Self-Defense: The Bubbas Can Beat Uncle Sam

[C-Mag]

So are they just making sure that they can resist government overreach while they are out buying groceries?
I look at those pics and I see three possibilities,
They live in such a dangerous area you can't go shopping without an AR15.
They are just dicks who want to look tough and are carrying because it's their right.
Or they are the next mall shooters.
How does your police force know whether they are harmless dicks or mass shooters?
Walk down the road with a rifle in the UK and the police shoot first and ask questions later. I just don't understand what your police are supposed to do.
It's their right to walk around like a private army so when the police do nothing and they go on a rampage who is to blame?

Ummmm................... the Police are supposed to act when they see a crime being committed. Is that hard to understand ?
See, you call us scared, but look at what you just wrote. You guys are the ones scared of guns.

Like I said earlier it's really hard fro someone outside the culture to understand.




Question, I've read recently gun crimes are on the rise in England, what's up with that ?

I just can't work out why anyone would take a rifle into a grocery store. How are the other people in the store going to react? How do you know whether he's a mass shooter or a dick?
You're right though, I really don't understand.
Gun crimes on the rise in England? I didn't know they were. Violent crimes have been falling for years though so a small increase is not too worrying. Only around 600 murders per year.

This is the report I saw

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

Martin Griffiths, a consultant vascular and trauma surgeon, said medics at the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel where he works were expecting to treat 50 to 60 victims of gun crime this year alone.

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/l ... 51761.html

[C-Mag]

I love when you guys go off into Civil War fantasies, and use the same fallacies as the South did in the real Civil War.

We can make our own stuff.
They'll get tired of shooting us.
We'll win because we want to.

6 years later, you get burning plantations, and welfare.

+1

Now see, that's a good argument.

But the situation is much different. Today there are no neat lines with states succeeding. When you have that, you can declare everyone across a line to be enemy combatants or supporters of the enemy. In todays situation you wouldn't have that. It would be an insurgency. Totally different. Very similar to the American Revolution, hell a lot of the arguments are the same.

[Smitty-48]

Counterinsurgency now is far more sophisticated in terms of supression, it's extremely difficult to achieve a decisive victory in a war amongst the people, but it's not so hard to render insurgents from a threat to a nuisance, essentially make them irrelevant, maybe you can't fully win in a counterinsurgency, but you can damn well make sure the insurgents don't win, and you can make it a truly miserable slog for them along the way.

It's like Northern Ireland, the Insurgents didn't win, the British didn't withdraw, the six counties did not join the republic, and the Unionists still run the province, the British simply waited the PIRA out, rendered them irrelevant in the end.

If you look at what the piss n' vinegar PIRA thought they were going to achieve in 1970, and what they actually achieved after thirty years of misery? They achieved nothing, all they got for their Troubles, was a mouthful of rocks, on a street without joy.

The story of insurgencies, is a story of failure, because most of them fail miserably; FARC, Shining Path, Tamil Tigers, the Contras, the Huk, the Indian Maoists, Kashmiris, and Sikhs, the Moro, the MEK, Malaya, Kenya, Dhofar, Aden, Oman, Ulster, Kurdistan, Bahrain, Palestine, etcetera, etcetera.

People who fantasize about insurgency tend to focus of the tiny exceptions to the rule, while ignoring the vast ocean of failure which is insurgency. Americans fantasize about it because all they know is the American Revolution, but the American revolutionaries called that victory "the Miracle", and with good reason, because it was a tiny exception, not the rule.

Meanwhile, the biggest insurgency in the history of America? Actually the Native Americans, and whatever happened to them? Oh yeah, that's right, they were wiped out.

The Prepper Bubbas fantasize about it, because they assume that they would be the Minutemen, when in reality, much more likely that they would be the Sioux. What? You say youse as hard as an Apache warrior? That's pretty hard, no doubt, but then again, how'd that work out for them?

[SuburbanFarmer]

It's pretty hard to run and hide without a natural obstacle. The plains of the midwest are not the jungles of Vietnam, or mountains of Afghanistan.

[Smitty-48]

Well, the Viet Cong were just as elusive down in the Mekong Delta as they were up in the Central Highlands, so you don't actually have to have triple canopy rainforest, because the Mekong Delta is as flat as a pancake and there's no jungle there, you just have to be masters of camouflage and concealment, to hide in plain sight.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's pretty hard to run and hide without a natural obstacle. The plains of the midwest are not the jungles of Vietnam, or mountains of Afghanistan.

Algeria was more difficult..

Insurgencies usually hide in the population. The camoflague is just plain sight. Grey man rules in play.

[Smitty-48]

The Jungle/Mountain thing in Vietnam was more about concealing entire NVA divisions with huge logistics tails, the VC could actually hide anywhere, they were right under the American's noses the whole time. They had tunnel complexes dug right under the American bases.

Main Force VC, you're not talking about a handful of guys hiding out in the local village, they had whole battalions hiding in plain sight, they just underground complexes beneath their fighting positions. It was tip o' the iceberg effect, most of it was lying in wait beneath the surface.

The Americans actually did a pretty comprehensive job of defoliating the lowlands, but even after they stripped the canopy off, much to their chagrin, there was still nothing to see. The lowlands in Vietnam; not actually that jungly, in a lot of places, it's rolling savannah, not that diffrerent from the American west.

[DBTrek]

Not to mention the Apache lived in the mountains of New Mexico, not the Great Plains of the Midwest.

[Smitty-48]

But even the Sioux up in the Black Hills, they could disappear on the plains, they were elusive as all get out, with no top cover at all.

Didn't matter tho, because the Americans were not beating them tactically, Little Big Horn didn't amount to a hill o' beans in the end.