Speaker of the House delivers most openly tyrannical threat to gun owners to date....
- Thread starter SPM
- Start date
- Replies 97
- Views 3,376
If you think about it, it could be under 2.
Everyone talks about what could never happen, what one side would never dare do - how many of those things have, in fact, happened?
In American politics, every action has and equal, and opposite partisan reaction once the other side is in charge.
It doesn't matter what's Constitutional or what isn't - those jackholes in DC, Democrat and Republican alike - don't care anything for the Constitution past lip service.
Get yourselves right - right with God, right with you, right with your families.
Have serious conversations with like minded individuals.
Have serious conversations with family and friends who will be charged with enforcing this stuff.
Being proactive rather than reactive prevents tragedy.
Anyone can declare an emergency anytime they wish to do so. Yet doing something about the emergency is a different story.
I’m not going to do the boating accident report, or anything such as that. Nor am I willing to go out in a blaze of glory if the SWAT team comes to take my guns. But I will always have two more guns than anyone knows about. Does anyone remember the midnight planter theory from the mid-seventies?
I’m not going to do the boating accident report, or anything such as that. Nor am I willing to go out in a blaze of glory if the SWAT team comes to take my guns. But I will always have two more guns than anyone knows about. Does anyone remember the midnight planter theory from the mid-seventies?
IrishCannon
Fight hard.
That's my take too. I don't see it going anywhere in the "near" future. They may try, but on a large scale? Nah. They will get cities like Chicago and NYC and Boston and Denver and LA first. They need people to go along with it, and they won't have much struggle in those areas.
And I know many here like to think every damn LEO that's told to grab guns will do so, but it ain't the case. A lot of cops won't be at work on that day. - I'm not saying this shit won't happen at some point, but I still see it further down the road, when the new socialist voters get their foothold in large numbers. Yes, it will happen, but I don't see the two year thing happening. 9 years sounds probable.
The socialist footsoldiers need to be there too, not just the politicians that do the talking...THAT is when I'd worry about the LEOs. The socialist shift is occurring rapidly all over red states. Once those social
Last edited:
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
and they kept finding bodies for months afterward. I guarantee they weren't all vagrants or neer-do-wells neither. Guarantee there was some purging going on
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Could also have something to do with Katrina being one of the largest hurricanes on record hitting one of the worst places on record to have a hurricane hit it. Multiply all that by the lack of sufficient preparation by anyone...likely from underestimating the storm.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
Bodies with gunshots specifically
I didn't see this thread when I searched earlier...thanks @Mike Overlay for pointing me here.
When I first ran across this on another site, this is what I posted:
A President declaring a national emergency on guns will CREATE a national emergency.
In fact, it would create the very national emergency the Second Amendment was written for.
Keep in mind, though that as stupid as we may think Nancy to be, she is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, actually "stupid". Stupid people do not get to hang around in politics like she has and do not get elevated to the heights of political power and ability like she has.
She is making threats...and in the process attempting to pass the blame onto Trump, because that's what politicians do. They attempt to play the people off on each other through childish tendencies to excuse their actions based upon the actions of another.
I spent the formative years of our children working to break them of that habit, and it would appear so far at ages 17, 19, and 20 that I've been largely successful. Anybody with children knows what I'm talking about, when one child gets into trouble and they get "the talk", how it invariably turns to "well SHE did this" or "SHE said that". My response was that it doesn't matter what your sister/brother said/did. When I talk to YOU, I'm talking about what YOU said or did. YOU are responsible for YOUR acts. I'll deal with your brother and sister later. What anybody else may do is neither your responsibility nor your excuse. Wrong is wrong...and somebody else doing wrong is no excuse for YOU to do likewise.
The whole of politics is a manipulative game of pitting people against people in the very same childish sort of behavior. It would do well for the majority of the population, regardless of political ideology, to stand up and say "KNOCK THAT SH*T OFF!".
Figure the odds.
Nancy needs to straighten up her act and get her party back on an even keel. Because the path she's adamantly advocating is a tyrannical one leading towards civil war.
ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN:
The Democrats are reaping the consequences of decades of their actions in current times. For decades, democrats have been united in their various liberal causes, regardless of what they were...support one and they support all. Republicans, however, have been more fractured in unity because their more conservative approach doesn't lend itself quite so well in unity across the board.
But the democrats have gotten themselves in a pickle where their liberal extremists look upon other liberals the enemy as well...and their acts are working to fracture the Democrat Party like never before. Which means an area that could be effectively exploited politically. And they are very well aware of that. Old blood is fighting new blood and the new blood knows they stand to get the shaft...and are fighting back.
The coming years and decades will be interesting, indeed.
When I first ran across this on another site, this is what I posted:
A President declaring a national emergency on guns will CREATE a national emergency.
In fact, it would create the very national emergency the Second Amendment was written for.
Keep in mind, though that as stupid as we may think Nancy to be, she is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, actually "stupid". Stupid people do not get to hang around in politics like she has and do not get elevated to the heights of political power and ability like she has.
She is making threats...and in the process attempting to pass the blame onto Trump, because that's what politicians do. They attempt to play the people off on each other through childish tendencies to excuse their actions based upon the actions of another.
I spent the formative years of our children working to break them of that habit, and it would appear so far at ages 17, 19, and 20 that I've been largely successful. Anybody with children knows what I'm talking about, when one child gets into trouble and they get "the talk", how it invariably turns to "well SHE did this" or "SHE said that". My response was that it doesn't matter what your sister/brother said/did. When I talk to YOU, I'm talking about what YOU said or did. YOU are responsible for YOUR acts. I'll deal with your brother and sister later. What anybody else may do is neither your responsibility nor your excuse. Wrong is wrong...and somebody else doing wrong is no excuse for YOU to do likewise.
The whole of politics is a manipulative game of pitting people against people in the very same childish sort of behavior. It would do well for the majority of the population, regardless of political ideology, to stand up and say "KNOCK THAT SH*T OFF!".
Figure the odds.
Nancy needs to straighten up her act and get her party back on an even keel. Because the path she's adamantly advocating is a tyrannical one leading towards civil war.
ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN:
The Democrats are reaping the consequences of decades of their actions in current times. For decades, democrats have been united in their various liberal causes, regardless of what they were...support one and they support all. Republicans, however, have been more fractured in unity because their more conservative approach doesn't lend itself quite so well in unity across the board.
But the democrats have gotten themselves in a pickle where their liberal extremists look upon other liberals the enemy as well...and their acts are working to fracture the Democrat Party like never before. Which means an area that could be effectively exploited politically. And they are very well aware of that. Old blood is fighting new blood and the new blood knows they stand to get the shaft...and are fighting back.
The coming years and decades will be interesting, indeed.
mechdriver
Resolved
I do but I never take more than one gun onboard. I don't want to go scuba diving to protect myself, my family or my country!
mechdriver
Resolved
This is a brilliant observation. How else could we galvanize the conservatives of America to actually stand together in defense of this country.
What precipitated the start of the revolutionary war? I'm asking this question because I really don't know all the small steps of infringement on the colonies that led to a decision to throw down the gauntlet , so to speak.
What would it take to touch off an armed resistance to the slow boil of unending usurpation of power?
Food for thought!
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Maybe the hurricane threw the boolits?
Nahh...nevermind. Tough to argue with that one.
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Cancelling NFL, NBA, etc...
No more internet...
Insanely expensive gas...like $20/gallon...
Anything else that rattles the cage of our luxuries and conveniences...
Those would be, as Buford T. Justice says, just:
Remove the pacifier and the baby cries.
I think some people are deliberately being obtuse. If you listen to what she said or even read the article it directly contradicts what is being discussed here.
Directly from the article:
"Pelosi said she was not advocating for Democrats to declare a national emergency but that Trump was establishing a precedent that should, at least, make Republicans nervous."
"If the president can declare an emergency on something he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think about what a president with different values can present to the American people," Pelosi said."
She wants the congressional Republicans to think twice about allowing precedent to be set like this because a Democrat President could use it for his/her own agenda like Trump is attempting to using it for his.
Directly from the article:
"Pelosi said she was not advocating for Democrats to declare a national emergency but that Trump was establishing a precedent that should, at least, make Republicans nervous."
"If the president can declare an emergency on something he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think about what a president with different values can present to the American people," Pelosi said."
She wants the congressional Republicans to think twice about allowing precedent to be set like this because a Democrat President could use it for his/her own agenda like Trump is attempting to using it for his.
Chuckman
Senior Member
That is what she said, but I would respectfully request that Madam Speaker understand context of how many presidential declarations of emergency have already been enacted, and how many (greater than 30) continue to this day. Precedent is already established; he is doing nothing particularly new. She (and the left) are acting like this has never happened (it has) and is some sort of constitutional crisis (it isn't).
If she (Pelosi) thinks her side is ready for that conflict in this country, it simply shows how truly out of touch with reality she is. She looks like a wind up puppet to me. Every time our President does anything, someone turns her crank and she starts her little anti Trump dance
9outof10mms
Enginerding, good coffee, and factual opinions.
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
She's smart enough to understand how her words will be heard. It's part of the coward's playbook: be crafty enough with your threat as to not be heard as guilty to some, but blatantly threaten those you wish to threaten. And she does it with a smile.
At least Frankenfienstein is direct and the point about it--no misconceptions made about it.
Last edited:
The emergency is real . The agenda is mine . And I’m sure a whole bunch more “ We the People “ agree.
Trump did not fabricate this as his stand alone, that’s what Pelosi wants her sheep to think.
She is quite mistaken that non sheep don’t know what wool she is trying to pull and on who.
There you go ! That’s what I’m saying.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
I hate giving the NYT clicks but...
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html
"
The narrative of those early, chaotic days — built largely on rumors and half-baked anecdotes — quickly hardened into a kind of ugly consensus: poor blacks and looters were murdering innocents and terrorizing whoever crossed their path in the dark, unprotected city.
“As you look back on it, at the time it was being reported, it looked like the city was under siege,” said Russel L. Honoré, the retired Army lieutenant general who led military relief efforts after the storm."
"Today, a clearer picture is emerging, and it is an equally ugly one, including white vigilante violence, police killings, official cover-ups and a suffering population far more brutalized than many were willing to believe. Several police officers and a white civilian accused of racially motivated violence have recently been indicted in various cases, and more incidents are coming to light as the Justice Department has started several investigations into civil rights violations after the storm."
“The environment that was produced by the storm brought out what was dormant in people here — the anger and the contempt they felt against African-Americans in the community,” said John Penny, a criminologist at Southern University of New Orleans. “We might not ever know how many people were shot, killed, or whose bodies will never be found.”
Last edited:
RedneckFur
Smith & Wesson is a religion of peace.
The pop culture version of the American revolution is that King George put a tax on tea, Americans got mad, dumped the tea, switched to coffee, and declared war on the king. This is a very gross oversimplification.
The revolution was a complicated business, and I doubt I can do it full justice, but I'll try. England was in deep debt, and was building up more. They were fighting serious wars in Asia, and started to raise taxes on the Americans to help pay for it. The Americans at first were fine with it, but in exchange, they wanted representation in Parliament. The British govt. refused to grant this, and kept increasing taxes.
The Americans sent letters, and representatives time and time again in an attempt to persuade the crown, but it fell on deaf ears. Americans started to resist and protest the taxes, and the strong-armed govt control from the British, and the British responded with sending (second rate) soldiers and meeting protests with violence.
The men we know as the founding fathers weren't bull headed. For the most part, they were afraid. No one knew if a revolution would work. And there was a fear that even if it did work, what was created to replace it could be worse than the king they resisted.
It was after all the letters, all the representatives, and all the protests failed, that the Americans started to consider violence as a means to gain independence.
Had the British not been fighting another war in Asia at the time, the revolution wouldn't have succeeded. Had France and Spain not stepped in to help us in the later part of the war, there's still a chance the revolution would have failed.
In the early days of the revolution, the Americans tended to fare badly, and the British won more battles than they lost. As the tide started to turn, the British started to hire mercenary armies from central Europe to fight in the colonies, but at great expense to the crown and the British subjects.
Towards the end of the revolutionary war, even the British subjects in England were starting to protest this war. Instead of taxing the colony, they themselves were being taxed to support two wars. One in Asia, and another in America. Finally, King George relented, And the colonies were granted their independence. It would be a few more years before the US was formed from a collections of colonies into a country.
Political terminology changes over time, but the founding fathers and the patriots of the late 1700's were considered the liberals of their day. They wanted to get away from the "old fashioned, conservative" ideals of monarchy and empire, and allow men to live freely and choose their own leadership.
Now days its more complicated, but conservatives tend to favor ideals of freedom more than progressives do, in most areas, but not all. The biggest issue I see is that modern American conservatives are reactive, instead of proactive, and they have a desire to play by the rules. Modern progressives don't have these same convictions, and are more than willing to play dirty.
IMHO, the first thing that needs to go is the whole "boating accident" meme. Next is the idea of burying guns. Next we need to be honest with ourselves. If you haven't gone to a town hall meeting, a protest, or written/called your representatives, chances are you're not going to pick up a rifle when things get ugly. Chest thumping and bravado on the internet is just hot air. Case in point, during the American revolution, most people were totally indifferent. Sure, plenty raised their voices in the taverns and around the dinner table. Only a small percentage actively supported the revolution, and and even smaller percentage picked up a musket and marched with Washington.
Last edited:
Just a hunch, but I’d bet that the crowd here is a lot more politically active and aware than the gen pop. Their activities may be limited by work and other obligations, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t make the hard choice when left with no choice.
LMAO
SO, why doesn't Congress concentrate on more constructive issues like our 22 Trillion Dollar Debt?
Realistically assisting states with Inner City turn around?
From my point of view, lets "Cut To The Chase!"
Pelosi and "The Uniparty" takes every opportunity to "Spin & Pin" everything to Favor "> Their Agenda & Advantage<",,, period.
Another way to say this, The Uniparty is looking for any opportunity to > Justify < ( Legal or NOT) their position.
So, lets STOP with the "Word GAMES."
Fact, Pelosi and the rest of "The Dark Side" want OPEN BORDERS, plain & Simple.
I propose that members of the Uniparty Directly Open Their Homes and Other properties to these Illegals with NO Questions asked, period.
Most "Common Peasants" believe Bummer Care was done to directly benefit us, The Citizens of The USA.
Not so, first because there were other better options available, second because many were Lining their pockets.
Even before the ink was thought of being penned to paper to make Bummer Care LAW(?) there were many, many proposed deals and other business deals in the works that depended on Bummer Care being passed, period!
Call it what it was and is, > "Insider Trading<". Many of these elected(?) officials made "Boat LOADS of $$$$$$$$$" on Bummer Care passing.
Reading Is Fundamental
The Uniparties Story
A good book on this is 1775: A Good Year for Revolution.
It's amazing all the political, social, economic, religious, and ethnic goings-on that pushed the English speaking world into a collision course with itself.
Old hag. Don't punish us cause you guys suck at your jobs and can't keep guns away from bad guys. Sow needs to drop dead.
MadMan4Ever
Sig-Sauer devotee
IMHO, the first thing that needs to go is the whole "boating accident" meme. Next is the idea of burying guns”
Wrong!
You need at least 3 good guns, one rifle & pistol, another of your choosing with at least 8 magazines for each, 1,000 rounds of ammunition for each, holster, optics that don’t require batteries or if they do, you store batteries elsewhere.
Also bury a knife, flashlight, mask, etc.
The reasoning here being that if the State goons come for your collection while you are at work, or out shopping, etc, that you can go retrieve them later in secret. Tell nobody their location. Not your SO who may be pressured into betraying you, not your best friend, nobody.
When you bury them, make sure your phone & any other GPS devices are left at home.
Wrong!
You need at least 3 good guns, one rifle & pistol, another of your choosing with at least 8 magazines for each, 1,000 rounds of ammunition for each, holster, optics that don’t require batteries or if they do, you store batteries elsewhere.
Also bury a knife, flashlight, mask, etc.
The reasoning here being that if the State goons come for your collection while you are at work, or out shopping, etc, that you can go retrieve them later in secret. Tell nobody their location. Not your SO who may be pressured into betraying you, not your best friend, nobody.
When you bury them, make sure your phone & any other GPS devices are left at home.
Rob
Well-Known Member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Benefactor
Life Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I've been giving thought to how a new civil war would go... There wouldn't be a "clear" line (Mason Dixon) to pick a side of.
It wouldn't be gun owners vs gun haters...
Gen X liberal educated anti gun violence wussies won't take on the stereotypical Jim Bob with his Full Auto Clip assault tactical action military grade weapons...
It's gonna be local police going door to door asking politely.
50% (? I'm guessing) of cops like/own guns and trust gun owners.
Maybe someone (extremist?) will open fire on them but gun owners are law abiding & honest people (as a rule)
This forum proves that... How many time have members sent big $ to another member based on a description and a couple pics in a classified ad?
I don't think I'm gonna shoot at my neighbors because they don't own a gun or because that don't think I need to own one. I'm certainly not gonna open fire on my local law enforcement the first time I see them walk up the driveway and I'm certain I can't outgun the military...
I just can't figure out how this civil war thing works?????
It wouldn't be gun owners vs gun haters...
Gen X liberal educated anti gun violence wussies won't take on the stereotypical Jim Bob with his Full Auto Clip assault tactical action military grade weapons...
It's gonna be local police going door to door asking politely.
50% (? I'm guessing) of cops like/own guns and trust gun owners.
Maybe someone (extremist?) will open fire on them but gun owners are law abiding & honest people (as a rule)
This forum proves that... How many time have members sent big $ to another member based on a description and a couple pics in a classified ad?
I don't think I'm gonna shoot at my neighbors because they don't own a gun or because that don't think I need to own one. I'm certainly not gonna open fire on my local law enforcement the first time I see them walk up the driveway and I'm certain I can't outgun the military...
I just can't figure out how this civil war thing works?????
Because they are hell driven on driving the bus straight to hell. Drivers may change, but the speed only increases.
Would this change if they had akready started going around door to door trying confiscate? What if it wasn’t just confiscate but confiscate and arrest anyone who had previously failed to turn em in? Knowing they’re coming for you, would that change the equation?
People in the Soviet Union spent their lives in fear of hearing the words, “you’re under arrest” and some of them even wondered why they didn’t resist with all they had when it could have made a difference.
As far as the military goes, how long do you think it’s going to function once the soldiers know what’s happening at home or are being asked to fire upon the citizenry? The military requires massive logistics support to be mission ready. Once they start going AWOL or sabotaging, and other resistive measures the effectiveness will fall fast.
Last edited:
It would be less regional and more urban vs rural, I think. I’ve written this one out before, but here’s my take on things if they were to go south:
A lot of folks, especially on the Left but many on the Right who’ve not really thought about it too deeply see a civil war as something easily lost by the People. I wouldn't so easily write off the notion that civil unrest/armed revolt would be unsuccessful against the government, even one armed with overwhelmingly superior firepower.
"Easily squashed" seems, on it's face, to be a totally reasonable argument, though for the sake of clarity, let's engage in a serious thought experiment on the subject, considering just a few of the factors at play in the possibility of the success of a civil revolt.
We'll start by looking at the cases of Chris Dorner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Dorner), our experience fighting al Qaida/ISIS, the relatively recent shootings in Paris, San Bernardino, and the Dallas PD shooting, then move on to the geographical and logistical implications of subduing the American continent.
Chris Dorner was one man. Former cop, former military, yes....but he was just one man. His personal revolt, in which he was openly hunting authorities, turned law enforcement on its head. Local, State, and federal authorities were beside themselves in panic as evidenced by shooting people/shooting at people who did not resemble the suspect or his vehicle on multiple occasions. Not very disciplined, and all their training did them almost no good when confronted with a situation in which they could exert no control, and were being hunted in setting where they were accustomed to being in charge. Imagine 1,000 such individuals and what that would do to domestic command and control. Now imagine 10,000or 100,000.....
The attackers in Paris, armed with a couple rifles and a few suicide vests hit multiple locations, and put an entire city in panic and escaped for days. Yes, the police eventually won out....but that was after over one hundred deaths and hundreds more injuries.
In San Bernardino, 2 jihadis armed with semi-automatic rifles, two pistols and fake pipe bombs shutdown an entire city and eluded the police for hours. How many more could have been killed had the attackers been persistent in their plans, or had their pipe bombs actually functioned? The police response, while admirable, still took hours to apprehend 2 suspects. For only 2 attackers.....
Recently in Dallas, a single armed suspect armed with a semi-automatic surplus rifle engaged in a moving gunfight with the numerically superior and better, more heavily armed Dallas Police, killing 5 and wounding 7 more by himself.
These few examples highlight how the authorities, accustomed to obedience and compliance, respond to deliberate, extremely violent action by just a a single individual or a few determined individuals. It becomes chaos - because they are accustomed to meek compliance and obedience as the rule, not the exception.
Now.....the average of estimates suggests there are approxiamately 120 million gun owners( http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/) in this country. All the "3%" notions aside, let's assume that something happens that leads to civil war, 99% of those holding private arms in these United States surrender immediately, and only 1% of those gun owners decide to fight.
That's around 1.2 million armed Citizens, motivated not by hatred or bloodlust, but the notion that they are fighting to preserve their Rights and Liberties from a government dedicated to taking those Rights and Liberties by killing them.
It would be the 4th largest army in the world (http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp), assuming no current military personnel fought for the People and remained in the service of the government. Given the majority of active duty military personnel hold logistical and support roles(http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_op23.pdf) rather than direct warfighting roles, the battlefield strength equation would be even more skewed.
Even if you count the reserve component(http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-reserve-military-manpower.asp) of American military strength, (many of whom would likely be counted among the "rebel force" since they are literally Citizen Soldiers), they are hardly a battle-hardened army looking to kill their family, neighbors and friends.
You would have to resort to conscription and the draft - how many people do you know that would be willing to fight and die involuntarily for such a fool's errand and civil disarmament?
Further context in the challenge of a revolt is provided by looking at our experience in Iraq, where roughly 290,000 boots on the ground (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf) took part in-country, though again, the majority were support personnel.
The insurgency those forces faced have been estimated at no more than 4,000 to 7,000 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-08-insurgency-count_x.htm) fighters at any one time in country. We fought there for well over a decade....and though the majority of the fighting in Iraq has now ceased, to say we "won" and the insurgency "lost" is looking at the situation there through the rosiest-colored glasses.
Even if you argue we won every military engagement quite handily, that's no different than our experience in Vietnam.
General Frederick Weyland recalled speaking to his Vietnamese counterpart in Hanoi a week before the fall of Saigon, insisting "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield."
The Vietnamese commander pondered that remark a moment and then replied, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
The problem, which is inherent in all conventional armies fighting an insurgent war, is the notion that the insurgency can be defeated like a conventional opponent. That battlefield victories alone determine the victor, and that a sufficient throttling will convince insurgents to lay down their arms and go home in peace. Historically, both sides have this foolhardy notion that one major victory will bring a swift end to their opponent....to the victor goes the spoils, and all that. Yet civil wars are never quick, never clean, and leave no portion of a population unscathed.
the above, continued....
The strategic aims of a successful insurgency are not the same as the strategic aims of a conventional war between conventional adversaries. and if the commander of the insurgency understands the political context of his military campaign, it becomes a far more difficult thing to squash.
The insurgency DOESN'T HAVE TO WIN THE WAR. The established order has to win the war.
The insurgency simply has to not lose it.
These are dramatically different, and the failure to understand this dynamic is what causes the ability to win nearly every battle of a campaign and still lose the war.
This is something Washington came to understand after the disastrous New York Campaign, and something the British commanders failed to realize until it was too late.
What was the strategic center, the location that must be captured or annihilated by the Crown to end the war?
Was it Boston? Well they do that. Was it New York? They do that. Philadelphia? They do that. Savannah? They do that. Charleston? They do that. The strategic center of the American Revolution was the Continental Army itself, as well as the tens of thousands of militiamen hassling British patrols, denying them forage, and cutting supply lines. So long as the Army survived, the hopes of the fledgling nation survived. You see this realization on Washington's part as his fighting style changes from the traditionally European form of honor-bound confrontation to a more Fabian strategy.....hitting where the British are weak and fading away, always preventing the annihilation of the Army and America along with it.
Had Lee understood the same strategic implications nearly a century later, North America could very well be a wholly different place in our own times.
Ignoring all that, I would argue the landmass itself presents perhaps the greatest challenge, as the shear amount of area that must be covered is staggering by comparison -3.806 million square miles in the United States vs 168,754 square miles in Iraq or 251,825 square miles in Afghanistan).
There simply aren't enough resources to control if a large portion of the countryside was, for lack of a better phrase, up in arms. This doesn't take into account the split in military forces (the American Civil War is quite telling in this regard, as many former colleagues who would have fought together in 1860 were fighting against each other in 1861. Commissions were resigned, crews of ships left upon return to port - a homogenous military would also crumble away with the disintegration of civil order) and equipment. I would grant you controlling major cities would be strategically possible for a time, but the majority of the countryside would be significantly more difficult to corral and subdue, much less subjugate.
There simply aren't enough tanks, aircraft, drones, smart bombs and cruise missile to make a significant difference outside major population centers.
An American insurgency here in the US around a million strong would be, quite assuredly, unstoppable....especially if it happened all at once and not sporadically and piecemeal.
Logistically speaking, it would be impossible for the federal government to "win." The social order, the country itself, simply wouldn't survive.
The strategic aims of a successful insurgency are not the same as the strategic aims of a conventional war between conventional adversaries. and if the commander of the insurgency understands the political context of his military campaign, it becomes a far more difficult thing to squash.
The insurgency DOESN'T HAVE TO WIN THE WAR. The established order has to win the war.
The insurgency simply has to not lose it.
These are dramatically different, and the failure to understand this dynamic is what causes the ability to win nearly every battle of a campaign and still lose the war.
This is something Washington came to understand after the disastrous New York Campaign, and something the British commanders failed to realize until it was too late.
What was the strategic center, the location that must be captured or annihilated by the Crown to end the war?
Was it Boston? Well they do that. Was it New York? They do that. Philadelphia? They do that. Savannah? They do that. Charleston? They do that. The strategic center of the American Revolution was the Continental Army itself, as well as the tens of thousands of militiamen hassling British patrols, denying them forage, and cutting supply lines. So long as the Army survived, the hopes of the fledgling nation survived. You see this realization on Washington's part as his fighting style changes from the traditionally European form of honor-bound confrontation to a more Fabian strategy.....hitting where the British are weak and fading away, always preventing the annihilation of the Army and America along with it.
Had Lee understood the same strategic implications nearly a century later, North America could very well be a wholly different place in our own times.
Ignoring all that, I would argue the landmass itself presents perhaps the greatest challenge, as the shear amount of area that must be covered is staggering by comparison -3.806 million square miles in the United States vs 168,754 square miles in Iraq or 251,825 square miles in Afghanistan).
There simply aren't enough resources to control if a large portion of the countryside was, for lack of a better phrase, up in arms. This doesn't take into account the split in military forces (the American Civil War is quite telling in this regard, as many former colleagues who would have fought together in 1860 were fighting against each other in 1861. Commissions were resigned, crews of ships left upon return to port - a homogenous military would also crumble away with the disintegration of civil order) and equipment. I would grant you controlling major cities would be strategically possible for a time, but the majority of the countryside would be significantly more difficult to corral and subdue, much less subjugate.
There simply aren't enough tanks, aircraft, drones, smart bombs and cruise missile to make a significant difference outside major population centers.
An American insurgency here in the US around a million strong would be, quite assuredly, unstoppable....especially if it happened all at once and not sporadically and piecemeal.
Logistically speaking, it would be impossible for the federal government to "win." The social order, the country itself, simply wouldn't survive.
Horse pucky.
She and her party have been pulling cr*p like this forever and a day. Her mouthing off about it is just a set up for justification for continuing what they are already doing across the nation.
EVERYTHING politicians do is about wielding power over people... is in the job description. She is no different.
Again, it's not a contradiction of what she's saying because THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN DOING THIS CR*P.
With respect to the Revolutionary War, it would do people here well to understand that the "Americans who rebelled" were actually a very small fraction of the population, and for decades afterwards the country had to deal with people who were also ambivalent about the cause and who were still loyal to the crown.
We had our own "purges", too, if you will.
What brought the whole of the colonies to the point of rebellion wasn't "taxes", per se, but repeated and systematic tyrannical abuses of power which just treated the colonists like a fiscal resource without even a token of care for their own wants, needs, and desires.
Had the crown just fed the colonists a little bit of token effort along that front, there wouldn't have been enough coordinated support and care to make the revolution happen in the first place... or be won if it did happen.
Because a population that has its basic needs for existence and comfort met is hard to stir to rebellion... because why upset the status quo?
We had our own "purges", too, if you will.
What brought the whole of the colonies to the point of rebellion wasn't "taxes", per se, but repeated and systematic tyrannical abuses of power which just treated the colonists like a fiscal resource without even a token of care for their own wants, needs, and desires.
Had the crown just fed the colonists a little bit of token effort along that front, there wouldn't have been enough coordinated support and care to make the revolution happen in the first place... or be won if it did happen.
Because a population that has its basic needs for existence and comfort met is hard to stir to rebellion... because why upset the status quo?
“I can tell you that events were incremental, that the unbelievable became the believable and, ultimately, the normal.”
― Ralph Webster, Holocaust Survivor
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Terry
― Ralph Webster, Holocaust Survivor
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Terry