With the power grid down, getting troops to mobilize -- and do so in any semblance of a timely manner -- becomes problematic in itself. Plus, there simply aren't enough of them to secure the entire nation -- leaving, as projected, most areas on their own. And under the scenario testified to by Admiral Rogers, foreign dangers requiring manpower are going to be heightened. Then we have the bipolar attitude toward "our sons and daughters" with shoot-to-kill orders, and then alternately citing and then disparaging the Oath Keepers concept.
This person evidently thinks under the martial law situation she describes (stereotyping me, I'm just too old and conditioned to imagine a man using that avatar), she will be free to move about -- where she gets the gas from, or how she safely navigates L.A. without a car, remain unstated, but fortunately, she won't need her shotgun to get there and back again. It's not like scary rampaging mobs have ever paralyzed the city and terrorized and victimized targets of opportunity before. I guess she doesn't remember last time, although -- again, stereotyping me -- you would think someone from there who adopts a Korean screen name would at least have heard the stories that youth and/or privilege appear not to have heeded...
Note she's assuming triage centers will be eager to accept -- and feed and house-- "volunteers" of unstated qualifications. Thank God you're here -- we need this coffee pot and cookie tray for the firemen filled up stat! More likely, we'll be talking about setting up a tent city within the Coliseum or some such, a la the hell that was the Superdome in Katrina, with no way to supply the refugees, or remove the stinking waste, or treat the injuries, or the disease -- and good luck deciding you don't like it and wish to leave. First of all, where to?
Also note the automatic "progressive" distrust and paranoia in that "fair play turnabout": The question I posed asked if anti-gunners would maintain that position or engage in the LAWFUL activity of defending themselves and their loved ones. She automatically presumes it is conservative/libertarian gun owners who will turn into predators -- as we no doubt have in every riot situation I can recall, from Watts to Katrina. No "progressive" projection there.
The things such people need to believe. Now seems a pretty good time to reintroduce readers here to a three-part essay I've linked to before.
To restate something I've said before: I don't highlight trolls on occasion to feed them -- I do it because their own words do more to expose them than mine can.
