[–] dissembleu 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
This already happened during the LA Rodney king riots. The neighborhood I grew up in formed units and armed themselves and drove around in trucks patrolling the area. No looters dared to come in our neighborhood with people fully armed and patrolling the streets.
[–] tweety51 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Very interesting and unfortunately a very probable and realistic scenario. Even knowing and expecting what has started, I still did not envision such a complete series of events. This makes me wonder if all the congresspeople that didn't come back to Washington actually knew this all was going down and were just avoiding Washington DC. It is very obvious that people will have to defend themselves. Thanks for sharing.
[–] telleveryoneyouknow 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
great article. i read a similar story about argentina's economic collapse. it was messy and lawless for years. rural areas got hit the hardest by gangs. almost instantly. your neighbors are your best friends and you have to rely on them to watch your back. black markets erupt and currency tanks. crazy story. https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51KgmWm4ZbL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
[–] SuckaFree 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Of these assholes come to my neck of the woods, well, let's just say I might make the news.
Dont forget the Comabt Sailors. ALL Comabt Sailors are special ops trained. Except the SeaBees.
On the shooting range, we would call the 400 yds, "the long walk." It's a very sobering thing to walk past dozens of targets for 400 yds, ALL with groupings within the size of a quarter. Didn't matter the distance nor the Sailor. We ALL shot like that.
And I was EOD, so...
[–] MuckeyDuck [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I just realized something else from Heller. You know who anti-gunners argue that the second amendment does not grant individual rights to arms, we they are right. 2nd does not grant anything, it recognizes that the right already exist, it only says that right shall not be infringed. I have to be reminded of this at times.
Scalia:
The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16
[–] MuckeyDuck [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
When they say that the second amendment only applies to muskets, ask them if the 1st amendment only applies forms of communication available at the time of ratification.
Here is Scalia's wording from Heller:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
[–] Fried-Laptop 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
didnt a 'jogger' just do that causing this whole cascade into madness?
[–] CheeBooga 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
My prediction is if they go into suburbs and start hurting innocent whites then you will see white men organize and become nightmare situation for all non-whites. But it won't happen because the nogs know to stay in the liberal cities where they are protected by the police.
[–] Mind_Games 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
"the police protect the nogs" This is exactly correct.
If they get outside of their cities..they will die. It's as simple as that.
[–] MuckeyDuck [S] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Yea exactly, read the part: THE SUBURBAN ARMED VIGILANTE RESPONSE and you will see how it done, theoretically.