[quote]pushharder wrote:
‘No one helped her’: NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit
“The state will protect you”
Simply one more left wing lie.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Good stuff. Read this.
The Effort To Subarm America
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/30/the-effort-to-subarm-america/[/quote]
Yawn.
Nothin’ new. The American people have been “subarmed” since around about 1968, when the Gun Control Act was enacted.
However, there are ways around everything, and practically any weapon imaginable can be legally procured, provided one a) has the cash b) is willing to jump through a multitude of bureaucratic hoops, whilst paying the appropriate fees, and c) is able to demonstrate to one’s federal, state, and municipal masters that one is beyond the shadow of a doubt NOT the kind of person who would ever have the slightest inclination to use said weapons for their intended purposes.
Just as a thought experiment, Push (and anyone else following this thread), what sort of armaments would you, either as an individual civilian or a member of a small community, feel to be adequate in facing off with a highly militarised police force or contingent of conventionally-armed UN or US military forces?
An assault rifle and a handgun?
A battle rifle and some grenades?
A light machine gun with a couple of Claymore mines, RPGs and LAWs?
Would you want a heavy machine gun like an M2?
Anti-aircraft weapons, either cannons or surface-to-air missiles?
Mortars and Howitzers?
Heavy anti-armour weapons like the Javelin or Dragon or TOW?
An Apache attack helicopter or two?
An Abrams tank?
Tactical nuclear missiles?
How much of this equipment is even available? How much of it (and its ammunition) could you and your friends afford to buy? How much of it do you personally, right now, know how to operate and maintain? How would you transport it? How many of your friends are reliable enough and knowledgeable enough to crew-serve the crew-served weapons with you?
How much would be enough for you (or any American Patriot) to feel sufficiently armed against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic?
Of course, in those simpler times, you didn’t have to have any specialised training or knowledge to be able to crew-serve heavy artillery.
Anyone could do it, even if they were wearing a bonnet and petticoats with their tits hanging out.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, speaking of hot chicks and weaponry, do not mess with my daughter.
;-)[/quote]
You do realize this should be an album cover to some hard driving, blues based, biker bar rock and roll music right?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How much would be enough for you (or any American Patriot) to feel sufficiently armed against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic?[/quote]
Enough so I can die on my feet.
Whether that is 8 rounds out of a 1911, or AR-10 and all that heavy ass 7.62…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
How much would be enough for you (or any American Patriot) to feel sufficiently armed against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic?[/quote]
Enough so I can die on my feet.
Whether that is 8 rounds out of a 1911, or AR-10 and all that heavy ass 7.62…[/quote]
Hell, if all you’re interested in is dying on your feet, that can be accomplished with a .25 auto. Much cheaper.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What’s your answer to your question?
[/quote]
As little as possible.
It was a bit of a trick question, because obviously only a fool would openly face down a heavily-militarised police force or a conventional army. It may have worked for William Wallace and the boys at Lexington and Concord, when it was still possible to take out heavy cavalry with sharp sticks, and everyone was pretty much at parity as far as armaments went.
No, my answer is one accurate rifle in a military caliber, maybe one handgun, and an adequate but not overly burdensome supply of ammunition. I might also want a suppressor and subsonic rounds for quiet work. And a few knives, natch.
A scoped Ruger bolt-action carbine in .308 will kill an enemy just as dead as an AR-10 or SCAR-17 will, and will allow one to be far more mobile and inconspicuous. Who looks more like a threat? Bubba with his tacticool AR and bandoliers full of 20-round magazines, or me with my hunting rifle?
Your point about the Vietcong is right on the money. And my response to Beans is this: dying on your feet is fine and all, but living on your feet while the other poor bastard dies on his is much more appealing.
You have to consider weight.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What’s your answer to your question?
[/quote]
As little as possible.
It was a bit of a trick question, because obviously only a fool would openly face down a heavily-militarised police force or a conventional army. It may have worked for William Wallace and the boys at Lexington and Concord, when it was still possible to take out heavy cavalry with sharp sticks, and everyone was pretty much at parity as far as armaments went.
No, my answer is one accurate rifle in a military caliber, maybe one handgun, and an adequate but not overly burdensome supply of ammunition. I might also want a suppressor and subsonic rounds for quiet work. And a few knives, natch.
A scoped Ruger bolt-action carbine in .308 will kill an enemy just as dead as an AR-10 or SCAR-17 will, and will allow one to be far more mobile and inconspicuous. Who looks more like a threat? Bubba with his tacticool AR and bandoliers full of 20-round magazines, or me with my hunting rifle?
Your point about the Vietcong is right on the money. And my response to Beans is this: dying on your feet is fine and all, but living on your feet while the other poor bastard dies on his is much more appealing.
[/quote]
At some point anybody with a weapon will be considered a threat, so might as well go all in.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Of course, in those simpler times, you didn’t have to have any specialised training or knowledge to be able to crew-serve heavy artillery.
Anyone could do it, even if they were wearing a bonnet and petticoats with their tits hanging out.[/quote]
I have been at the battlefield where that image is from.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You have to consider weight. [/quote]
I do. Which is why I occasionally chuckle at the prepper dudes with their tacticool ARs bristling with optics, lights, lasers, vertical forends and other dongles, MOLLE gear filled to capacity with high-capacity magazines, a sidearm and five or six more magazines on a thigh rig, and a bulging bug-out bag full of all the shit they need, presumably, to get from wherever they are to wherever the rest of their shit is hidden, once the shit hits the fan.
Typically, not only is the gear terribly overweight, but so is the man. Which makes me wonder how far and how fast he could hump all that gear, without the aid of a vehicle, across rough terrain, with armed men behind him wishing to do him harm.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You have to consider weight. [/quote]
I do. Which is why I occasionally chuckle at the prepper dudes with their tacticool ARs bristling with optics, lights, lasers, vertical forends and other dongles, MOLLE gear filled to capacity with high-capacity magazines, a sidearm and five or six more magazines on a thigh rig, and a bulging bug-out bag full of all the shit they need, presumably, to get from wherever they are to wherever the rest of their shit is hidden, once the shit hits the fan.
Typically, not only is the gear terribly overweight, but so is the man. Which makes me wonder how far and how fast he could hump all that gear, without the aid of a vehicle, across rough terrain, with armed men behind him wishing to do him harm.
[/quote]
The guy in the photo above? I’d say about one block…and very slowly.