The current crop of left wing debaters is weak

[SuburbanFarmer]

I am only questioning the assumption that we can model an American insurgency on what has happened in other parts of the world.

You got that one backwards. Other parts of the world modeled insurgencies, in part, on the American example.

Really, examples (plural) when you look at what happened in Texas.

That is the crux ain't it though. The successful American insurgency happened against a power across the world with aid from another power. It is a model that works for insurgents in Afghanistan (kind of) but might not work in Kentucky anymore.

Mind you, I am not supporting dismantling the 2nd... I just think piling on Grumpy for questioning the logic that we can use that right to cast off the shackles of our state is silly.

Thank you.

Re: Nuke's google, this is some seriously interesting shit.

Former red team planner for the government here. If there was a revolution in the US, the rest of the world would get involved, fast. Depending on the type of uprising, there is a large chance that it would not be a quick affair. It would be brutal, it would be bloody, and the US government could start a global scale war. Here are the top ten issues that came up.

1) The US power grid can be taken down by a series of “surgical strikes” with the exception of the Texas grid. By surgical strikes, I mean a few marksmen (US army-tier Marksmen–the minimum requirement) hitting certain spots on the grid would fuck a lot of the military and government because they need the grid more than Bubba and his friends do. Additionally, while all government agencies have backup generators, they will be hard pressed dealing with the resultant looting and other madness that would come with power outages. This would effectively create another front for the military. It would also turn the people against the government more quickly and paralyze the government’s propaganda machine. Worse still–the key points of the US power grid are publicly obtainable information, and not only are the points too many to be effectively guarded, they are not guarded anyway.

2) The estimated desertion rate in case of a civil war is 75% in the case of a left-wing president. 50% of that would be assumed to immediately betray the president. The remaining (treasonous) military would be fighting its own. Yet another front created in the war. Additionally, there is an assumed 25-50% desertion or outright betrayal rate in three letter government agencies (FBI, CIA, NSA, ATC, TSA, etc.). Additionally, it is assumed that 5% of the initial 50% betrayers would stay in their job and become saboteurs. 10% of that 50% would contain key information that would be of critical danger to the US government. Of that 10%, 1% would be able to deliver that information to the US’ foreign enemies. What you should get from this is that the second the United States government declares war on its own is the second it ceases to exist as the state we know it.

3) “Tea baggers,” “right-wing extremists,” and “oath keepers” which are considered untrained racists who aren’t “good with a gun” often are A) veterans who now have more time to have fun at the range, sometimes more than some Army units or Marine units. In addition to previous military training, B) often camp and do other outdoor activities–more than many in the military do, as the focus has gone away from field exercises, and C) often have better equipment–outside of armor and heavy weapons–than the military. However, C) is kind of irrelevant because many of the places in which these people could hide would make the kind of war the US fights with the equipment they use pointless.

4) Outside influence is a huge problem. Russia has already stated they would back a Texas separatist movement, and right now we already have enough problem keeping Islam in check. The second the US has to fight in a “civil war” is the second it becomes a proxy war between NATO and whoever wants to mess with America. While America has amazing nuclear and air defense, if it comes to a civil war you have to assume that in a best cast scenario the US military is going to be operating at 50% capacity at best. Shit would go down. Hard. And fast. And if Russia–spoiler alert: one of the best militaries in the world at fighting in an urban environment–sent trainers and helpers to rebels, you can reliably bet that they would also possibly deliver weapons to them. So instead of fighting “Timmy TeaBagger,” you are fighting “Timmy TeaBagger who is buddies with Vlad.”

5) A civil war is not just the US versus the rebels. There will be looting. There will be rioting. Cities will burn. The National Guard cannot fight both the rebels and rioters in a city that would also cut off their supplies. Additionally, if you don’t think that the rebels will send in instigators into the cities–or worse, stand alone actors (A Lone Wolf on steroids. Think Timothy McVeigh, but instead of one van they have a whole fleet of them. A good movie example would be Bane)–you would be mistaken. If the US government cannot even help its own people, why would its own people support the remaining (treasonous) military? Worse yet, if someone emptied out prisons (There are more prisoners in the US than there are people in the entire Chinese Army), you would have more crime than the police could ever handle.

6) Logistics and infrastructure in the US are crumbling and failing. Any war fought against a rebellion in the US would be a logistical nightmare, even before the rebels started going full Al-Qaida and putting IEDs in the road. A retired general who was contracting with us on the team said, “The only thing holding together the US’ infrastructure is duct tape and the will of the Department of Transportation. And often enough, there isn't enough duct tape.” Your most loyal cities to the US government, as we polled, are also the most logistically easy to cut off. NYC? San Fran? L.A.? D.C.? Baltimore? Most of them require crossing water to enter, from certain directions. Most of them have critical airports. Some of them have critical ocean ports. If anything happened to just TWO of the cities on the list, it would create a logistical clusterfuck.

7) Your “Johnny Reb” and “Timmy TeaBagger” states (i.e., “red” states) all have something most of your “oh so progressive,” “Aren’t we so European,” “Oh my god, we are just like Sweden,” blue states don’t. Blues are mainly consumer states. Reds are producer states. Urban areas don’t have farms. The second that shit goes down, realize a lot of those blue areas are likely to starve. In a civil war scenario, we predicted that at least 10,000 people would die of starvation if the war was not finished in a year. The numbers get worse after that. Or better, rather, for the country after the war.

8) The US has way too many choke points, and the government forces would often be on the wrong side of them. This ties into the logistical nightmare, but it also has to do with an odd phenomena. Liberals like to live near the ocean. Many of the dividers of the country, like the Rocky Mountains, the Mississippi River, Appalachia, the Missouri River (fun fact: the biggest choke point for the US government is in Missouri) are red state areas. Sure, air travel is a thing, but a majority of the US government's needs would have to travel by ground. Even still, many of the major airports are outside of the city. Of course, the US would use military base air fields, but if civil war did break out… which bases would be safe? Which ones would have fallen to the deserters?

9) PR Nightmare. Every rebel killed on CNN would be spun as “the US government killed X Civilians today in a strike” on foreign news and pirate media not owned by the government. That is–as pointed out earlier–if the US media could even function in a civil war or uprising. Your “rebel scum” know that the main thing that holds together the US–nay life in the US as we know it–is the 24 hour news cycle and the media. The second it's gone, you are going to have urban anarchy. If you are from America, can you imagine a day without TV, newspaper, or Internet? Your average urban youth can’t. If you don’t think that isn’t going to cause rioting, you must have a real high regard for how much restraint they have. Assume in a civil war that your ability to talk to the people is compromised. Also assume that in the case of a civil war that rebels may know how to monitor conversations like the US does, as there are manuals online on how to do so.

10) This one is either 1 or 10, depending on who is asked. The US will never nuke its own. The second it does, they have lost the civil war and other countries will come to “liberate” the US from its own “repressive regime.” Additionally, if any general, minuteman, nuke tech, or nuke sub captain decided to side with the rebellion, the US government is immediately SOL.

In short: The second that a “civilian uprising” or “extremist group terrorist attack” turns into “civil war” is the second the US loses. As a result, you will never see a civil war. You will see Waco, you will see Bundy Ranch, you will see all sorts of militant group confrontations and maybe even some skirmishes. But the US government fears its own people way the fuck too much to ever start a civil war.

As an American, I want all other Americans here to remember this. The government is against you, almost openly now, but they also know that they cannot win if it comes to open war. We have a trump card they cannot match. If it comes to a fight, THEY WILL LOSE, so there are elements in the establishment who will do absolutely everything in their power to prevent it from coming to that. The US Government is not in support of its people, and the people are not in support of the government.

It is within the means of certain interests to start World War III simply as a distraction to avoid an American Civil War, because, by their reckoning, it is better to ruin other “lesser” nations like Syria and spill the blood of patriots than lose their own grip on power. ***********YOU HEARD RIGHT. WORLD WAR III ITSELF COULD BE A DELIBERATE FALSE FLAG TO PREVENT A POWER CHANGE IN AMERICA. REMEMBER THIS.***********

It seems that the "Red Team" took the same viewpoint as myself - namely, that civilian small arms would be meaningless for anything other than home defense. The entire thing revolves around the military, and which parts of it side with a rebellion.

[Speaker to Animals]

More likely Russia gets dragged in and eventually nukes the cities. The guy who wrote the John Titor material was not far off from the truth.

You have to realize that, essentially, it's the cities that are at war with the rest of the world (and most of America to boot). They hide behind the greater emblem of "America", but America is not one thing any longer (really never was).

[Okeefenokee]

Mind you, I am not supporting dismantling the 2nd... I just think piling on Grumpy for questioning the logic that we can use that right to cast off the shackles of our state is silly.

Also, isn't there something rather absurd in needing written permission from the State to rebel against the State?

that's not really accurate. the BOR preamble doesn't say the BOR is a permission slip for rebellion.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Fifty-nine words. One sentence. Let’s take it apart, piece by piece:

• First, who caused the Bill of Rights to be added?

A: “THE Conventions of a number of States”.

Note that these “conventions” were not state legislatures, but were instead private “assemblies” of the People of the various States of the Union. These “conventions” took place to ratify the Constitution in A.D. 1787 & 1788.

The Constitution was ratified by the People, not by the State governments. That tells us that the People were the sovereigns (plural), not the governments of the States of the Union. In essence, the People/sovereigns agreed to ratify the Constitution on condition that a Bill of Right would subsequently be added. (It might be argued that if there’s no Bill of Rights, then there’s no Constitution.)

The Constitution is the “People’s law”. Statutes are the “government’s law”. The government’s law is intended to be of lower authority than the People’s law.

• Second, why did the People “desire” these first ten Amendments?

A: “[T]o prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.”

What does the preamble mean by “its powers”? It means the powers of the newly-ratified Constitution.

Who could misconstrue or abuse the powers of the newly-ratified Constitution? The States of the Union? No. The counties? No. Foreign countries like England, Canada or France? No.

Insofar as the federal government is the only entity with access to the powers of the Constitution, the only entity that might able to “misconstrue or abuse” the newly-granted powers of the Constitution would be the federal government.

Thus, the fundamental purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the States of the Union and the People of the States of the Union from the federal government.

Get that?

https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/ ... of-rights/

[Hwen Hoshino]

Ownership itself - not at all. Endless bickering and political nonsense over background checks or regulation - completely.

What other issues cannot be worked on because of it?

Mainly those of background checks, registry of arms, regulation of the gun shows.... ya know. Things that are expected of nearly every other market for dangerous items.

What other dangerous items need exactly those regulations?

[SuburbanFarmer]

What other issues cannot be worked on because of it?

Mainly those of background checks, registry of arms, regulation of the gun shows.... ya know. Things that are expected of nearly every other market for dangerous items.

What other dangerous items need exactly those regulations?

Cigarettes, medicines, chemicals, explosives...

[Hastur]

This thread had promise, then someone mentioned gun. Pity...

[MilSpecs]

About an insurgency, many of you seem to forget where most of the stuff you rely on for your lives and for any erstwhile rebellion comes from: our ports. The cities control the container ship ports.

[Speaker to Animals]

The cities depend on them, not us, especially if we don't give you guys food..

The John Titor poster might have been crazy, but he wasn't wrong about the general direction towards civil war.

[Speaker to Animals]

Or put another way: the cities are Athens, the rest of us are Sparta. That's the division we have.

The cities depend on globalism. They need open borders. They need the stuff that ruins the rest of America.

We cannot reconcile this. We need to walk back this federation idea or those cities will eventually be destroyed. If conflict comes, the cities are utterly indefensible. Your entire Democrat population is stuffed in there like rats too.

[MilSpecs]

The cities depend on them, not us, especially if we don't give you guys food..

A big chunk of our food is imported, as should be obvious just from looking at the climate in most states. I doubt either of our states are growing anything in February, but I've got one of the largest ports in the world as a backup. How will the food reach you? Most of our medication comes from overseas. What will happen when it's suddenly cut off? There's also the sheer number of people involved, since over 60% of the population lives in cities and more in the suburbs, where armed insurrection is mostly seen as crazy, because it is crazy.