Government Confiscation of Supplies

America is too large of an area for any nation to try to occupy, the military is made up of our own citizens, they would also NEVER allow any french, german, korean or indian Blue Helmet soldiers into the US or let them patrol the streets. They would all know that the average US citizen is armed and never willing to give their guns up or let a person from another nation tell them what to do. They will not even let a politician who they elected tell them what to do, much less some poor bastard from another nation sent here to F**k with OUR freedom; OUR lifestyle, OUR way of going around with the problem and OUR dealings with those trying to take OUR birthrights to be, live, eat, sleep, shit, shower, shave, love, hunt and die FREE....America has always been ready to fight and die for OTHER nations freedom from nazi-ism, commun-ism, faschist-ism, mao-ism, social-ism...Just think what the freedom loving Americans will do to someone trying to land their troops on Daytona Beach, in Malibu, Nantucket Island or in the mouth of the Mississippi??? GATOR-BAIT ring a bell? I would even catch a plane home to help...GP

Jayson said:

However, the US has already been subdivided by the UN in order for their blue beret ‘Peacekeeping’ forces to occupy those areas that need to be ‘pacified’. They’ll have plenty of troops and firepower.

Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing your reference documentation for these plans to subdivide the U.S. by yh U.N..

Jayson said:

However, the US has already been subdivided by the UN in order for their blue beret ‘Peacekeeping’ forces to occupy those areas that need to be ‘pacified’. They’ll have plenty of troops and firepower.

Click to expand...

UN won't send their so-called peacekeeping forces here as an operational force and diffidently won't pacify, you give the UN way to much credit.

If we were only talking about the US, that's one thing. This is global - the UN will have their hands too full all over the world to worry about occupying the US. The UN bluebonnets will pick the low hanging fruit.

don't the UN have to be ASKED to go in? otherwise its an INVASION ??

Based on historical precedents, it is estimated that you need a 10/1,000 ratio of invading troops/population in order to successfully invade and occupy a hostile country. That would mean it would take 3.3 MILLION troops to invade and occupy the United States. That is just combat troops and doesn't include support personnel. And it also does not take into account how heavily armed the population is.

Which is why it hasn't been tried in modern times.

DrHenley said:

Based on historical precedents, it is estimated that you need a 10/1,000 ratio of invading troops/population in order to successfully invade and occupy a hostile country. That would mean it would take 3.3 MILLION troops to invade and occupy the United States. That is just combat troops and doesn't include support personnel. And it also does not take into account how heavily armed the population is.

Which is why it hasn't been tried in modern times.

Click to expand...

It's interesting that the last time someone "invaded" the America's they used viruses and other diseases to soften or otherwise cut the population of the natives. Those invading forces had built up a tolerance to those diseases. I'm not suggesting that is what's going on today, but I thought the parallels were interesting.

Why invade a huge wealthy efficient nation like the US, the logistics and costs would far outweight any benefits a sucessful invader could achieve? and why invade when for example America BUYS countless Billions of dollars of goods from all of the nations who apparently threaten America. AND why invade America when most other nations have bought huge amounts of AMERICAN industry, mineral wealth, city properties and businesses. Invading the US would be suicide economically and militarily for any agressor. AND the UN for all its ineptitude and corruption has no military forces of its own so it cannot invade anyone. AND the UN NEVER tries to help western nations in crisis, it was nowhere to be seen when NEW ZEALAND was devastated by that huge quake, it did not help Canada after the huge ice storms of 20 years ago.

Frozen Tundra said:

It's interesting that the last time someone "invaded" the America's they used viruses and other diseases to soften or otherwise cut the population of the natives. Those invading forces had built up a tolerance to those diseases. I'm not suggesting that is what's going on today, but I thought the parallels were interesting.

Click to expand...

We Brits did no such thing when we invaded in 1812, We fought and won honourably and bravely as did the defending US Continental army

We have a lot of enemies in the UN. The UN Security Council has Russia and China in it, both of whom wouldn’t mind seeing the US enveloped in chaos, riots and revolution.

To an outsider (outside the US), they see a lot of infighting taking place in the US and the country appears to be greatly divided (which it is, within). But let someone attempt to invade for outside and watch how quickly the country comes together. The US has almost unlimited Natural Resources. While a lot of its industrial base has been shipped offshore, the skill and knowledge is still here and it can quickly be rebuilt. Can the world match the entire industrial strength of the US if it is all working for the same goal.

That is just the industrial side. How about the US farming industry. If turned loose (there are a lot of laws controlling what can be grown at this time) it can easily feed its people.

The US now, not only supply it's own oil needs, but it has become an oil exporter. Again, the US does not have to depend upon outside sources.

Not sure, but I will bet that the US leads the world in armed civilians. If someone attempts to invade the US, they will most likely find armed civilians behind each tree. Yes, the bigger cities may be "pushover" but once they leave the cities they will be facing a group of armed citizens that will not just laydown, especially to the UN. Generally, the UN is not looked on favorably in the US.

Consider the (supposed, but disputed) comment of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:
"If we invade the American mainland, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass . . . "

After WWII, a Japanese general was asked why they didn't push their advantage and invade the American mainland, and the answer was: "So many Americans have guns . . . and I want to believe that we had the wisdom to avoid deliberately stepping into that particular morass of quicksand . . . "

If we get invaded, I think the enemy will be really surprised at how many people own guns.

Most people who own guns own more than one gun, so a thousand gun owners will become--perhaps--four thousand gun owners as people get resentful, and--by scrounging guns from the enemy dead--four thousand gun owners will become maybe ten thousand gun owners.

I can't believe that the U.N. doesn't see this . . . or anyone else who wants to invade.

The French Resistance in WWII did quite a bit of damage to the Nazi invaders, for example. The Vietcong in Southeast Asia might be another example.

If invaders are not wanted, things get old really quick for the occupying forces.

BillMasen said:

We Brits did no such thing when we invaded in 1812, We fought and won honourably and bravely as did the defending US Continental army

Click to expand...

I think that post references the SOUTH AMERICA invasion by the Spanish Conquistadors.

Remember that the UN --has no own troops---the UN gives itself a mandate, decides which of its stupid members has to "provide" troops, decides when and where these poor suckers are to be stationed in order to serve this mandate, decides when the mandate if fulfilled and when the poor suckers who survived the weather, fighting, food, diseases and general unloved involvement in this foreign land get to go back home. Which stupid nation in the entire world is going to find enough stupid persons to follow a stupid mandate from the stupids in the UN and really go into the most heavily armed (and ready to repel any color of helmet wearing stupid troop) nation in existance??
Especially those nations who profit from the US, ever got saved by the US, ever needed and received assistance from the US and most importantly: who would rather move to the US and live there instead of "occupying" it?? GP

Urbanprep said:

Very true, it has happen in other countries but then they are not like Americans. To control the population, you need to disarm the population. There is only one political party pushing to disarm the population, so now you know which political party that want to control your life and life choices.

Click to expand...

A bit late on this thread, but just had to say that the Dems aren’t even hiding the fact they are going to take our guns if given the chance.

Yep, they are all "We support the Second Amendment" and "We only want common sense gun laws" when they think it is politically expedient to say that. But all along they have been chafing at the bit for a chance to go after total disarmament of the American people.

DrHenley said:

Yep, they are all "We support the Second Amendment" and "We only want common sense gun laws" when they think it is politically expedient to say that. But all along they have been chafing at the bit for a chance to go after total disarmament of the American people.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but a part of me questions if the government can realistically accomplish this in our culture.

There were recent demonstrations in Michigan where--literally--thousands of people showed up, and most of them seemed armed.

It seems to me that if there was a socialistic "takeover" in our country, that people really would ban together with their guns like I saw a few days ago.

Marshall Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was once asked why he was against the Japanese invading the West Coast of our country, and he said: "If we invade the American mainland, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass . . . "

There are historians who doubt that he actually said this, but this point is clear. If you have millions and millions of people with guns . . . how can you realistically complete a hostile takeover?

A public outcry is one thing, but thousands of demonstrators with guns that outnumber the police and National Guard 20:1? What are they going to do? Water cannons and tear gas?

I also know that the gun manufacturers have deep pockets . . . which means a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In our country, money controls everything.

I know I've expressed fears of government confiscation before, but am I making sense now or just engaging in wishful thinking?

And just so everybody understands where my head is at, I disagree with activists like Emma Gonzalez, from Parkland, Florida . . . but I'm still very, very sympathetic toward them. I lost a friend to a mass shooting at a Wendy's in West Palm Beach, and I have responded to mass shootings before as a medic. People can run the numbers and stats and--legitimately--conclude that your chances of death from a car accident or a slip and fall are much higher than dying from a mass shooting, but it doesn't feel that way to the survivors who lost a loved one.

Anybody who has lost a loved one in a mass shooting would feel very slighted when people point out things like this.

See link below:


https://www.palmbeachpost.com/enter...ch-happened-years-ago/YwG0GfUGx8pAcl3ET8DgFM/

Kevin L said:

I agree with you, but a part of me questions if the government can realistically accomplish this in our culture.

There were recent demonstrations in Michigan where--literally--thousands of people showed up, and most of them seemed armed.

It seems to me that if there was a socialistic "takeover" in our country, that people really would ban together with their guns like I saw a few days ago.

Marshall Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto was once asked why he was against the Japanese invading the West Coast of our country, and he said: "If we invade the American mainland, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass . . . "

There are historians who doubt that he actually said this, but this point is clear. If you have millions and millions of people with guns . . . how can you realistically complete a hostile takeover?

A public outcry is one thing, but thousands of demonstrators with guns that outnumber the police and National Guard 20:1? What are they going to do? Water cannons and tear gas?

I also know that the gun manufacturers have deep pockets . . . which means a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In our country, money controls everything.

I know I've expressed fears of government confiscation before, but am I making sense now or just engaging in wishful thinking?

Click to expand...

Sounds good Kevin. But the American people don't have the back bone any longer to put up much of a fight, no matter how oppressive our government becomes. Look at how everyone rolled over to the facist and unconstitutional lock down of our country. Hell, the government didn't even need to declare martial law and everyone went scurrying to their homes. People just don't stick together in this country when it comes to taking away our freedoms and liberty. But just talk about taking away welfare checks and you'd see a large segment of our population put up a fight.

Arcticdude said:

Sounds good Kevin. But the American people don't have the back bone any longer to put up much of a fight, no matter how oppressive our government becomes. Look at how everyone rolled over to the facist and unconstitutional lock down of our country. Hell, the government didn't even need to declare martial law and everyone went scurrying to their homes. People just don't stick together in this country when it comes to taking away our freedoms and liberty. But just talk about taking away welfare checks and you'd see a large segment of our population put up a fight.

Click to expand...

I might have agreed with you last week, but the news ran footage on the protests in Michigan, and I saw thousands of people with multiple guns protesting outside the capitol . . . and changed my mind.

Kevin L said:

I might have agreed with you last week, but the news ran footage on the protests in Michigan, and I saw thousands of people with multiple guns protesting outside the capitol . . . and changed my mind.

Click to expand...

I hope you're right. But remember the Clinton gun bans, not many people spoke out.
One good thing going for us is; as long as Trump is president there are a few Repubics that have found their backbone. I'm afraid that once the Dems take back the presidency the Repubics will go back to compromising our Rights and freedoms away again.