting rifles and shotguns when they have guided missiles, drones, and assault rifles and the willingness to use them on people they treat as 'potential enemy combatants' (aka basically every American citizen, according to the scope of the NSA's domestic surveillance program).[/QUOTE]
You're forgetting that every single one of those weapons are forged and constructed by private corporations holding government contracts.
If it ever fell out of the corporate interest, those corporations can arm anyone they want to fight for them with any tools they feel necessary.
So in essence, we have everything the government has.
nvm
[QUOTE=Aman;41740450]-snip-[/QUOTE]
-snip-
[QUOTE=Binladen34;41740295]Has to be a national emergency to have the national guard called in, and it needs to be confirmed a warzone for the actual military to play in.[/QUOTE]
This too. If anyone's called in, it's gonna be the PSP, FBI, and ATF.
I don't know what our rules on National Guard deployments are.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41740521]This too. If anyone's called in, it's gonna be the PSP, FBI, and ATF.
I don't know what our rules on National Guard deployments are.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, either state of emergency, or martial law declared. At least that's what it is in New York.
[QUOTE=Aman;41740385]-pic-[/QUOTE]
Well we could simplistically ignore the intricacies around the war such as the fact that the early USA was supported by half of Europe, the social disturbances in Britain at the time pertaining to Catholic emancipation laws, Ireland being a hotbed of dissent, and that the colonies were a net loss anyways. It cost more money to keep them than they got out of holding them.
America won not because of some plucky bastard hiding with a rifle in the bushes. It was won largely due to large socioeconomic and political factors outside of his control and outside of his country.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;41740119]That's essentially what we thought going into Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
god i cant believe people are still comparing small town gatherings of overzealous gun owners labeled as "militias" to the afghani population
ignoring for a moment the massive cultural differences, standards of living and other motives that drive the afghani people to be so resilient and strong willed in response to the american occupation, our government doesn't have much motive other than saving face to stay in afghanistan. if we're talking about the government fighting to maintain its grip on the homeland you're ridiculously naive to think the small population of americans willing to fight in a violent revolution with their semi automatic toys will have any luck winning a war against the US military
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;41740681]Well we could simplistically ignore the intricacies around the war such as the fact that the early USA was supported by half of Europe, the social disturbances in Britain at the time pertaining to Catholic emancipation laws, Ireland being a hotbed of dissent, and that the colonies were a net loss anyways. It cost more money to keep them than they got out of holding them.
America won not because of some plucky bastard hiding with a rifle in the bushes. It was won largely due to large socioeconomic and political factors outside of his control and outside of his country.[/QUOTE]
That's not entirely the point. The point is it doesn't matter how "advanced" the military is. If the people rise up, the people rise up. No government can fully kill a revolution if it is truly determined and large enough. The right to bear arms supports and augments this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
