In light of CA's new anti-gun law.... a question

[Genx87]

Sorry, had to give you some shit due to California's retarded 10 round magazine law. It is a mini magazine and looks so cute

 

[Lizardman]

The west coast is indeed a weird place. I know of one confirmed liberal who shoots around here (northern Delaware). Exactly one. There are probably more, but I'd bet my life savings the vast majority are either moderate or Conservative. And until you hit Main, the further north you go (aside from PA) the worse things get.

Delaware liberal reporting in. I have a few friends who shoot and are liberal. Maybe you just hang around the slower lower folks who are more conservative (O'donnell fans). They most definitely shoot a lot more south of the canal.

 

[Lithium381]

Sorry, had to give you some shit due to California's retarded 10 round magazine law. It is a mini magazine and looks so cute

qft

 

[irishScott]

Delaware liberal reporting in. I have a few friends who shoot and are liberal. Maybe you just hang around the slower lower folks who are more conservative (O'donnell fans). They most definitely shoot a lot more south of the canal.

I'm from Virginia originally, currently a student at UD, so usually I'm either at Omalanden range (cheap and close by) or occasionally make the trip up to TargetMaster over the PA border if I feel like splurging or renting. Everyone at either location I've talked to that even hinted at politics has screamed Conservative, and my primary shooting buddies are a born again Evangelical and a very conservative Catholic. They're good people and thankfully more reasonable than the stereotypes, just really freaking Conservative. I look downright liberal by comparison.

Liberal guy I met at one of the bars in Newark, turns out we're both 1911 guys.

 

[Munky]

Californians are heavily armed with brains. It would be much easier to attack any Southern state because if you presented yourself as a Republican you could talk them into shooting themselves.

It would be even easier still to convince Cahlifornicans that shooting at foreign invaders was racist, xenophobic, and offensive, therefore they should just welcome their new overlords.

 

[fskimospy]

1.) No country is invading America any time in our lifetimes. Period.

2.) Despite what you might think about the 'military being spread thin', California, particularly southern California, has one of the highest concentrations of military personnel in the country. (with Camp Pendleton, Coronado, Miramar, 32nd St. Naval Station, etc, etc, etc.) There are few areas in the country more heavily militarized outside of D.C.

3.) The logistical and military commitment necessary to invade the United States is so impossibly huge that armed citizens would be fairly low on the list of concerns for an invading power.

 

[Moonbeam]

It would be even easier still to convince Cahlifornicans that shooting at foreign invaders was racist, xenophobic, and offensive, therefore they should just welcome their new overlords.

We do. The best and brightest are pouring in here from all over the world. I have a bunch of new foreign geniuses from India that are now part of my extended family. Things happen so fast and furiously here my brain is twice as packed with neurons as it used to be.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! It's heaven on earth.

 

[Moonbeam]

1.) No country is invading America any time in our lifetimes. Period.

2.) Despite what you might think about the 'military being spread thin', California, particularly southern California, has one of the highest concentrations of military personnel in the country. (with Camp Pendleton, Coronado, Miramar, 32nd St. Naval Station, etc, etc, etc.) There are few areas in the country more heavily militarized outside of D.C.

3.) The logistical and military commitment necessary to invade the United States is so impossibly huge that armed citizens would be fairly low on the list of concerns for an invading power.

Pay no attention to wet blanket eskimospy. He can't help being rational. Go away and leave us fruit loops alone. Shit, you can't even have a decent insanity fest without some joker coming along and throwing reality in your face.

 

[xBiffx]

1.) No country is invading America any time in our lifetimes. Period.

2.) Despite what you might think about the 'military being spread thin', California, particularly southern California, has one of the highest concentrations of military personnel in the country. (with Camp Pendleton, Coronado, Miramar, 32nd St. Naval Station, etc, etc, etc.) There are few areas in the country more heavily militarized outside of D.C.

3.) The logistical and military commitment necessary to invade the United States is so impossibly huge that armed citizens would be fairly low on the list of concerns for an invading power.

1) Proof?

2) Hardly, there are many other places with far more military than southern California. You fail to realize that most, if not all of the bases in Southern California are in a constant state of deployment. The personnel there are not permanent. Colorado has much more in the way of permanently stationed personnel.

3) Proof again? Without any southern or northern barrier, it wouldn't be hard to invade, given the right set of circumstances.

All your ideas are based on faith in a system which you appear to have little knowledge. But again, you are always right, so I'm not sure why I try to point out the faults in another ridiculous argument. You have no facts to back anything, just what you know, or think to be true.

 

[irishScott]

1) Proof?

2) Hardly, there are many other places with far more military than southern California. You fail to realize that most, if not all of the bases in Southern California are in a constant state of deployment. The personnel there are not permanent. Colorado has much more in the way of permanently stationed personnel.

3) Proof again? Without any southern or northern barrier, it wouldn't be hard to invade, given the right set of circumstances.

All your ideas are based on faith in a system which you appear to have little knowledge. But again, you are always right, so I'm not sure why I try to point out the faults in another ridiculous argument. You have no facts to back anything, just what you know, or think to be true.

Dude, think about it. Look at how much trouble we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now take into account that we have about 50 times Afghanistan's landmass and 270,000,000 privately owned firearms in addition to our standing forces. Legit militias would form in a hurry and unless someone else gets a huge carrier fleet we'd have constant air superiority, active military resistance, and a very active guerrilla campaign. Even if they made it in past the coast, they then have hundreds of miles of desert and almost 1000 miles of mountains to traverse depending on the route they'd take, and that's just to reach the midwest.

There is no nation that has such capability, and any attempt to "take a piece" of the US would be just as futile. Guerrillas alone would make it more trouble than it would be worth.

 

[xBiffx]

Dude, think about it. Look at how much trouble we've had in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now take into account that we have about 50 times Afghanistan's landmass and 270,000,000 privately owned firearms in addition to our standing forces. Legit militias would form in a hurry and unless someone else gets a huge carrier fleet we'd have constant air superiority, active military resistance, and a very active guerrilla campaign. Even if they made it in past the coast, they then have hundreds of miles of desert and almost 1000 miles of mountains to traverse depending on the route they'd take, and that's just to reach the midwest.

There is no nation that has such capability, and any attempt to "take a piece" of the US would be just as futile. Guerrillas alone would make it more trouble than it would be worth.

You are thinking about this way to conventionally. We are being invaded right now but we don't think of it in warfare terms, therefore its not as big a threat. We don't see vast legions of uniformed soldiers on an open battlefield so its no as big a threat. Or at least, this is the conventional way of thinking.

Also, just because the prospect seems impossible, doesn't mean that someone might not try it. If things get desperate enough, logic goes out the window. I'm guessing before 9/11 most people would have said you were crazy if you said that terrorists could hijack some airplanes and bring down the WTC and create the level of carnage that day.

Being prepared is a great motto. Nothing is impossible even if it is highly improbable.

 

[irishScott]

You are thinking about this way to conventionally. We are being invaded right now but we don't think of it in warfare terms, therefore its not as big a threat. We don't see vast legions of uniformed soldiers on an open battlefield so its no as big a threat. Or at least, this is the conventional way of thinking.

Also, just because the prospect seems impossible, doesn't mean that someone might not try it. If things get desperate enough, logic goes out the window. I'm guessing before 9/11 most people would have said you were crazy if you said that terrorists could hijack some airplanes and bring down the WTC and create the level of carnage that day.

Being prepared is a great motto. Nothing is impossible even if it is highly improbable.

Ahhh so you're one of those who thinks that illegal immigration is some grand plot to take over America? Going by Occam's razor, it would make more sense that people want to come here because Mexico is a boiling shithole.

 

[xBiffx]

Ahhh so you're one of those who thinks that illegal immigration is some grand plot to take over America? Going by Occam's razor, it would make more sense that people want to come here because Mexico is a boiling shithole.

Actually was talking about terrorists, but illegal immigration does fit that description as well since most foreign terrorists get here illegally by the same means.

 

[Lithium381]

Actually was talking about terrorists, but illegal immigration does fit that description as well since most foreign terrorists get here illegally by the same means.

true statement!

 

[fskimospy]

1) Proof?

How could I prove the future? It was simply a statement that comes from overwhelming historical evidence along with a rational assessment of the military and economic priorities of other countries. You heard it here first.

2) Hardly, there are many other places with far more military than southern California. You fail to realize that most, if not all of the bases in Southern California are in a constant state of deployment. The personnel there are not permanent. Colorado has much more in the way of permanently stationed personnel.

Actually I realize it quite well. Not only did I spend the last 10 years in southern California, but I spent it there in the military in a deploying unit for five of them. It is absolutely false that 'most, if not all' of the personnel in SoCal are in a constant state of deployment, and the personnel there are most certainly permanent. Even a cursory understanding of training and deployment schedules would show you how wrong that is.

Have you ever participated in a deployment schedule? If you haven't, you should probably refrain from talking about them with someone who has.

3) Proof again? Without any southern or northern barrier, it wouldn't be hard to invade, given the right set of circumstances.

All your ideas are based on faith in a system which you appear to have little knowledge. But again, you are always right, so I'm not sure why I try to point out the faults in another ridiculous argument. You have no facts to back anything, just what you know, or think to be true.

My ideas are based on a system that I have directly participated in for the greater part of a decade, and then studied intensively after that. What are your ideas based on?

If you want me to get into the exact logistical difficulties of supplying an invading army of the size necessary to occupy significant portions of the United States across thousands of miles of ocean, I guess I can do that. I would figure that you could take 30 seconds and think of them yourself though. Did I give you too much credit?

 

[Mr. Lennon]

The west coast is indeed a weird place. I know of one confirmed liberal who shoots around here (northern Delaware). Exactly one. There are probably more, but I'd bet my life savings the vast majority are either moderate or Conservative. And until you hit Main, the further north you go (aside from PA) the worse things get.

Everyone always claims CA as the liberal utopia. We couldn't even vote to keep gay marriage legal. We failed at legalizing marijuana. I've concluded that the majority of liberals in CA, and most likely the rest of the country, are moderate. Of course we have the far left extreme, but just like the tea party, they are a vocal minority.

 

[RedChief]

I'm a life long CA resident who is now stuck in the east SF bay area. The liberals I know here (and there are a lot) are definitely not moderate.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm a life long CA resident who is now stuck in the east SF bay area. The liberals I know here (and there are a lot) are definitely not moderate.

California is home to both some of the most extreme liberals and some of the most extreme conservatives in the US. It's one of the contributing reasons to the state's inability to pass a budget.

I can't seem to dig up the chart, but if you check the ideological preferences of most states what you see is that, for example, a New York Republican is substantially more liberal than an Alabama one, and likewise an Alabama Democrat is a lot more conservative than average. Generally however, the ideologies of the two parties within a state move together either towards the more liberal or the more conservative. In California this isn't the case, the average Republican is far more conservative than average, and the average Democrat is far more liberal than average.

This makes for one crazy-ass state.

 

[Lithium381]

How could I prove the future? It was simply a statement that comes from overwhelming historical evidence along with a rational assessment of the military and economic priorities of other countries. You heard it here first.



Actually I realize it quite well. Not only did I spend the last 10 years in southern California, but I spent it there in the military in a deploying unit for five of them. It is absolutely false that 'most, if not all' of the personnel in SoCal are in a constant state of deployment, and the personnel there are most certainly permanent. Even a cursory understanding of training and deployment schedules would show you how wrong that is.

Have you ever participated in a deployment schedule? If you haven't, you should probably refrain from talking about them with someone who has.

Haha, burn!?

My ideas are based on a system that I have directly participated in for the greater part of a decade, and then studied intensively after that. What are your ideas based on?

If you want me to get into the exact logistical difficulties of supplying an invading army of the size necessary to occupy significant portions of the United States across thousands of miles of ocean, I guess I can do that. I would figure that you could take 30 seconds and think of them yourself though. Did I give you too much credit?

Dude, did you fail to see the movie TROY, or Master and Commander??? Did you SEE ALL OF THOSE BOATS!!!!!!!!!!!?

My original question was directly at the original purpose of the 2nd amendment. Is it to protect the citizens from their own government, or is it to assist the Country in defending its borders (and boarders) when the standing army is not capable? I'd say CA is getting pretty good at weakening the right to own/bear arms, and if CA decided to go(even more extreme) police state on us, we'd be ill equipped to defend ourselves(comparatively)

 

[fskimospy]

My original question was directly at the original purpose of the 2nd amendment. Is it to protect the citizens from their own government, or is it to assist the Country in defending its borders (and boarders) when the standing army is not capable? I'd say CA is getting pretty good at weakening the right to own/bear arms, and if CA decided to go(even more extreme) police state on us, we'd be ill equipped to defend ourselves(comparatively)

I guess my point was that the US already has such formidable armed forces and natural barriers that an armed citizenry is probably not necessary in its defense. This isn't to say that we should get rid of people's gun rights (I am a 2nd amendment supporter myself, albeit with maybe more qualifications than some on here), just saying that the primary obstacles to invading the US is the US military (even weakened) and the logistical nightmare that is supplying the (likely) million+ troops over thousands of miles.

 

[JTsyo]

1) Proof?

2) Hardly, there are many other places with far more military than southern California. You fail to realize that most, if not all of the bases in Southern California are in a constant state of deployment. The personnel there are not permanent. Colorado has much more in the way of permanently stationed personnel.

3) Proof again? Without any southern or northern barrier, it wouldn't be hard to invade, given the right set of circumstances.

All your ideas are based on faith in a system which you appear to have little knowledge. But again, you are always right, so I'm not sure why I try to point out the faults in another ridiculous argument. You have no facts to back anything, just what you know, or think to be true.

Been watching Red Dawn?

There's no fleet that's going to get by the US Pacific fleet, that they would be able to bring over million+ troops in transport. Think of how hesitant the US was about invading mainland Japan, how would another country even consider it without knocking out the US army first? Only way an invasion would be feasible, would be a all out nuclear strike to soften up the entire country.

Back to the main topic, personal weapons would not stand up to a professional army. It's not even the weapons that offer the big advantage but the Command and Control. Weapons would not even be useful against the government if they retain full control of the military.

 

[Lithium381]

Been watching Red Dawn?

There's no fleet that's going to get by the US Pacific fleet, that they would be able to bring over million+ troops in transport. Think of how hesitant the US was about invading mainland Japan, how would another country even consider it without knocking out the US army first? Only way an invasion would be feasible, would be a all out nuclear strike to soften up the entire country.

Back to the main topic, personal weapons would not stand up to a professional army. It's not even the weapons that offer the big advantage but the Command and Control. Weapons would not even be useful against the government if they retain full control of the military.

Guerilla?

 

[xBiffx]

Been watching Red Dawn?

There's no fleet that's going to get by the US Pacific fleet, that they would be able to bring over million+ troops in transport. Think of how hesitant the US was about invading mainland Japan, how would another country even consider it without knocking out the US army first? Only way an invasion would be feasible, would be a all out nuclear strike to soften up the entire country.

Back to the main topic, personal weapons would not stand up to a professional army. It's not even the weapons that offer the big advantage but the Command and Control. Weapons would not even be useful against the government if they retain full control of the military.

I don't think anyone here besides eskimo is talking about a standing army.

 

[Brovane]

Been watching Red Dawn?

There's no fleet that's going to get by the US Pacific fleet, that they would be able to bring over million+ troops in transport. Think of how hesitant the US was about invading mainland Japan, how would another country even consider it without knocking out the US army first? Only way an invasion would be feasible, would be a all out nuclear strike to soften up the entire country.

Back to the main topic, personal weapons would not stand up to a professional army. It's not even the weapons that offer the big advantage but the Command and Control. Weapons would not even be useful against the government if they retain full control of the military.

A major nuclear power like the United States cannot be succesfully invaded and occupied. Why? Any nation trying it would suffer from a terminal dose of instant sunshine. Not even getting into the logistics of this. There isn't enough amphibious lift in all the worlds navies to actually make a serious attempt at invading US soil over the beach. By the way I am also including US amphibious lift. The us navy has more amphibious lift capability than all the rest of the navy's in the world combined. Maybe a Alien invasion like in the Battle: Los Angeles.

 

[Jaskalas]

... It would be much easier to attack any Southern state because if you presented yourself as a Republican you could talk them into shooting themselves.

:'( :wub: D: :thumbsup:

Well played sir, well played.