Biden mocked gun-rights advocates who say they need assault weapons to fight the government:

In fact the Viet Minh guerrilla fighters were an irrelevant force in South Vietnam until the USG :
1. Installed the Diem dictatorship
2. Very effectively armed them with modern weapons long before China became actively involved.

 

So... he was Thomas Jefferson, while taking a nap.

 

What does that have to do with the gov't infringing the rights of American Citizens? And most gun advocates supporting infringement?

 

I disagree. If a real shooting war like you are describing broke out, the government would not hesitate to bomb churches, schools, or hospitals to kill the enemy. And the world would support them. All they would have to do is describe the rebels as "White Supremacists', " or "Nazi's" and the country and the world would give them a pass. The American military may not be able to win a war against cave dwelling sheep herders, but it could sure MOAB every town they determined was "the enemy" and cut off power and water to the rest.

In other words, civil war talk is crazy because the results would be horrific.

 

the vast majority do not.

ALL of the militia mongers do.

 

Like no weapons at he alleged insurrection?

 

Learn the difference between a 'fantasy' and an 'analogy'.

Lest you live in fantasy land, yourself.

 

You wrote:

And you really think the US government will go scorched earth like they did in Germany and Japan during WW2 on its own citizens, you think the military will follow those orders? Massacre its fellow country men? And the world standby silent?

In my post you quoted, I DID NOT ASSERT THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS EVER GOING TO GO 'SCORCHED EARTH'.

I was giving you the reason why the government WOULD NOT do scorched earth, which is the analogy for attacking citizens whereupon citizens harp on second amendment solutions.

You made the assertion that because the US military couldn't win in Viet Nam and Afganistan, it wouldn't, therefore, be able to win against US citizens, should they need to invoke second amendment solution to government tyranny, real or imagined ( but imagined, is my argument ).

The quote you quoted was the reason why the US Military was unable to win in Afganistan and Viet Nam, but, as the analogy revealed, WOULD NOT APPLY TO AMERICA, given: 1. The different terrain -- this is homebase, America, Not the jungles of Viet Nam or the Mountains and deserts in Afganistan. 2. Americans, used to cushy living, would never equal the resolve of the Viet Minh and the Taliban in their native habitats.

All of this arises from your bogus contention that because America lost in Afganistan and Vietnam, therefore, they would not be able to win against American militias ( therefore second amendment rousers are just in their argument 'we need guns to protect us from government tyranny' a BOGUS argument ).

This is an absurd statement, given closer analysis.

You completely misread my posts.

Moreover, the number and quantity of militias is irrelevant because the debate here is diffusing the argument that they need guns to protect themselves from government tyranny, which is an absurd argument, given reality.

I'm not fantasizing a ******n thing, I'm just refuting their argument.

If anyone has a fantasy, is your incessant fantasy on the term 'fantasy'.

 

Ya you keep tossing out that ridiculous claim but fail to give any real gun owners or organization calling for Nukes.. Like they say GIGO, that sums it up nicely.

 

I was just demonstrating why gun control schemes are irrational and dangerous - again.
What exactly is a "gun advocate"?

 

People that make statements like that are the reason we have a second amendment in the first place.

 

You not replying to a quote from my post.
Read carefully and try again.

 

In fact you actually did write this:

"A meaningless point. Imagine you are in a house, and it's infested with cockroaches. So, you try and get rid of the cockroaches you have two choices
1. Shoot them swat them, ie.,( regular combat )
2. Fumigate the house ( Scorch earth the country )

Of the above, if you really want to win, only #2 will work
With bugs, it's doable, but with a country, it's not ( with Viet Nam and Afganistan ).
So, what's left when the terrain and politics renders your winning option not doable?"] Patricio Da Silva, post: 1072745793
(emphasis mine)

Fantasies of mass extermination have become a very dangerous threat to humanity in the modern era. IMO, that kind of thinking should be rejected - by you as well as everyone else.

"The only valid argument under such conditions is promptly to rescue the person
whose death is predicted. Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it."
THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM, Totalitarianism in Power, By Hannah Arendt, Meridian Books,New York, 1958.
https://archive.org/stream/TheOriginsOfTotalitarianism/The-Origins-of-Totalitarianism_djvu.txt

 

Wow. Where to begin.

1. The different terrain -- this is homebase, America, Not the jungles of Viet Nam or the Mountains and deserts in Afganistan.
The US has gigantic mountain ranges, deserts, and forrests, all of which greatly exceed the size of Vietnam and Afghanistan - roughly Texas and Arizona - combined. The US also has wide-open farmland, rolling hills and large urban centers -- America is HUGE with lots of places to run to, hide in, and fight from.

2. Americans, used to cushy living, would never equal the resolve of the Viet Minh and the Taliban in their native habitats.
As usual, you cannot demonstrate this to be true - it is simply a supposition on your part, convenient to your position.

As you arguments, 1 and 2, are factually invalid, your premise - the analogy does not apply to America - is unsound.

Thus, yours are absurd statements, given even the slightest analysis.

 

A specter of nihilism always lurks near the foolish belief that Big Government is a path to human progress and a better world.

"For more than 30 years as a political scientist and peace researcher, I had focused my research on the causes and conditions of war, conflict, and peace. I have believed that war was the greatest killer that nuclear war would be a global holocaust. *** Now I have found that the total killed by government in cold blood was almost 4 times that of war. It was as though a nuclear war had already occurred.***

Surprisingly few had recognized this. While much had been published on individual genocides, such as those of the Jews or Armenians, and some general analyses had been done, as by Kuper, up through 1987 virtually no research had been published on the total amount of genocide and mass murder among nations." LETHAL POLITICS, R. J. Rummel, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, Rutgers University, 1996., p. xi.

 

You misinterpreted what I wrote. Reread my previous comment. I repeat:

You wrote:

And you really think the US government will go scorched earth like they did in Germany and Japan during WW2 on its own citizens, you think the military will follow those orders? Massacre its fellow country men? And the world standby silent?

In my post you quoted, I DID NOT ASSERT THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS EVER GOING TO GO 'SCORCHED EARTH'.

I was giving you the reason why the government WOULD NOT do scorched earth, which is the analogy for attacking citizens whereupon citizens harp on second amendment solutions.

You made the assertion that because the US military couldn't win in Viet Nam and Afganistan, it wouldn't, therefore, be able to win against US citizens, should they need to invoke second amendment solution to government tyranny, real or imagined ( but imagined, is my argument ).

The quote you quoted was the reason why the US Military was unable to win in Afganistan and Viet Nam, but, as the analogy revealed, WOULD NOT APPLY TO AMERICA, given: 1. The different terrain -- this is homebase, America, Not the jungles of Viet Nam or the Mountains and deserts in Afganistan. 2. Americans, used to cushy living, would never equal the resolve of the Viet Minh and the Taliban in their native habitats.

All of this arises from your bogus contention that because America lost in Afganistan and Vietnam, therefore, they would not be able to win against American militias ( therefore second amendment rousers are just in their argument 'we need guns to protect us from government tyranny' a BOGUS argument ).

This is an absurd statement, given closer analysis.

You completely misread my posts.

Moreover, the number and quantity of militias is irrelevant because the debate here is diffusing the argument that they need guns to protect themselves from government tyranny, which is an absurd argument, given reality.

I'm not fantasizing a ******n thing, I'm just refuting their argument.

If anyone has a fantasy, is your incessant fantasy on the term 'fantasy'.

 

If it was your point you are way off topic.

 

False. There were thousands of protesters at the Capitol on January 6th. How many guns were found among them?

 

Wow. You fail to understand my point.

2A, says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. And you are defending INFRINGEMENTS. It's not a claim, it's CLEARLY written in 2A.

Gun advocate. Touting 2A rights, while at the same time, touting infringements.

 

Not only condemned and sanctioned, it would also be a window for hungry nations to further upset the scenario by providing arms to the "moderate rebels" ( a minority? group of unified minorities? or any other politically segregated people that were divided with politics to be weak, but came together to be strong again with ot without foreign influence?) of the conflict, escalating the situation to an irreparable state. The American government can do the dividing, while another power swoops in to do the conquering.

It is no question the power that people have against their overseers. People should pay close attention every time a peice of that power is stripped from them, lest hindsight be all that remains of their ability to construct their home and future.

 

This is the topic: "Biden mocked gun-rights advocates who say they need assault weapons to fight the government"

IOW, I am right on it.

 

You pasted up a quote from another member of the forum instead of responding to my post. Why do that?
OTOH, what you posted here is not subject to misinterpretation:

"A meaningless point. Imagine you are in a house, and it's infested with cockroaches. So, you try and get rid of the cockroaches you have two choices
1. Shoot them swat them, ie.,( regular combat )
2. Fumigate the house ( Scorch earth the country )

Of the above, if you really want to win, only #2 will work
With bugs, it's doable, but with a country, it's not ( with Viet Nam and Afganistan ).
So, what's left when the terrain and politics renders your winning option not doable?"] Patricio Da Silva, post: 1072745793
(emphasis mine)

The dehumanization of a political opposition is hateful and very dangerous.
Surely you know that.

 

None. Right?

 

Baloney, I am an advocate for the right to bear arms.
IMO, guns are PIA, I avoid having anything to do with them.

 

And you think all arms should be available to citizens?
Claymores, LAWs, Grenade launchers, the whole gamit for a well regulated militia that shall not be infringed.

If so, you are 1 of a few that actually are for NO infringements.

And then, my posts aren't directed to you.