Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

    People don't necessarily have sex to make babies, we all know that.  There are plenty of reasons why recreational sex leads to pregnancy, sometimes condoms break, birth control fails, or the persons involved may have been irresponsible.  But I find it silly that anyone would stand up and claim that as a result someone should have to give birth, regardless of how they became pregnant, because they should have to deal with the consequences.  Here's an idea, why don't you worry about whats between your legs and let other people worry about what's between their because it literally isn't any of your business.  If you have religious qualms then I'd advise you to pray for the sinner and hope god is in a forgiving mood (that would be the christian thing to do), and if not then you aren't the one dealing with the fiery pits of hell now are you?



    I just dont think Killing a baby for your convienance is the right thing to do. There are thousands and thousands of loving couples out there that cant expierance the miracle of life. Its like giving a big F you to them, I can have a baby but im gonna throw it away cuz its convienant. Why not give up the baby for adoption and make all those Loving couples lives. Abortion to me is the same thing as what they do in china if you have more than one kid.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    Doesnt the choice for wheather or not you have a baby come when you lay down next to someone? Or when you choose wheather or not to use contraception??? Right there you have two choices. After that why give someone a third choice when they have already chose twice to say yes to Having a baby. I think abortions just let people off the hook who have already Made two very questionable choices...

     




    Great, now the argument is to restrict choices.

     

    Of course the fact that contraception isn't 100% and pregnancies can have health consequences for the mother are just two reasons that come to mind.

     

     



    I have no problem with abortion if it relatates to health of the mother or in a case of rape. But if your just having an abortion because you dont want the kid then no i dont support that. And ill say again you already made two choices to lay down with someone  and a choice wheather or not to use contraception. And your right Birth control isnt 100%. Its 99.9% percent effective. If you dont choose to use contracepion then thats your problem, deal with the consequences.

     



    That's fine.  Don't have an abortion and raise the kid.  But why should you impose your views on the actions and rights of others?  Pretty arrogant...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Doesnt the choice for wheather or not you have a baby come when you lay down next to someone? Or when you choose wheather or not to use contraception??? Right there you have two choices. After that why give someone a third choice when they have already chose twice to say yes to Having a baby. I think abortions just let people off the hook who have already Made two very questionable choices...



    Well, ok, and I may not agree with how wide the second amendment right to bear arms is. But the Supreme Court said what it said in Hellerand I oppose any law that violates it.

     

    You may oppose abortion, but in a constitutional Democracy I hope you would agree that it is not OK to pass laws simply to make it harder to get an abortion, simply because you think the right shouldn't exist.

     

     




    What about the babys rights?? The rights to life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness??

     



    A fetus is only a potential human so it has no rights (at least until viability).  There is a lot of law on the issue.  Look it up.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    Doesnt the choice for wheather or not you have a baby come when you lay down next to someone? Or when you choose wheather or not to use contraception??? Right there you have two choices. After that why give someone a third choice when they have already chose twice to say yes to Having a baby. I think abortions just let people off the hook who have already Made two very questionable choices...

     




    Great, now the argument is to restrict choices.

     

    Of course the fact that contraception isn't 100% and pregnancies can have health consequences for the mother are just two reasons that come to mind.

     

     



    I have no problem with abortion if it relatates to health of the mother or in a case of rape. But if your just having an abortion because you dont want the kid then no i dont support that. And ill say again you already made two choices to lay down with someone  and a choice wheather or not to use contraception. And your right Birth control isnt 100%. Its 99.9% percent effective. If you dont choose to use contracepion then thats your problem, deal with the consequences.

     

     



    That's fine.  Don't have an abortion and raise the kid.  But why should you impose your views on the actions and rights of others?  Pretty arrogant...

     




    Why do you think you should play god and take away that baby's right to life....

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Doesnt the choice for wheather or not you have a baby come when you lay down next to someone? Or when you choose wheather or not to use contraception??? Right there you have two choices. After that why give someone a third choice when they have already chose twice to say yes to Having a baby. I think abortions just let people off the hook who have already Made two very questionable choices...



    Well, ok, and I may not agree with how wide the second amendment right to bear arms is. But the Supreme Court said what it said in Hellerand I oppose any law that violates it.

     

    You may oppose abortion, but in a constitutional Democracy I hope you would agree that it is not OK to pass laws simply to make it harder to get an abortion, simply because you think the right shouldn't exist.

     

     




    What about the babys rights?? The rights to life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness??

     

     



    A fetus is only a potential human so it has no rights (at least until viability).  There is a lot of law on the issue.  Look it up.

     




     A potential human??? Its a human as soon as its concieved.I could care less about what the law says about it. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    What about the babys rights?



    It's not a baby yet. It's a fetus.

     

    At one point it was a single fertilized cell. Call that a human and I laugh. Eventually, it comes out as a living breathing thing of its own: Baby.

    At some point, it crosses that indescribable region between thinghood and personhood. None of us can measure that region. So, Roe said that up to viability, it's the mother's choice. It's part of her body. Afte viability, sorry, you don't get to abort unless your health is endangered.

    I'm comfortable with that because no science or philosophy can say when the line is truly crossed. It's the best worst answer.

     

     

     

    But that isn't what I asked. I asked if you would respect the constitutional right despite opposing it just as much as any other constitutional right you support.

    For example, I got the sense that you were strong behind the 2nd Amd. individual right to bear arms. Yeah, we have a 2nd Amd. But it didn't mean much until 2008, when the Supreme Court said it contains an individual right to bear arms and threw out a law that made you keep a gun in a state that you couldn't readily use it for self-defense.

    I respect that decision, even though in the abstract I think we'd be best off if civilians had zero guns. I am hoping you do the same for the right to abort, even though you clearly oppose individuals decision to abort.

    (I don't buy the "citizens fighting tyrannical government" in the age of the tank, drone and nuke. If the army wanted to take the country, no number of AR-15s would do the trick).



    Its still a living organism. You look at it differently, thats fine.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    I asked if you would respect the constitutional right despite opposing it just as much as any other constitutional right you support.

    For example, I got the sense that you were strong behind the 2nd Amd. individual right to bear arms. Yeah, we have a 2nd Amd. But it didn't mean much until 2008, when the Supreme Court said it contains an individual right to bear arms and threw out a law that made you keep a gun in a state that you couldn't readily use it for self-defense.

    I respect that decision, even though in the abstract I think we'd be best off if civilians had zero guns. I am hoping you do the same for the right to abort, even though you clearly oppose individuals decision to abort.

    (I don't buy the "citizens fighting tyrannical government" in the age of the tank, drone and nuke. If the army wanted to take the country, no number of AR-15s would do the trick).

     




     

     

    But there's still this point: Do you only respect the constitutional rights you believe should be constitutional rights?

     



    Where in the constitution does it specifically say that you have the right to an abortion... Dont worry ill wait.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    I asked if you would respect the constitutional right despite opposing it just as much as any other constitutional right you support.

    For example, I got the sense that you were strong behind the 2nd Amd. individual right to bear arms. Yeah, we have a 2nd Amd. But it didn't mean much until 2008, when the Supreme Court said it contains an individual right to bear arms and threw out a law that made you keep a gun in a state that you couldn't readily use it for self-defense.

    I respect that decision, even though in the abstract I think we'd be best off if civilians had zero guns. I am hoping you do the same for the right to abort, even though you clearly oppose individuals decision to abort.

    (I don't buy the "citizens fighting tyrannical government" in the age of the tank, drone and nuke. If the army wanted to take the country, no number of AR-15s would do the trick).

     




     

     

    But there's still this point: Do you only respect the constitutional rights you believe should be constitutional rights?

     

     




    Never underestimate the power of people with more will power  than you. People said during the revolution that a tiny militia of minutemen would never be able to defeat the great army of british. And look what happened. And i agree with the supreme courts decision of the individual right to bear arms. Who exactly is it that forms a militia...

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    And look what happened

     

    The British practically defeated themselves with poor tactics. The bright red uniform also didn't help.

    Also, you might note, it was an extremely close call. There were a number of points where Washington could have been wiped out but wasn't because of bad British tactics.

    But that's not the main point. Everyone was fighting withthe same types of weapons.

     

     

    People with AR-15s aren't going to take down a tank, or a drone, or a jet that has launched a cruise missle.

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    i agree with the supreme courts decision of the individual right to bear arms. Who exactly is it that forms a militia

     

    No, the point is that I respect constitutional decisions I don't like. So why don't you respect those you don't like?




    Which is why many civilians also own Tanks, RPG's,Fighter jets, Heavy Machine Guns, and countless other types of weapons. Some may have been decommishioned but with easy fixes they can be right back up and ready to be used. Try and tell that to the NVA, that armies with better weapons and technology always wins. We had all the lastest military weapons and somehow we still ran away with our tails tucked between our legs. Why, because the NVA and charlie had more will to fight than we did. People with more wil powerl, will always win a war of a attrition.

    I never said i dont repect it i said i dont agree with it.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    And look what happened

     

    The British practically defeated themselves with poor tactics. The bright red uniform also didn't help.

    Also, you might note, it was an extremely close call. There were a number of points where Washington could have been wiped out but wasn't because of bad British tactics.

    But that's not the main point. Everyone was fighting withthe same types of weapons.

     

     

    People with AR-15s aren't going to take down a tank, or a drone, or a jet that has launched a cruise missle.

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    i agree with the supreme courts decision of the individual right to bear arms. Who exactly is it that forms a militia

     

    No, the point is that I respect constitutional decisions I don't like. So why don't you respect those you don't like?

     




    Which is why many civilians also own Tanks, RPG's,Fighter jets, Heavy Machine Guns, and countless other types of weapons. Some may have been decommishioned but with easy fixes they can be right back up and ready to be used. Try and tell that to the NVA, that armies with better weapons and technology always wins. We had all the lastest military weapons and somehow we still ran away with our tails tucked between our legs. Why, because the NVA and charlie had more will to fight than we did. People with more wil powerl, will always win a war of a attrition.

     

    I never said i dont repect it i said i dont agree with it.

     




     

    Ummm no, the NVA were supplied the latest weapons from Russia and China.

    The NVA had jets over SE Asia before we did.




    Your really gonna try and tell me russian and chinease made armorment is better than what we had then. Pssshh. I suppose your gonna tell me next that we had better tanks and weapons than the germans during WW2.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    This is too funny..and sad. A complete waste of government time and I hope the people of Indiana remember this foolishness at election time.

    I have to say..I didn't even think RU486 type drugs were used so commonly so I read up on them a bit.

    Here is what the drug manufacturer essentially states in its guidelines for use:

    This drug requires 3 visits to a physician. The first to confirm pregnancy and issue the first dose. The first dose is taken in the doctor's office under the supervision of medical staff. Two days later..the patient returns to the doctor's office and receives the second dose. At this time the the manufacturer recommends that the patient be kept at the office for observation to make sure that nothing "out of the ordinary occurs". The patient then returns two weeks later for a follow up to make sure that the drug worked the way it was supposed to.

    The manufacturer also recommends that a doctor not dispense this medication unless they have quick access to a facility where more serious complications such as excessive bleeding can be addressed. In other words..a clinic in the middle of nowhere has no business offering this alternative.

    So..the Indiana senate seems woefully ignorant of how the whole process works. There are already guidelines in place..put there by the people who have to most to lose ( at least financially) if something goes wrong.

    Honestly...to me this sounds like an awful thing for a patient to go through. All this medication does is essentially cause your body to have a miscarriage..with all the pain and risk that accompanies it. The only reason I can even fathom someone making this choice is because of cost.

    But..my personal feelings aside...government should not be in the business of mandating medical procedures..and they should not be involved in a doctor/patient medical decision. The only person who should decide whether an ultrsound is medically necessary is the doctor...either before or after the process.

     

    BTW..the failure rate seems to be correct. For some reason it's higher in the US than in other countries. Not sure why this is...but there could be any number of reasons..not the least of which is ectopic pregnancy.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Try and tell that to the NVA, that armies with better weapons and technology always wins. We had all the lastest military weapons and somehow we still ran away with our tails tucked between our legs. Why, because the NVA and charlie had more will to fight than we did.



    More will to fight? No. It was primarily:

     

    - A ton of Chinese soldiers

    - Korea, with all-guerilla tactics.

     

     

     

     

     




    How many NVA did we kill??? Your telling me that if we took those kinda loses we wouldnt have gotten out of veitnam sooner. Again more will to fight.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Which is why many civilians also own Tanks, RPG's,Fighter jets, Heavy Machine Guns



    Many civilians own tanks? Fighter Jets? Like who?

     




    Good grief..just what is this kid suggesting..??

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Which is why many civilians also own Tanks, RPG's,Fighter jets, Heavy Machine Guns



    Many civilians own tanks? Fighter Jets? Like who?

     

     



    Plenty of people, Have you never watched the history channel or military channel? Look it up.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Try and tell that to the NVA, that armies with better weapons and technology always wins. We had all the lastest military weapons and somehow we still ran away with our tails tucked between our legs. Why, because the NVA and charlie had more will to fight than we did.



    More will to fight? No. It was primarily:

     

    - A ton of Chinese soldiers

    - Korea, with all-guerilla tactics.

     

     

     

     

     

     




    How many NVA did we kill??? Your telling me that if we took those kinda loses we wouldnt have gotten out of veitnam sooner. Again more will to fight.

     

     




     

    Obviously you don't understand the overriding American concept of civilian control over military power in our democracy.

     




    I understand it perfectly well. People hear about soldiers KIA and they get all sqeamish and rally to bring the troops home. Forget finishing the job. Let those soldiers die in vein instead.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    And look what happened

     

    The British practically defeated themselves with poor tactics. The bright red uniform also didn't help.

    Also, you might note, it was an extremely close call. There were a number of points where Washington could have been wiped out but wasn't because of bad British tactics.

    But that's not the main point. Everyone was fighting withthe same types of weapons.

     

     

    People with AR-15s aren't going to take down a tank, or a drone, or a jet that has launched a cruise missle.

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    i agree with the supreme courts decision of the individual right to bear arms. Who exactly is it that forms a militia

     

    No, the point is that I respect constitutional decisions I don't like. So why don't you respect those you don't like?

     




    Which is why many civilians also own Tanks, RPG's,Fighter jets, Heavy Machine Guns, and countless other types of weapons. Some may have been decommishioned but with easy fixes they can be right back up and ready to be used. Try and tell that to the NVA, that armies with better weapons and technology always wins. We had all the lastest military weapons and somehow we still ran away with our tails tucked between our legs. Why, because the NVA and charlie had more will to fight than we did. People with more wil powerl, will always win a war of a attrition.

     

    I never said i dont repect it i said i dont agree with it.

     




     

    Ummm no, the NVA were supplied the latest weapons from Russia and China.

    The NVA had jets over SE Asia before we did.

     




    Your really gonna try and tell me russian and chinease made armorment is better than what we had then. Pssshh. I suppose your gonna tell me next that we had better tanks and weapons than the germans during WW2.

     

     

     




    Weapons don't have to be better than the other guys, they just have to be adequate and in sufficient number for the battle plan you are using.

    The NVA would've been decimated in months without the military weapons and materiel from China and Russia. They were a poor country and couldn't afford the types and numbers of weapons on their own.

     

    The Vietnam war was a guerilla war so no matter how advanced our weapons were, it still took a platoon of soldiers to find and kill a handful of VC in tunnels.

    The US never lost a military engagement.

    The US gov't lost the war politically, not militarily.



    Yea cuz they knew if they stood toe to toe with us they'd loose miserably. They adapted and overcame. Ill Quote Ho Chi Min here. When he was asked how he could possibly defeat the army of the west he said " They will kill a great many of us. We will kill a few of them. They will tire of it first".

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Plenty of people, Have you never watched the history channel or military channel? Look it up.



    I don't watch the history channel because they disgrace themselves by reporting as "could be true, what if?" nonsense like the Mayan Apocalypse.

     

    I get my history from respected authors. Like Edward Gibbon, if I want to learn about the Roman empire.

     

     

    What are we talking about? A completely deweaponized A7V? Antiques for which there is no legal ammo available to civilians?

    And a fighter jet? Recall the guy who sued Pepsi because he was surprised to learn that, no, you actually can't own a Harrier?

     

     



    You can own a T-72 tank (Deweaponized of course but if need be im sure it wouldnt be hard to get it back in commishion) for 50 grand. You can own a fox armored car for 17 grand.

     

    Fighter jets are a little tougher to get your hands on but it is possible. You can own anything from a 1956 "Venom" All the way up to a Norththrop F5. They are a bit more expensive starting at $4500 all the way up to 2 million for the nicer ones. 

    Need to take out a tank??? You can legally own a 20MM anti-tank weapon.. You can buy a M203 Grenade Launcher for under 3 thousand dollars. You can even own a 60MM mortar.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Plenty of people, Have you never watched the history channel or military channel? Look it up.



    I don't watch the history channel because they disgrace themselves by reporting as "could be true, what if?" nonsense like the Mayan Apocalypse.

     

    I get my history from respected authors. Like Edward Gibbon, if I want to learn about the Roman empire.

     

     

    What are we talking about? A completely deweaponized A7V? Antiques for which there is no legal ammo available to civilians?

    And a fighter jet? Recall the guy who sued Pepsi because he was surprised to learn that, no, you actually can't own a Harrier?

     

     



    You can own a T-72 tank (Deweaponized of course but if need be im sure it wouldnt be hard to get it back in commishion) for 50 grand. You can own a fox armored car for 17 grand.

     

    Fighter jets are a little tougher to get your hands on but it is possible. You can own anything from a 1956 "Venom" All the way up to a Norththrop F5. They are a bit more expensive starting at $4500 all the way up to 2 million for the nicer ones. 



    You'd be surprised what is more legal than weed in some states.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Well I took a look and I'm still not convinced this has any practical effect, at least insofar as resisting the doomsday scenario where the entire U.S. military decides to take-over.

    We're talking no ammunition, no weapons systems.

    This isn't stuff you can just sit down and build. You need factories and skilled workers with schematics. Supply chains for parts and fuel. You need everything the military would seize in such an event.

    Moreover, I can't imagine that a large amount of these are in civilian hands. Most of these are pretty expensive it would seem. So we're talking people with serious money and a very specific hobby.

     

     

     



    Ever heard of the black market?? If there ever was a military take over these things, it would be easier to get because it would be even harder for the government to control exchanges. What are they gonna do put you in prison?? They are already trying to kill you!! Im sure if this happened there are more than enough of these rich people that would be more than happy to fund your cause.

    Its not as far fetched as you think. As long as you have the money anything is possible.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Well I took a look and I'm still not convinced this has any practical effect, at least insofar as resisting the doomsday scenario where the entire U.S. military decides to take-over.

    We're talking no ammunition, no weapons systems.

    This isn't stuff you can just sit down and build. You need factories and skilled workers with schematics. Supply chains for parts and fuel. You need everything the military would seize in such an event.

    Moreover, I can't imagine that a large amount of these are in civilian hands. Most of these are pretty expensive it would seem. So we're talking people with serious money and a very specific hobby.

    Ever heard of the black market?? If there ever was a military take over these things would be easier to get because it would be even harder for the government to control exchanges. What are they gonna do put you in prison?? They are already trying to kill you!! Im sure if this happened there more than enough of these rich people that would be more than happy to fund your cause.

     



     

    IF this happened, the U.S. economy and banking system would go into complete collapse. The world economy would collapse. "Rich" wouldn't matter much. Everything would be complete chaos. Nobody would be in a position to go buying up and transporting the kinds of stuff we're talking about.

     And yes I know what a "black market" is, but let's not be too quick to assume that a black market loaded with munitions and weapons systems for outdated American gear is thriving within America.

     

     




    People would find ways Thats just what we do.  

     

     

Share