Which changes would you make to the constitution?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Any insurgency that targets it's own civilians will eventually fail. Civilian support is critical.

All that high tech equipment the military has has it's own liabilities. Fuel, maintenance issues, internet, food for large numbers, so on.

The target is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. Bridges. Rail and road. The higher the tech in the weaponry the more subject to replacement parts, etc.

Long guns all over the place will eventually win out...bank on it.

ISIS seems to be doing quite well for itself by targeting civilians under a motto of killing everyone not like them.

The military has the ability to bring things in with air support. You can make it expensive to do so, but bringing air supplies in is always an option if the money is there. Hitting general infrastructure generally serves the purpose not of cutting the enemy supply lines but of shutting down economic activity.

a reply to: Aazadan

Well mine IS and YOU didn't read the link...
Books aren't so effective in conflict,NOR are Americans patternable by predicrtable models, which is WHY we can ususally win in conflicts led by military commanders,instead of civillians and their thunk tank models which are also inacurate.
RAND said before Desert Sheild WE in 1/7 Cav would take 50% losses on enemy cintact because we haven't had combat experience compared to the battle hardened Iraqis.
MAN they blew that one didn't they?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Well mine IS and YOU didn't read the link...
Books aren't so effective in conflict,NOR are Americans patternable by predicrtable models, which is WHY we can ususally win in conflicts led by military commanders,instead of civillians and their thunk tank models which are also inacurate.
RAND said before Desert Sheild WE in 1/7 Cav would take 50% losses on enemy cintact because we haven't had combat experience compared to the battle hardened Iraqis.
MAN they blew that one didn't they?

I did read the link. Your author largely agreed with me that the targets would devolve into hitting regular citizens. The major difference is that your author assumed that random strikes against government officials would take place but completely discounted the idea that the military and national guard could be used to defend state governments and congress. Your source also failed to account for the idea that if things got really bad, members of governments would likely sit in fortified positions and correspond electronically... they assumed the president would do this, but there's nothing that says other officials can't do it as well.

As far as RAND goes, I'm not up to date with everything militarily, but prior to Desert Shield wasn't Iraq considered to have the 3rd strongest military in the world? I wouldn't say they under estimated Americans but rather massively over estimated Iraq's capabilities.

a reply to: Aazadan

I knew you'd bring up Isis. They only get away with it due to outside support. That would be unlikely in the U.S..

The insurgents in Iraq during Gulf War II were doomed the day they started killing their own. If you think civilian support wouldn't be a major, if not deciding factor in this scenario, you'd be wrong.

All the 'bring things in' results in is the opposition moves elsewhere. If one can remove the GPS capabilities, they will run out of fuel, parts, etc. very quickly. It becomes a campaign of attrition-back to civilian support- and low-tech wins in the long run. Ask the Afghanis, Vietcong, Iraqis,.....

They can have their F-22s, with service hours way above operational hours. When they run out of parts, the locals bring out the Cessna Cubs like FAC units in 'Nam. Voila, air supremecy...

I would say add an amendment banning central banks, and forever instilling the treasury with the job of printing currency, as was always planned. Noone else.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I knew you'd bring up Isis. They only get away with it due to outside support. That would be unlikely in the U.S..

The insurgents in Iraq during Gulf War II were doomed the day they started killing their own. If you think civilian support wouldn't be a major, if not deciding factor in this scenario, you'd be wrong.

You don't need a majority of civilians to support you, you only need a few. To borrow some numbers from that link of another poster that I supposedly didn't read 45 million would be seriously against confiscation. You would probably have 10% of that at the extremes so 4.5 million. Yet their prediction is only that 70,000 would actually take action. That leaves a lot of passive support.

There's actually a bunch of studies I've read, though it would take me awhile to find them which make the case that 1% is the critical number. Being something of a democracy we tend to think in terms of 50% or majority rule, but 1% is actually quite potent. Case in point, just about every presidential election has been decided by a margin of 1% and very few by more than 2%, even Reagan in 1980 only had a 0.4% advantage above everyone else. 4.5 million is well above that 1% threshold.

a reply to: Aazadan

4th actually.
AND I ask you where are the best soldiers as we speak those currently out or in?
WHO has the numbers?
Do you think the standing military would actually BACK a sedicious ,violent administration?
I had no idea the governments popularity had jumped so high.
FUNNY I have been observing it being gutted of it's best talent for more pliable progressives.
THE real talent is OUTSIDE ,both the services and the intelligensce agencies .
Like so many academicians once a man is out of service they seem to think we forget all of it ,or they don't anaylse us because they lack data.
By the book functionaries , protocol following systems and agencies are easily circumvented,and as the article stated NO ONE would really win if such an act was attempted.
BUT to discount the largest body of armed men on the planet?
AS WE speak ANGRY men at the betrayal from our leadership?

Theres a REASON why we haven't been invaded either by guerilla or national armies and tech won't cover the complete situation as an EMP would have long since handled THAT.
1 miilion expert rifles would answer any such effort and way lay any army on the planet.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
AND I ask you where are the best soldiers as we speak those currently out or in?

You'll have to forgive me, I am not an expert on the military. My understanding though would be that the best soldiers are those who recently left. They've maxed out on combat experience, while that experience is still fresh and are still in good shape physically. 20 years later as tactics change that experience isn't as valuable.

Do you think the standing military would actually BACK a sedicious ,violent administration?

I don't think the military would see it that way. It's easy to say you'll never turn a weapon on an American citizen, I expect every member of the military says that, and they all mean it. That's not how it will ever go down though. The targets will be those who turned their back on America and seek to harm it. Rogue groups that are trying to assassinate our leaders rather than effect political change. Many will defend the government in that case.

BUT to discount the largest body of armed men on the planet?
AS WE speak ANGRY men at the betrayal from our leadership?

Large groups, that are part of operational security would be forced to work independently and keep their distance from each other? This is a large country, there are a lot of places to hide. But similarly that means striking capability is kept fairly local, and the groups are dispersed. 70,000 would never be concentrated. 70,000 lone wolves is the nightmare scenario because there are no communications to intercept, and no ability to charge conspiracy preemptively... but 69,000 of those lone wolves won't manage to actually put anything together if they have to do it all on their own, each person would need a lot of skills for such an activity.

Theres a REASON why we haven't been invaded either by guerilla or national armies and tech won't cover the complete situation as an EMP would have long since handled THAT.
1 miilion expert rifles would answer any such effort and way lay any army on the planet.

While I'm sure that plays a role, having oceans on our east and west also play a role. Geographically the US is in a great defensive position. To our west is the Pacific, and then mountain ranges that slow an advance, to our East is the Atlantic and then more mountain ranges once you move inland. To the south is a heavily armed Texas, and south of them are drug cartels just as capable as any military that want to control the border. To our north is the best ally any nation can have with Canada with their huge land mass that provides early warnings. Our only real weak point is through the Gulf of Mexico.

a reply to: Aazadan

Really that's kind of counter productive... our country is set up on those rights, you don't like those rights hey no one is forcing you to stay in this country, what is so bad about people owning guns legally that people want to take the ability of others to own guns it's down right idiotic. Hey here's an idea if a person does not want to own a gun, then they shouldn't buy a gun...

They day my government tells me bend over and take it is the day I say make me...

originally posted by: magnesiumbones
a reply to: Aazadan

Really that's kind of counter productive... our country is set up on those rights, you don't like those rights hey no one is forcing you to stay in this country, what is so bad about people owning guns legally that people want to take the ability of others to own guns it's down right idiotic. Hey here's an idea if a person does not want to own a gun, then they shouldn't buy a gun...

They day my government tells me bend over and take it is the day I say make me...

There's nothing wrong with owning a gun. I think the gun culture/worship is a bit crazy but that's just me. It's not like the law abiding gun owners are actually hurting anything by having them. However, what I see is that the argument is we need the 2nd to protect ourselves from losing all the others, but we are losing the others and the 2nd isn't being used for that stated purpose. Furthermore, I see in congressional arguments over our rights where things are offered up like the ability to be free of search and seizure because you just never know if the person has a gun and who knows if they'll use it. Having the 2nd amendment is actively reducing other freedoms, and the 2nd itself isn't actually being used to protect them.

That to me makes it a bit of a no brainer as the one to cut in this scenario because unlike the others, it's not actually doing anything. And that's a pretty low bar for the second considering the third has almost never come up in court (though the NSA seems to actually be pushing that standard now with their spy programs).

a reply to: Aazadan

Your argument contradicts your own statements basically what your saying (put simply) if that we should willing give up a right we possess just because the government is finding ways to take our rights with people batting an eye so that when people do realize they need there guns to stand up for there rights they won't be able to because guess what... it's not one of there rights anymore

And your opinion on the 2nd amendment crowd had nothing to do with this because my opinion on the anti 2nd crowd is they are just as crazy...

And as for your statement on "having the 2nd amendment is effecting all our other rights" is b.s. and merely opinion...

the issue is people are not taking action or even paying attention to what's going on in the political world meaning most people realize they are having there rights taken away

a reply to: magnesiumbones

He is right in the sense that if the second was to preserve the others, it has failed!! We have and are losing the others and the second has produced nothing but 'look at my bad-ass toy'...

a reply to: nwtrucker


I'm sorry last time I checked we still have rights and we still have the ability to stand up for them I don't see how the 2nd has failed just because we haven't used it yet...

keyword is yet...

it's a little to early to say it failed

a reply to: magnesiumbones

Yep. I know.

Still needed to be said, though.....

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Metallicus

See, the thing is I'm very pro 2nd. I just don't think it's very effective anymore. If the purpose of the second is to oppose the government, then at best you have a combat rifle equal to that of your opposition. But in addition to their rifle they have body armor, more ammunition, complete air superiority, complete naval superiority, cyber weapons, leverage with the banks, and more. Back when things were written the army and the individual were on an equal playing field. But today that is no longer the case. You get 10 cent bullets while they get million dollar cruise missiles.

Outside of the ability to feel secure in your ability to protect yourself from attack, what does the second do? It's primary purpose has been eliminated through the cheers of increased military spending.

You didn't mention how you would change the 2nd. We don't need tanks, cruse missiles or attack choppers to take down our government. If 2% of the US population stood up to the government over night, the government as we know it would be no more. They know if we were ever united as a people, their days would be numbered.

US population not counting illegals is around 319 million
2% would be 6.3 million. If that many people raised up, i bet the military would side with them.

One more amendment. Any person or group of persons that present the appearance of impropriety, or acts in violation of, this Constitution SHALL be immediately placed under arrest and charged with treason. No person in any position of any public, private, corporate office or position is exempt.

originally posted by: magnesiumbones
the issue is people are not taking action or even paying attention to what's going on in the political world meaning most people realize they are having there rights taken away

The second is supposed to prevent that. The whole point is so that if the government goes out of control people can rise up and fight it. That capability has been removed by military advances. If you plan with a group of people you'll be nailed on conspiracy laws long before you ever fire a shot.

Our rights are being eroded year after year, the one people put all their effort into defending is the second which consequently has taken the fewest hits, and where is that getting us? 4th amendment free zones, electronic document seizure, a plea bargain system that makes a mockery of justice, and all the rest.

If the second is supposed to protect the rest, it's doing a very poor job of it.

Ur right we should just give up and get rid of that ability

let's give up our rights... to protect our rights...

a reply to: Aazadan

22. Presidential term limits


4 Years is Enough Time for a President to Eff Up the Country Pretty Bad , 8 Years and it becomes Almost Completely Destroyed by Bad Lame Duck Decisions .....

a reply to: Aazadan

You are showing a limited understanding of the constitution by only referring to the Bill of Rights. Myself I would strengthen section 3 article 3 Treason remove the two witness requirement and add lending comfort to the enemy ( by giving financial support or supporting anyone that is actively involved against us.