Ah. THIS IS WHY the left demands to stop Americans gun ownership

[MLD Woody]

No... it's not. I have the elevation maps posted. It's right their. The "entire Eastern 1/4th of the country" is very clearly not mountainous. 

 

I get people are real passionate about their right to own guns, but if it gets to the point we can't even agree on the known geography of the US, then it's not worth the back and forth.

 

Afghanistan is very clearly a much more difficult place to traverse than the US. This aids in the ability of local militia type groups to sustain against more advanced foreign troops. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

No comparison.  I actually agree with Woody.

[TexasAg1969]

7 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

No comparison.  I actually agree with Woody.

Oh Sheet. The Apocalypse is here!

[The Cysko Kid]

Then you are Retarded. Everything from Colorado to Central California is full on snow capped mountains up to 13,000+ feet. His assertion is that guerrilla warfare wouldn't be possible here and that is flat out wrong. It's already happened in at least two wars. The South also employed it quite frequently in the civil war. 

My point was never that America and Afghanistan were exactly alike. What he's doing is what he constantly accuses Steve of doing and that's arguing something entirely different than what I said. If you think a conventional army - American, Russian or otherwise would be able to easily conquer the country you are plain out Retarded. End of story. 

[The Cysko Kid]

Also Afghanistan is 250,000 and change square miles. That's about the same as Colorado and California.   Two large states to be sure, but America is vast. 

[The Cysko Kid]

Also we can safely point out that guerrilla warfare worked in Iraq, syria and Vietnam. Iraq and syria both have small ranges of mountains and are largely desert otherwise. Vietnam's highest elevation is 10,000 or so feet which is considerably lower than the Rockies at 14,000 feet but that's a moot point. Wars don't take place at the summits of mountains but in the surrounding terrain. That's just wars America has failed to win with overwhelming military force in our lifetimes. Chechnya has also waged a bloody and prolonged guerrilla war against the vastly technologically superior Russian forces in their territory. His point is that armed civilians could never resist the might of the us military is a logical fallacy given the many examples of that exact thing happening in our lifetimes. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Disagree.  We defeated Iraq.  Afghanistan has had stupid rules of engagement until Trump took over.  Vietnam was a political nightmare but could have been won with the support of the American people.  We won most of the battles (many of which were from the conventional NVA) which were some crazy mother Schmuckers.

 

[The Cysko Kid]

We ended up fleeing Saigon in helicopters while NVA rolled down the streets. We didn't win Vietnam the battles we did win simply drove the guerrilla war forward. I understand that you may have served there so you have an emotional investment to it. 

 

We didn't conquer Iraq. We defeated their regular army. Iraq is still a mess. Obama cut and ran on the Iraqi people we had an obligation to protect since we destabilized them in the first place. Life for them is arguably worse now than before we went. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

We had withdrawn from Vietnam in January of 1973.  We had only some advisors and the Marine Embassy guard Vietnam when the NVA took over which was in 1975.

[MLD Woody]

3 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

No comparison.  I actually agree with Woody.

...

 

... 

 

 

Screw you?

....?

[MLD Woody]

3 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Then you are Retarded. Everything from Colorado to Central California is full on snow capped mountains up to 13,000+ feet. His assertion is that guerrilla warfare wouldn't be possible here and that is flat out wrong. It's already happened in at least two wars. The South also employed it quite frequently in the civil war. 

My point was never that America and Afghanistan were exactly alike. What he's doing is what he constantly accuses Steve of doing and that's arguing something entirely different than what I said. If you think a conventional army - American, Russian or otherwise would be able to easily conquer the country you are plain out Retarded. End of story. 

The gap in firepower between a country's military and the common man was much smaller during the Civil War than now. 

 

The USA's size would be an obstacle, no doubt. 

[The Cysko Kid]

The average citizen did not have repeating rifles in the civil war much less artillery, cannon or Gatling guns. 

[calfoxwc]

3 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

The gap in firepower between a country's military and the common man was much smaller during the Civil War than now. 

 

The USA's size would be an obstacle, no doubt. 

but the gap doesn't matter. It's still guerilla warfare - small group vs small group - subterfuge - two resistance fighters in a war, could kill two russian guards and toss hand grenades into a jet's engines.

They could flood a hanger full of advanced radar equipment/drones/etc with gasoline, and get back and set the hangar on fire.

French resistance, etc etc etc. It isn't a matter of three hundred, scattered resistance fighters fighting a squadron of fighter jets and attack helicopters. It's maybe four resistance fighters eventually killing on of the nazi commanders/sgts...

or finding out where the russian pilots stay, and kill them. "red dawn" is just a silly movie. but in the event of something like that actually happening ("der"), guerilla warfare is powerful in a justified defense vs an enemy that has attacked and oppressed militarily.

[MLD Woody]

4 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

The average citizen did not have repeating rifles in the civil war much less artillery, cannon or Gatling guns. 

And how would you compare that gap to what the average gun owning citizen has today vs tanks, stealth jets, unmanned drones, etc

[Westside Steve]

39 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

And how would you compare that gap to what the average gun owning citizen has today vs tanks, stealth jets, unmanned drones, etc

It's probably more important what was readily available after the Revolutionary War. Decades or centuries later don't count. The average person probably won't have the starship in 2788.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

50 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

It's probably more important what was readily available after the Revolutionary War. Decades or centuries later don't count. The average person probably won't have the starship in 2788.

WSS

No... The whole point is looking at how this argument sticks today. That's what I'm asking. I realized it worked in the past.

[Westside Steve]

59 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

No... The whole point is looking at how this argument sticks today. That's what I'm asking. I realized it worked in the past.

Yes and we've had discussions before and pretty much agreed that like it or not a lot of the freedoms that used to be important might seem to be outdated today. You know my opinion of the Second Amendment and I think it's already on the scrap Heap because of that very thing.

Another one to consider, and I'm not being facetious, is freedom of speech. Before the Revolution the British were arresting Americans who were preaching to overthrow the Brits. Imagine if we actually had groups seriously trying to overthrow the US government today.

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

22 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

And how would you compare that gap to what the average gun owning citizen has today vs tanks, stealth jets, unmanned drones, etc

Again all this stuff and more is being used in Syria and the insurgents have ak-47s and the occasional rpg. It's still going on. 

[MLD Woody]

2 hours ago, The Cysko Kid said:

Again all this stuff and more is being used in Syria and the insurgents have ak-47s and the occasional rpg. It's still going on. 

But are those things covered under the 2nd amendment?

[Westside Steve]

27 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

But are those things covered under the 2nd amendment?

Are they considered "arms?"

WSS

[TexasAg1969]

On 2/1/2018 at 5:50 PM, Westside Steve said:

Imagine if we actually had groups seriously trying to overthrow the US government today.

WSS

It's called the White House.

(low hanging fruit tastes best) LOL!

[calfoxwc]

yes, we DO have groups of leftist deep state sombeietches trying to overthrow the WH.

[Westside Steve]

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

It's called the White House.

(low hanging fruit tastes best) LOL!

Of course that's right. We all want a changed the change didn't we? Except for anybody who was actually a devotee of Hillary which I kind of doubt.

 

And even number of them were just voting on a sexist basis to get a woman into the White House, even 1 as distasteful as her.

 

WSS