Mass Judge Rules AR-15's Not Protected By The Second.

I'd say that regardless of which party is in power, some of the military will support them, some will not. Some will follow orders, some will not. There would likely be acts of sabotage.

 

See how complicated it gets without being able to pin all this stuff down? You can't say anything for sure. That's why I've stuck with the difference between fighting an insurgency on your own turf vs fighting one abroad. You can draw distinctions between those two.

 

Sure, there are differences. I don't think that the American people will put up with American citizen collateral damage from the government the way that they seem to put up with killing foreigners.

 

It all depends. How long will they put up with insurgent bombings? You suggested going after the families of police officers. How long would they put up with that? Eventually, everybody gets tired of the killing on both sides. That's why you gotta jump on it quickly with overwhelming force. That's why the 101st was sent to Detroit in '67.

 

Belfast 1969 Brit Army triggering the creation of the PIRA, popular republican support and the next 30 years of conflict.
In asymmetrical conflicts there are no front lines and no standup battles.

 

Not necessarily true at all. And the reason I put up the pictures of Ferguson and Detroit is to show how quickly the Gov. responded. Here, at home, in America, not as a foreign occupier.

BTW, when Iraq was warming up, post-invasion, you weren't even allowed to say insurgency in front of Bush. That's the size of the denial he was conducting the war under. Further, there's one little event those who point to Iraq forget to mention. De-Ba'athification. Bush's underlying's sent the Iraqi Army packing. The dumbest thing I've ever seen.

 

The first time something like this opens the evening news that's it for any further military actions in the U.S., it over at that point the general population will have no more of it, and will demand that many in the military be hung out to dry for it.



The armchair warriors love to scream "send in the Marines" when it's not their back yard getting blown up, but bring it home and they will demand it be stopped and now..

 

It's next to impossible to fight an enemy who is not uniformed, lightly organized and is part of the population, but that irregular sure as hell can wreck havoc when they want to and then just disappear amongst us, many times with our cooperation and gratitude.

 

And no way to keep gallon jugs of flaming gasoline off your armored vehicles.

 

The Stinger system is classified, your example fails...

 

So in your world, freedom of the press would only extend to ink and paper? You folks want double standards, not rights...

 

There you go, weapons have progressed to the point to where many are classified. My example is a stunning success.

 

No, sorry.

 

They had classified information back in 1776, you still fail...

 

Curious...which weapons were classified back in 1776?

 

I didn't specify weapons systems, just the idea of classified information, that's not new...

 

What does that have to do with his point about weapons being classified?

 

Nice try, no cigar.

 

The Stinger system is classified, but the idea of having classified information isn't new, which is why the Stinger is a bad example to use in any case...

 

Your example is a crash and burn failure.

 

Oh...so his argument then was that classified information is a NEW thing?

 

Never mind the fact a surface-to-air missile system is irrelevant in a discussion about firearms.

 

There are many gun grabbers that think gun owners all want thermonuclear weapons in their garage. They are completely illogical on the subject...

 

Indeed - they cannot present an argument that does not rest on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.