Fear, Anxiety and Doomscrolling

DarkNoon

Power Poster
To even further develop the impact of the second amendment.
the argument that it was written during the age of muzzle loading weapons and logic would dictate citizens should not have high capacity firearms.
The second amendment was written when most people owned the same caliber rate of fire and lethality of any army in the world.
including if it could be afforded cannon fire.
there were no restrictions made or implied.
consequently their should be no restrictions on citizens who have no criminal history the right to own comparable military firearms.
It’s a matter of parity.
the citizens vote is neutered if there is no threat of force behind it.
Absolutely! If your background clears you should be able to own anything and everything from grenades, launchers, high powered assault rifles, and more.

It's the arming of US citizens that truly protects our sovereignty and integrity in the very end of any drastic scenario...
 

Obreid

Power Poster
To even further develop the impact of the second amendment.
the argument that it was written during the age of muzzle loading weapons and logic would dictate citizens should not have high capacity firearms.
The second amendment was written when most people owned the same caliber rate of fire and lethality of any army in the world.
including if it could be afforded cannon fire.
there were no restrictions made or implied.
consequently their should be no restrictions on citizens who have no criminal history the right to own comparable military firearms.
It’s a matter of parity.
the citizens vote is neutered if there is no threat of force behind it.
The American politician needs a certain amount of fear and certain duty to the American citizen.
casual oaths given don’t seem to be sufficient
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Absolutely! If your background clears you should be able to own anything and everything from grenades, launchers, high powered assault rifles, and more.

It's the arming of US citizens that truly protects our sovereignty and integrity in the very end of any drastic scenario...

simpatico!​

 

DarkNoon

Power Poster
The American politician needs a certain amount of fear and certain duty to the American citizen.
casual oaths given don’t seem to be sufficient
Yes like I said arming of the American people in the end protects our sovereignty and integrity weather from our own government or foriegn adversaries. Which makes any take over of the Ameircan people affar from enemies or near from our own government logistically impossible.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Absolutely! If your background clears you should be able to own anything and everything from grenades, launchers, high powered assault rifles, and more.

It's the arming of US citizens that truly protects our sovereignty and integrity in the very end of any drastic scenario...
Self government voting and civic involvement is dangerous and consequential to all of our lives.
Im in no way advocating for imminent revolution or taking up of arms against the government. If and when that time will be self-evident.
But government and politics is the application of civic will and force normally by the elected government.
when however the government fails in their charge to faithfully execute the public will and discharge their constitutional duties there needs to be sufficient threat of citizen force to coerces or remove them.
The underwriter of the constitution and government is the citizen, not the document.

When events arise where laws and court dictates subvert the will of the people it is the people right and duty to remove and nullify those dictates.
The right and ability of the local populace to physically remove is that underwriter.
As I said self government is messy and the more the elected and government official has justified fear and respect of the electorate the better they will execute their duties.

As it is today we see politicians and gov officials too often act with impunity to enrich themselves or forward unpopular agendas.
If respect can not given then fear of significant reprisal needs to coerce them to act in the best interest of the citizen.
That is why force of arms must always be a part of American Democracy.

If you can’t push or fight back then you are a neutered dog who will always bow to the whip. or simply immaterial, disenfranchised, incarcerated or dead.
Its the history of the world.

That what I believe Jefferson meant when he said:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

This idea of armed civic rebellion is neutered and criminalized in America specifically to take that ultimate power and responsibility from the people.
Like I said it’s a dirty messy business governing ones self.
 
Last edited:

Saguenay

Member
In my opinion, your weapons will be used to kill you if a foreign army invades the USA. Imagine, a general telling you this:
you give us your weapon or we deprive you of electricity, water and food, moreover, we have planes to burn down your house. The Russians are experts in the politics of scorching earth.
 

DarkNoon

Power Poster
you give us your weapon or we deprive you of electricity, water and food, moreover
Lmao the people would already have nothing, no food, no water, no power. Only way a foriegn force could even REMOTELY attempt such a fate would be after a earth ending event.

So your point is invalid as those things would of already been taken away through all out war. So no I do not see at all what your implying.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
In my opinion, your weapons will be used to kill you if a foreign army invades the USA. Imagine, a general telling you this:
you give us your weapon or we deprive you of electricity, water and food, moreover, we have planes to burn down your house. The Russians are experts in the politics of scorching earth.
Shit I just don’t get it, is their nothing worth fighting for?
By your leave your lordship
 

ralfy

Member
Lastly there is a gun behind every blade of grass in America. If not the military the US people themselves make it also impossible to invade. In fact half of the ENTIRE worlds private gun ownership is in US of A. There are more guns than people in America. That makes ANY invasion and or occupation impossible alone. Many other solid reasons why its impossible to invade America and that is a big one.

God bless Merica as some folks say. Lol
But there's no reason for countries like China to invade the U.S. as it gains without even doing so. More important, they are both major trading partners of each other, and conflict between the two would be disastrous for both.

Also, what are the reasons why gun ownership is so high? From what I gathered, it's not because of fears of invasion but of criminals, and with some believing that small arms empowers them against "tyranny," i.e, what they think is an oppressive U.S. government.

Of course, you may have have just been making fun of "muhricans" foolish enough to imagine that they're arming themselves against an invasion, which explains your last line.
 

ralfy

Member
I agree except for a large emp attack scenario and that is still a questionable one. One is, realistically how successful would multiple emp detonations be. An emp would be like any other bomb. Yeah it would detonate, yeah it would do damage. But would it produce the damage on large enough scale to sufficiently destabilize the nation.
And even still it wouldn’t negate much of the military response.
Chinas army is touted as a million man. Transporting just one whole division across the ocean by boat of plane is an impossibility unless the US military would be completely destroyed. That’s a reach.
I still maintain we are already in a asymmetric war with several nations and that front is already being fought with in our boarders.
Their is a concerted effort to infiltrate laws, cultures, and social systems within the US. Money flows into the nations political dialogue through Charatable foundations and universities to effect our populations political religious and cultural loyalties.

You can argue that but in my opinion it’s already on, and this is the real threat.

China does not have a military that can engage in long-distance, massive invasions, and likely has no reason to do so because that would bankrupt it. In contrast, the U.S. relies on the world to use the dollar as a reserve currency, which is why it can borrow and spend heavily not only on its very expensive military but even on the economy itself. That's why borrowing and spending across the board has been rising from 1982 to the present:


leading to debts now totaling around $70 trillion, not including over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Much of that money is being fueled by the richest in the U.S. and in the world through financial speculation, leading to a global unregulated derivatives market with a notional value of over $1 quadrillion. Only $1 trillion of that through subprime lending was enough to bring the U.S., and the world, to their knees back in 2008, leading to over a decade of weak economic growth, and for the U.S. necessitating bailouts of the same rich which the GAO estimates at over $16 trillion, and passed on to the same gullible public.

That's why global reliance on the U.S. dollar is critical for the U.S., as that's the only way it can continue borrowing and spending heavily. In order to ensure that, it has to use the same borrowing and spending to pay for the most expensive military in the world and attempt to surround countries like Russia and China and coerce weaker nations using over 800 military bases and installations worldwide.

The problem is that it's no longer working, as the same dependents on the U.S. dollar have become stronger thanks ironically to the same arrangement. And many of them--Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and over forty countries--have slowly moved away from being dependent on the U.S. by eagerly engaging in bilateral trade with each other, establishing economic blocs, etc.

Given that, more will realize that the real threat to the U.S. isn't China or any country that politicians from Reagan to Biden consider its "enemy" (esp. given the fact that the U.S. has been eagerly trading with and dealing with the same "enemies" for decades) but itself.
 

ralfy

Member
This is why I am a huge supporter of the second amendment to bear arms. It's that simple law that made America impossible to invade. Our ancestors here in America know that the Military can only do so much and that if the American people where armed or majority, would make any invasion just logistically impossible for a foriegn adversary.

Also that is why the American government has never tried any funny business against it's people. American people have the guns and power to stop and destroy any and all American Government Take overs of life.
I knew it! It was not so much about invasion as fear of one's own government plus crime that prompts personal small arms possession.

As for the Second, what's notable about that is that it had three purposes: to defend the right to bear arms which is illogical as that right is a natural one (i.e., the right to self-defense), to allow the states to arm themselves through the formation of militias (and that time, used by some for slave patrols), and to use the same militias to serve the federal government when needed (as seen in Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution as well as the Militia Acts). The problem is that by the time of the War of 1812, the country realized that the amendment was outdated, and that it had to form standing armies because wars engaged mass (and later mechanized, and even specialized, i.e., using long-range sea and even air power) forces. That's why militias were replaced by the National Guard (which uses not only small arms but even things like tanks, aircraft with bombs, missiles, artillery, etc.) and mandatory service (most don't know that the Militia Acts called for that) by the Selective Service System, where male citizens are merely asked to register.

Add to that growing numbers of Americans who are obese, and if the Pentagon is right, large numbers of American youth who are not fit even for military service due to health issues and vices, not to mention only a few days of supplies in each town and city (not just ammo but also food, fuel, medicine, and more) and one wonders if the U.S. gov't will even need to try any funny business against its people, as U.S. Big Business and the people themselves as consumers have been accomplishing that for decades.
 

ralfy

Member
Oh sure yeah a EMP attack would destroy the fabric of America. BUT GUNS DON'T STOP WORKING in a EMP.

The amount of guns the American people own still make any scenario impossible for a foriegn country to invade or occupy. Even after a EMP, nuclear, bio, or chemical war.
Think of it in light of this article:


That is, because of significant levels of narcissism and self-entitlement, drug use, vices, obesity and other health problems, being surrounded by violence, etc., not to mention only a few days' worth of supplies in many places, what's the possibility that the same people will use the same guns against each other as they fight over those goods? Isn't that what we've been seeing in several parts of the country even without an invasion?
 

ralfy

Member
Absolutely hands down your right. BUT it's the American people who run the government in reality not a foriegn adversary no matter how hard they try.

Even if the US government rolled over no Country would be able to occupy America because US citizens themselves are more armed than most countries!
What's more likely is that the government is run by members of both political parties and career officials who work in favor of various rich people and private corporations.

About U.S. citizens prepared to fight, according to the same military, even most U.S. youth are not physically fit to do so:


because of three reasons: obesity, no high school diploma, and with criminal records. Worse, they also argue that most are not eligible for many careers for the same reasons.

This mirrors the earlier article I shared, which argues that riots in the U.S. will be bad because many are not healthy and take drugs, are brainwashed by entertainment which promotes narcissism and entitlement, and are plagued by vices ranging from gambling to taking drugs.

Given that, one gets this feeling that the major enemy of the U.S. isn't China or any other country but itself.
 

MikeG

Member
@DarkNoon @DEFCON Warning System As I was looking again through the article and one of the recent podcasts Nyquist did, his sources inside China have stated that the window is anywhere from now until October, pushed up from later this decade due to the CCP's concerns over Covid investigations. Nyquist discusses unconventional methods such as introducing a new virus, taking out the power grid to hopefully spark off mass riots, blinding command and control to remove the technological advantages we have or preventing our sub captains from firing retaliatory strikes, etc. They also discuss the theory that China has already smuggled equipment into the US, Canada, Mexico, and that there are plenty of PLA troops already here - in universities, etc. Is this type of trojan horse scenario plausible?
 

Obreid

Power Poster
@DarkNoon @DEFCON Warning System As I was looking again through the article and one of the recent podcasts Nyquist did, his sources inside China have stated that the window is anywhere from now until October, pushed up from later this decade due to the CCP's concerns over Covid investigations. Nyquist discusses unconventional methods such as introducing a new virus, taking out the power grid to hopefully spark off mass riots, blinding command and control to remove the technological advantages we have or preventing our sub captains from firing retaliatory strikes, etc. They also discuss the theory that China has already smuggled equipment into the US, Canada, Mexico, and that there are plenty of PLA troops already here - in universities, etc. Is this type of trojan horse scenario plausible?
Parts of it are, parts not.
cyber attack, escalated espionage, continued questionable bioethics abuses or “possibly” release. Those are all possible.
It mostly will just be because of continued sweet heart deals for politicians or political supporters.
In today’s Global economic environment Those institutions or donors who directly benefit from Chinas or any other nations influence buying in my mind are no longer American. They’ve already changed their allegiances to another nation. By the definition of citizenship you modify your behaviors and actions to the betterment of the nation to which you are a citizen, not another.


The notion that there are somehow significant hostiles in the US to initiate and wage a war of conquest is where I become skeptical.
Are or could there be hostile actors in the country to initiate industrial and infrastructure attacks? That’s defiantly on the table.

That’s the danger of asymmetric warfare. It is to carry out the conflict where the frog doesn’t even recognize the temperature the waters getting hotter and hotter.
Those that get rich because of another nations largess have already jumped out of the kettle.

The conflict is already on. It’s just not a conventional one where bombs are flying and MEU’s are being sent to Taiwan to thwart an imminent chines invasion.

It’s just like the collapse of the USSR. No major battles were ever fought. The US just kept upping the anti to the point the USSR had to fold at least for the near term.
Americans refuse to believe or cannot accept the same thing is being done to us.
The CCP corrupts US politicians and public dialogue just as much as large corporations and 1%’s do.
In some cases their one in the same.
Contrary to what some might argue the CCP is just as much a corporation with executives as is Amazon or Microsoft. The CCP just owns their own nation.
Some will argue that but centralized power is just that centralized power.
Call it what you will.
All those who talk about secret battalions of UN troops or Russian or chines troops in the country do the conflict no benefit. Spy’s or terrorist sure it’s a given their probably here.
but army’s of conquest? That just not how this war is being fought.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
Is this type of trojan horse scenario plausible?
Possible? Sure? Likely? Nah.

Certainly not out of the blue, as in a Chinese first strike. China has too much to lose.

Now if the US and China go to war, certainly China can make the US' life miserable. The US has too many vulnerabilities.

But in a shooting war, China will lose as long as the US fights the war to win. Problem is, the US hasn't been very good at that recently.
 

DarkNoon

Power Poster
Possible? Sure? Likely? Nah.

Certainly not out of the blue, as in a Chinese first strike. China has too much to lose.

Now if the US and China go to war, certainly China can make the US' life miserable. The US has too many vulnerabilities.

But in a shooting war, China will lose as long as the US fights the war to win. Problem is, the US hasn't been very good at that recently.
China has enough nukes to make any war end in hours. Same for the US. So won't be much of any war if the US and China go at it.

Lastly PLEASE don't make believe that a real war between China and US won't go nuclear right away because it will just like any other nuclear nation potentially facing off.
 
Last edited:

DarkNoon

Power Poster
China has enough nukes to make any war end in hours. Same for the US. So won't be much of any war if the US and China go at it.

Lastly PLEASE don't make believe that a real war between China and US won't go nuclear right away because it will just like any other nuclear nation potentially facing off.
There is no point of thinking if China or Russia could invade us, or take us over, or anything in between because any conflict between nuclear nations end in that nuclear war.

After a nuclear war even alone with China or Russia it's over. There will be no government (at least one to govern), no structural military command, no nothing for a long time for either nation in a nuclear war.
 

DarkNoon

Power Poster
There is no point of thinking if China or Russia could invade us, or take us over, or anything in between because any conflict between nuclear nations end in that nuclear war.

After a nuclear war even alone with China or Russia it's over. There will be no government (at least one to govern), no structural military command, no nothing for a long time for either nation in a nuclear war.
The whole entire reasoning behind nuclear weapons in the world today (& cold war) is a country would rather die free and destroy itself in the process of engaging in nuclear war than be taken over by the enemy.
 

MikeG

Member
Thanks guys for your replies and insight. I’ve been reading a lot lately (probably too much) about the different asymmetrical warfare possibilities and outcomes. These analyses never consider things such as “what might go wrong with the CCP and/or Russian plan?” Will the EMP attack be effective? Will all the missiles work? Will America respond the way they assume we will? Lots of unknowns, and communists have a long sordid history of over planning and overplaying their cards. It’s a scary time right now for sure regardless.
 
Top