The military already has plans for gun owners

Yea, you got me there. Like "Global Warming" I have lost faith in the term "Gun Control". I guess it's a miracle we have the level of control in place now. Though like any other government project, it's a victim of bureaucratic apathy.

I still think Maniac Control is a better use of resources.

 

Mine got charges in strip malls. For bad checks. He had a "system".

 

I understand and suggest ignoring me.

 

Yeeeahhh!

 

Not really, If this was true there would not be the backlash over guns such as the Ar-15 and changes in their legality. The maker of this gun said it's not for hunting what it's for is combat. The NRA fights over guns that have a purpose and it's not deer. They frame as either "because I can" or "it's for the deer I swear".

You hunt with guns like I use a bong for tobacco. There are things you say to outsiders or to walk a thin legal line when the user of the gun knows damn well why he wants the gun he does.

Explain why you need a Ar-15 to hunt or bump stocks. Why the need to fire a whole clip at one animal that fast? One good shot kills.

Or maybe bullets which penetrate the average police body armor just to hunt. The guns good for hunting are not good for war. This is why the Marines have guns not sold in the sport section of Walmart. Also why it's very important to gun owners to hang on to what they have now legally. You already know you are outgunned by the military and it makes you nervous.

The true purpose of the 2nd amendment is a power to the people to make war. Odd you would deny that. Everyone hunted at the time it was written there was no need to have a law for that. They wanted laws that stop kings.

This is true the 2nd amendment is an illusion but it's an illusion people use in a dangerous way now to kill other Americans.

 

I second this.

I'm sorry, but it seems you often start clear and serious in a serious convo but when someone asks sincerely for an explanation (what do you mean/what's your point/what did you base it on) you seem to deliberately go the vague (or humorous) route.
I don't mind a joke or more at all (and if i did that would be on me ). But when its used to excuse yourself from explaining a serious made assertion its a lame tactic. Same with simply refuting with 'just ignore me then'.

You started making a point in earnest. Why not try to back it up or follow through with it when your convo partner(s) respond with a question? Hope you will do more often in the future (as the questions will keep coming)

 

Relax. Being in law enforcement, I understand the difference completely. Because of this I also understand that blanket statements, such as the one you made, are false. Explosives are not illegal for private citizens to own.

 

How is it an illusion?

 

Because most major militias already have high ranking officials which are goverment plants. These are the men the others will look to for orders. They will be given orders which put them in the line of the fire of the military. They already tell the actual military anything you do. There are many attacks from white Republicans which never happen now due to this. My friend claims he worked on 2 different missions where Obama would have died had they not been there. They really hated the guy.

Also the nature of a militia means they will not be able to work as a team in the way the military can. They trust no one but the few people they live close to. And these militias will fight each other more than the military. Each will think everyone else is part of the goverment. This is the psychological warfare that the CIA does so well. They don't need to shoot you. Your idea of only you being the true "patriot" go a long way.

This does not even consider the bio-weapons and mind control drugs the US goverment has. You stand no chance. You told them everything they need to know and you don't even think they exist. Who is the smarter one? If your enemy is making an error do not correct them as the Art of War says.

 

@MeAgain, I appreciate you taking the time and effort to clarify your statement. It is much appreciated.

 

Proof please.

 

So this nut case, Norm Olson , is a government plant? We drove him out of Michigan and he moved to Alaska and now heads, or did, the militia there.

Is Alaska's most notorious militiaman under the lens?

 

I will fax their documents over to you.

How do you think I would prove this? Put 2 and 2 together. They openly plan war it's just logical that intelligence will notice this. As I've said in this thread it's a community that distrusts anyone they don't live next door to and large organization of a group in general. Their philosophy is one of personal reliance. These are the people who trust the man they think lives next door to him. A farm in the country is many miles apart. It's not that much of a stretch to believe people live where they don't. If you see them in town they must live there.

If you don't see this you just prove everything I have been told and everything I have seen in person. For example in my case no one asked about my background. The kind that I show here that shows I am not one of you. All that was needed was basically a "he's cool" and I heard plans for how their free stare will be defended. Plans that could help me kill their members if I wished to. They thought I hated Obama too and I was white that was enough. What I never hear is a real military plan since I'm not a Marine. Why is that do you think?

This is how undercover cops make busts. They trick people. You think the CIA does not do this?

Look back at my Art of War comment of lawn mower analogy. You are the child who is "helping". The enemy who makes a mistake not corrected. To not admit this means you have too much pride to win a war since you don't admit the power of your enemy. Something they count on and they do see your limited power for minor terrorism. Only you are smart right? And of course the government is too corupt and ineffective to do anything. You keep on thinking that.

 

Youre like the Alex Jones of the website .. I dont know where you come up with this, but its comedy gold. Sad you're wasting it. You should open a youtube channel.

 

I sometimes see him as the exact opposite of 6-eyed. They both charge their points often to the point the convo mainly goes about nuancing the initial point to the extent we can actually talk about that without losing ourselves in stereotypes and generalized outlooks. Which unfortunately remains worthwile to do if it distorts the exact truth and thus also how we approach the issue/topic.

I of course see the use in charging and exaggerating, especially in the thread title. It attracts and triggers potential convo partners much faster. But yeah, is it really worth it if every thread is for at lesst 50% about correcting the charged points and arguments (which just is needed when they ruin a supposedly serious discussion ftom the start), and people get annoyed and pissy about others thinking and argumenting in distorted truths (very understandable).
At some point most other forummers will conclude then such a topic starter can't possibly be entirely serious.
To add: both users also make solid topics and arguments. But yeah, they both lose themselves in extremes a little too often.

 

So

So basically it’s a whole bunch of conjecture.

 

With a 6/3 Republican SCOTUS, I cannot see anything changing much, and I VERY much doubt that 2 million soldiers are going to take on 100 million gun owners with 300 million weapons, and 3000 million rounds of ammo.

Their battle cry is "You want 'em, you come and get 'em".