Actually, M.T.G. may be right.

[luke]

From: https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1627665203398688768
< QUOTE >
We need a national divorce.
We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the
federal government.
Everyone I talk to says this.
From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our
throats to the Democrat’s traitorous America Last policies, we are
done.
< /QUOTE >
"Democrats'", Marjorie. She must have been having a "blonde moment"?.
I guess she also forgot that Georgia is, technically speaking, a "blue
state"?
But I think we may as well admit we're there. The problem is, were we
going to split, we'd have done so in 1860 when we had sharply drawn
(proposed) national borders. Now, we have red and blue states mixed
and very little homogeneity. (E.g.: Illinois is red, but Chicago is
deep blue.)
But, sooner or later, we are going to have to take up the assault
rifles. It will probably be a blood bath; however, it will be no
lesser of one if we wait ten years. It isn't a done deal that we
*can* abolish assault weapons; however, we abolished slavery and that
was roughly an equally difficult task. I should add that we also
killed the better part of a generation of Americans, so neither side
should take it lightly.
You'd think that we could reach a compromise position before blood
runs in the streets; however, this appears unlikely in the current
philosophical environment. In 1860, it was more understandable
because slavery is not an area in which there can be compromise...
it's all or nothing.
Let's just admit that compromise is impossible... unless positions
soften. I believe we are on the brink of a social implosion. In
that, I agree with MTG. I disagree with her that this will be a
positive experience... I have seen a war and it is *not* fun.

You haven't seen a war that you won. You're a surrender monkey. If you
don't get shot in the first 10 minutes of firing, you'll throw up your
hands and hide until the shooting stops.

[!Jones]

On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 19:53:54 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns luke

Post by luke
You haven't seen a war that you won.

You got that shit right, piggy!

We got our asses handed to us in Vietnam. By 1967, Americans were a
completely different people than the lean, hungery men who waded
ashore on Omaha Beach. By '67, we were all cheeseburger-fed children
of plenty who were used to having everything we wanted given to us
free. Our parents went through the Great Depression, so they wanted
us to have the *best*.

Now, in 2024, here you are... so fat you can barely waddle, but with
an AR-15 on your shoulder.

You are aware that guns have very little to do with the outcome of a
war, right pig-pie? We had guns out the gazoo in da'Nam.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Post by !Jones
You are aware that guns have very little to do with the outcome of a
war, right pig-pie?

Then you're against leftists referring to AR-15's as "weapons of war,"
since they're not.

[Scout]

Post by Klaus Schadenfreude

Post by !Jones
You are aware that guns have very little to do with the outcome of a
war, right pig-pie?

Then you're against leftists referring to AR-15's as "weapons of war,"
since they're not.

Further if guns have little to do with the outcome of the war why does EVERY
government involved in war want more of them?

[!Jones]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 07:21:42 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"

Post by Scout
Further if guns have little to do with the outcome of the war why does EVERY
government involved in war want more of them?

Wars aren't won or lost by guns... they're the easy part. You gotta
be able to move tonnage quickly... massive quantities of *everything*.

Without the cargo vehicles, it all stops.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

Post by !Jones
On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 07:21:42 -0500, in talk.politics.guns "Scout"

Post by Scout
Further if guns have little to do with the outcome of the war why does EVERY
government involved in war want more of them?

Wars aren't won or lost by guns... they're the easy part. You gotta
be able to move tonnage quickly... massive quantities of *everything*.
Without the cargo vehicles, it all stops.

And the point sails over Jones' head and shits on him.

[LBJ killed JFK]

Post by !Jones
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 19:53:54 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns luke

Post by luke
You haven't seen a war that you won.

You got that shit right, piggy!
We got our asses handed to us in Vietnam.

Because of Democrat pussies and Jane Fonda types. If the gloves had been
off the rules of engagement, Vietnam would be an American territory in SE
Asia.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 07:52:01 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns LBJ

Post by LBJ killed JFK
Because of Democrat pussies and Jane Fonda types. If the gloves had been
off the rules of engagement, Vietnam would be an American territory in SE
Asia.

I'm not chasing you down that rat hole; you simply don't know what
you're talking about.

1) Jane Fonda traveled to Vietnam in July of '72. (I was working for
Air America out of Vung Tau at the time.) The U.S. combat troops had
mostly folded their tents and headed home by then. Other than an
embarrassing photo-op for the U.S., she had no effect whatsoever.
(Rich little hippy chicks from Bell Air make dismally poor AAA
gunners.)

2) In '68, there wasn't the deep philosophical divide between the
Democrats and Republicans that we have in effect today. The idea of a
compromise still existed. LBJ and Tricky both ratcheted up the US
commitment.

3) In order to have taken the "gloves" any further off, we'd had to
have used tactical nukes. Operation "Fracture Jaw" (1968) actually
proposed using them. (The navy had nukes on ships just off shore.)

The outcome of a war is seldom ever so trite.

[a425couple]

Post by !Jones
On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 07:52:01 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns LBJ

Post by LBJ killed JFK
Because of Democrat pussies and Jane Fonda types. If the gloves had been
off the rules of engagement, Vietnam would be an American territory in SE
Asia.

I'm not chasing you down that rat hole; you simply don't know what
you're talking about. ----
2) ---- LBJ and Tricky both ratcheted up the US commitment.
----

So, Jones is again lying out his ass.

When asshole dog ear pulling LBJ / POTUS Johnson took office
the USA had around 20,000 troops in Vietnam.

Then the asshole uncaring bully jerk started incrementally
pushing more and more of our nations finest into what he
made with his 'rules of engagement' a meat grinder.
Month after month he increased the count.
It went up well over 520,000 of our fine troops.
And, then LBJ finally admitted he did not have any answer.
36,000 of our youth dead, and he did not have an answer.

When Richard Nixon became POTUS there were around 500,000
troops in country and with the first year Nixon began
the Vietnamization and started month after month pulling
units and troops out. He got a Peace Treaty signed,
got the 591 known POWs back, and got us totally out.

Very clearly, LBJ put troops in to die, and Nixon got
us out.

[!Jones]

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 19:28:34 -0700, in talk.politics.guns a425couple

Post by a425couple
So, Jones is again lying out his ass.

I'll be happy to read anything you have to say whenever you adopt a
civil tone of voice. Until that happens, I can't hear you.

[Walt]

Post by a425couple

Post by !Jones
On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 07:52:01 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns LBJ

Post by LBJ killed JFK
Because of Democrat pussies and Jane Fonda types. If the gloves had

been

Post by !Jones

Post by LBJ killed JFK
off the rules of engagement, Vietnam would be an American territory

in SE

Post by !Jones

Post by LBJ killed JFK
Asia.

I'm not chasing you down that rat hole; you simply don't know what
you're talking about. ----
2) ---- LBJ and Tricky both ratcheted up the US commitment.
----

So, Jones is again lying out his ass.
When asshole dog ear pulling LBJ / POTUS Johnson took office
the USA had around 20,000 troops in Vietnam.
Then the asshole uncaring bully jerk started incrementally
pushing more and more of our nations finest into what he
made with his 'rules of engagement' a meat grinder.
Month after month he increased the count.
It went up well over 520,000 of our fine troops.
And, then LBJ finally admitted he did not have any answer.
36,000 of our youth dead, and he did not have an answer.
When Richard Nixon became POTUS there were around 500,000
troops in country and with the first year Nixon began
the Vietnamization and started month after month pulling
units and troops out. He got a Peace Treaty signed,
got the 591 known POWs back, and got us totally out.
Very clearly, LBJ put troops in to die, and Nixon got
us out.

Let's add this into the record.

Brown & Root constructed a massive dam project near Austin. The company's
founders, Herman and George Brown, won the contract to build Mansfield Dam
thanks to the efforts of Johnson, who was then a Texas congressman.

After Johnson took over the Oval Office, Brown & Root won contracts for
huge construction projects for the federal government. By the mid-1960s,
newspaper columnists and the Republican minority in Congress began to
suggest that the company's good luck was tied to its sizable contributions
to Johnson's political campaign.

More questions were raised when a consortium of which Brown & Root was a
part won a $380 million contract to build airports, bases, hospitals and
other facilities for the U.S. Navy in South Vietnam. By 1967, the General
Accounting Office had faulted the "Vietnam builders" -- as they were known
-- for massive accounting lapses and allowing thefts of materials.

Brown & Root also became a target for anti-war protesters: they called the
firm the embodiment of the "military-industrial complex" and denounced it
for building detention cells to hold Viet Cong prisoners in South Vietnam.

LBJ was a Democrat criminal who profited from the Vietnam war.

[Scout]

From: https://twitter.com/mtgreenee/status/1627665203398688768
< QUOTE >
We need a national divorce.
We need to separate by red states and blue states and shrink the
federal government.
Everyone I talk to says this.
From the sick and disgusting woke culture issues shoved down our
throats to the Democrat's traitorous America Last policies, we are
done.
< /QUOTE >
"Democrats'", Marjorie. She must have been having a "blonde moment"?.
I guess she also forgot that Georgia is, technically speaking, a "blue
state"?
But I think we may as well admit we're there. The problem is, were we
going to split, we'd have done so in 1860 when we had sharply drawn
(proposed) national borders. Now, we have red and blue states mixed
and very little homogeneity. (E.g.: Illinois is red, but Chicago is
deep blue.)
But, sooner or later, we are going to have to take up the assault
rifles. It will probably be a blood bath; however, it will be no
lesser of one if we wait ten years. It isn't a done deal that we
*can* abolish assault weapons; however, we abolished slavery and that
was roughly an equally difficult task. I should add that we also
killed the better part of a generation of Americans, so neither side
should take it lightly.

So tell me.. what are you going to use to win this war that you think is
going to abolish assault weapons?

Use very weapons you claim need to be abolished, and confirm the very reason
we need to have them?

Further have you considered the situation of Red Democrat liberals? You
basically live in cities and small areas of the country. You are isolated,
cut of, and largely surrounded by the very people you want to go to war
with. You can neither feed, clothe, provide power, or even water without the
goods and serves that come from the areas of those you would go to war with.

That's not even considering that most of you have few guns and little
ammunition for them.

So how long will your war last when the power is shut down, water isn't
running, and the store shelves are empty?

No.. as the population utterly dependent on what we provide.. you should
really reconsider that plan.