Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

This thread has gone exactly the way one would expect. 

One point that I think often gets lost here: the founders never envisioned that armed rebellion was an appropriate response to the decisions made by a democratically elected federal government.

I don't think there has ever been a serious movement to disarm the population. Are there some zealots who argue for that? Of course. Is there anywhere close to a critical mass to make that happen? No. There are zealots who argue for all kinds of things, but most of them don't get what they want. That's one of the points of representative democracy.

Also, it's an awfully simplified view of history to say that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, history's worst killers, "disarmed" their population to control them. The Soviet Union was hardly "armed" in the first place. Its population was very poor, and largely farmers. And most of Stalin's "killing" came in the form of starvation as a result of ridiculous policies. That's not to say that he didn't terrorize the population, of course he did. But the "disarming" mostly came as the result of winning the Russian civil war. I think the same is true of Mao (although I don't know that history quite as well, but starvation again figured prominently). Hitler took power with the help, if not the votes, of the right-leaning moderates who were terrified of communisim. He was tolerated, including his targeting of the Jewish population becuase economically things in Germany were improving. And when he "disarmed" people, it was largely at the point of a gun (and the blitzkrieg), but it was not so much the German population, it was the Czechs, the Austrians (who didn't really object much), then the Poles. That wasn't oppressing his own population, that was conquering others (and yes, he persecuted German Jews, but non-German Jews made up the bulk of the holocaust). German Jews were less than 1% of Germany's population. They could have been armed to the teeth, and there was no way they could have resisted the might of the German government.

Could the American population resist a well-armed, well-organized federal government? Perhaps, and particularly if the feds "came for our guns." But that's not really how dictators and fascists come to power. And--and to be clear, I'm not saying this is happening--it is more likely that the moderates and right wing unite (which would include the majority of the gunowners), than that the extreme left would affect a takeover of the federal government, then overthrow democracy and oppress the rest of the country. Historically, that is more common than the takeover of an established democracy by the left, and our country trends moderate/conservative much more than moderate/liberal.  

SFBadger makes coherent unemotional arguments almost as if he was a lawyer.   

SFBadger makes coherent unemotional arguments almost as if he was a lawyer. 

Haha. Was thinking the same. I'm not on his side of the fence on this topic, but clearly a highly intelligent guy that has great attorneyspeak and forces any reasonable person to take a step back and think through the topic, considering his points. 

Germany going to have to ban cars or at least make them more difficult to get.

https://apnews.com/article/germany-magdeburg-christmas-market-6b2bcf305eb9f60f8d7273949dbba4c8

Well it can't come as a surprise to the ones bringing it on themselves.  Tough shit.

More delusions of grandeur. 
No ongoing training. None of the new 'toys.'

A bunch of Uncle Ricos who think they're magically maintaining their peak 20 years after the fact. 
Respectfully.

I can't convince you of something you've no experience with... i've seen business so hectic that 20-30 snatch and grab operations a week were normal.  Sending teams out all over the city based on intel or hunches, satellite tracking or based on info shook out of the previous nights customers. The purpose was to disrupt what was simply expected to be a well organized effort by a central organization- and we'd find the cells constantly but could not figure out neither how their orders were communicated or who was sending them... and then it was suggested by someone and dismissed... just for later discovering it was correct.... what was it?

A gaggle of many many tangos aka insurgents but operating in cells of no more than 10 or 12... 15 at most... 4 or five often... and who may or may not have known about other cells letting loose the same mayhem they were- like rivals outdoing each other but accomplishing actions seemingly in concert and to what we believed to be coordinated efforts.  It wasn't.  It was just a gaggle of tangos with similar or the same sentiment, and that which was communicated not from a central command/handlers, but through broadcast radio or the little speeches broadcast over the loudspeakers after the morning call to prayer.  We spent who knows how much time and effort trying to find the 'bosses' when their weren't any, and the independence of those teams/cells made patterns or trends incredibly difficult to identify,  because they didn't exist.  These are PhD level directors and very experienced leaders working with the best critical skills operators on the planet, so don't cough up dumbassery as the cause for this.

From those experiences, every man involved learned that a small group can cause mass mayhem- and several small groups operating to the same overarching ends can do ten fold that... and twice that number of cells, they could take over the region, and did.

^ thats the world of a-symetrical warfare.  That's what wars from Somalia to Syria, Libya to Afghanistan taught us.  And the folks participating?  They took notes so they'd know how to better handle it if encountered in the future- and how they'd employ it if ever facing vastly superior forces. ... and is the reason our government fears those guys.

There is major concern about what a group within the training and experience could do in docile America- where none of that mess has ever been experienced.  There are doctrines and books written about it.

Delusions of grandeur?  You and your brethren only call it that because your media offered it up in effort to shame and reduce the threats within your own minds... Biden says "what good would a rifle do against an f15?"... as if he's certain his side would be able to use those tools. 


There are delusions here for certain- but they aren't of grandeur by who you've been conditioned to dismiss... theyre instead delusion from/by your side for underestimating what they could do 'if they had the mind to'.  It's a very good thing these types aren't of the mind to, but instead to protect peace at almost any cost which is deeply programmed into them.... and, by the way, most those guys are trained in counter insurgency, which is training host nations rebels... meaning, one guy in the know could easily bring a group of good Ole boys or gang banger types to wreck command structures the govt would have to rely on. 


Strategies and tactics... im going to guess you know little of such.


The good news is, further, none of this will happen.  Our govt is greedy, careless, corrupt, but they're not stupid or crazy.  They think they're the smartest people in the room, and they may be in one or two measures, but they ain't the most dangerous nor the most resolved without the backing of citizens.  And that's what it boils down to- if citizens turn on each other because of the stupid games our govt and elected exploit for their own gain, we could damn well end up like in a situation like mao, Hitler, Stalin, Hussain or even as current Nkorea, china... but people won't let that happen, i hope.  You can easily be convinced to condemn me for not getting a jab or wearing a mask and feel as if you're superior, but are you willing to kill wholesale anyone who defies those orders?


If you are, you're the problem.. not those you wrongfully dismiss as having 'delusions of grandeur".