It is the citizen soldiers that have the hard time pulling the trigger. Just look at the Chinese, and the break up of the Warsaw Pact. For the Soviets and their satellites the orders were given and the privates told their superiors to fuck the right off.A government that isn't willing to shoot it's unarmed civilians? How Tyrannical!
[News] Several killed in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
Either way, he's a fat guy who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't have the tools to put him even slightly on parity against his oppressors. He's just a fat guy with a Red Dawn fantasy.
Your whole concept of fighting back against a fantasy tyrannical US government is based on a history of actions by a non-tyrannical one.[DOUBLEPOST=1358196375][/DOUBLEPOST]
You mean the Warsaw Pact that was peacefully dissolved by its member states?
It's a lot easier to pull the trigger with a drone strike, thanks Obama
They broke up because they had nothing in common any longer.
But the individual countries had the protest, and the tanks, and the threats, and the no shooting (mostly).[DOUBLEPOST=1358196751][/DOUBLEPOST]
Damn, I missed those previous 8 years where another president was doing it too... that also meant that it was years in development to have the ability for a drone to shoot. Thanks Nixon.
GasBandit
Staff member
For every fat dude with a red dawn fantasy I can show you an enthusiastic redneck who spends every other weekend at the range. And, on top of all that, it's supposed to be more of a deterrent to oppression than an excuse to rise up as a political option.
The actions are guaranteed non-tyrannical by the concept I'm espousing. If you were able to magically eliminate all private guns tomorrow, would it continue? 5, 10, 20, 50 years down the line, would the world's most powerful government still be pure as the driven snow? Or are there 535 power-drunk jackanapes inside the beltway who think they know what's best for you and will see to it that it is so, whether you like it or not?
Exactly.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Oh man, I think I almost crapped myself with laughter just there...
But the orders were given in nearly every occasion.
But for every Latvia there is a China or Libya and Syria.
I've said it before, you need to make up your mind what you power fantasy is about. Either it's a tyrannical government, behaving as a tyrannical government would, which would be to simply murder/enslave the populace with superior weaponry, or it's a non-tyrannical government that people who disagree with think is tyrannical that can only be defended against because they rely on their behavior to remain non-tyrannical.
For the 8th time, not in favor of banning all private guns. Most of the pro-control people here (besides Charlie) are not in favor of banning all guns. I don't know if this is just another part of your fantasy, but you keep saying stuff like this.
I'm sarcastically saying "thanks Obama" above btw
And thank god the actual soldiers didn't do it. Because the civilians would have been slaughtered.
China is still around, Libya went the way it did because we intervened, and in Syria large parts of the army defected to fight the government along with various groups supported by outside nations and Al-Qaeda.
This idea that all you need are some rifles is demonstrably not true today.
China now and China 20 years ago is damn near night and day different. You'll not see the massacre again, at least not on that large of a scale.
But for Libya and Syria most of the weapons the rebels have, come from storming armories with what ever rifles and higher end weapons they could get their hands on.
It's easier to paint the world in black and white when you discount what people say and just insert whatever you want as their positions when they don't completely agree with you.
And the reason for that is more economic than people having or not having weapons. Surprise, surprise, communism doesn't work that well.
Or you know, defecting Army units. In fact, if people in the US are really worried about a tyrannical federal government, the best thing they could probably do is make sure that the National guard units don't get the axe.
Or rather, it would be the last one they ever did. The Communist Party has maintained it's control by loosening the yoke on some things and tightening it on things no one can stop them from doing. But if they perform a massacre in the day of cellphone cameras? Forget it. They can't pretend it didn't happen like Tienanmen or actively hide the truth anymore.
Which would actually be pretty easy to do, considering we National Guard bases everywhere (who would be less inclined to fight than Army or Marines.)
I would honestly say that the existence of the National Guard is a greater deterrent than civilian owned weapons, if it ever came to full on rebellion.
You know, I recently re-watched that movie. I had totally forgotten that the kids made pretty much no difference besides having their families slaughtered in retaliation, and that the country was taken back by the surviving units of the Armed Forces.
I know that's not the point of the movie (and it's still just a movie), but it's funny looking back at it.
I know that's not the point of the movie (and it's still just a movie), but it's funny looking back at it.
GasBandit
Staff member
You guys are dealing in too many absolutes, which I attempted to illustrate. Tyranny is not a binary switch, oppression is not a toggle. There is lots of middle ground between Doctor Doom and George Washington (or Barack Obama, for that matter). DC needs a sword of damocles hanging over it to remind it that ultimately it is not Mount Olympus.
I wasn't trying to imply you wanted to ban all guns, I was trying to illustrate that in a reality where it is so given as to be trite that power corrupts, every step must be taken to make sure that absolute power is not attained (even if it is split by a fractious 549), and the most effective trump to set that run is the 2nd amendment.
And for the record, I think it should apply to anti armor munitions as well, but I know you guys will think I'm loopy.
This is actually one of the reasons I am actively in favor of repealing local laws against filming law enforcement agents in public places.
This is going to bug the crap out of me until I find it, but there was a journalist/documentary film maker covering a revolution in Central America. He asked the rebels how a country like the US would go about rebelling, and they asked (paraphrasing) "Do you have mountains? Go in the mountains and shoot at them."
If 300M firearms in private possession don't scare them, I really don't think it's going to work. They already know people don't vote or exercise real political will.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's all about opposing forces. The government has to be able to fulfill its purpose, but be ultimately held in check by the populace. And I dare say, some people are discovering their political will these days.
Saying you'll secede if the government raises your taxes while also demanding Medicare/aid isn't really political will.
Or to pick a different example, camping out on the street and peeing into a cup while calling the police fascists isn't really political will, either.
Found it. It was Michael Hardt. He was a philosopher, not a journalist.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/the-words-love-and-revolution/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/the-words-love-and-revolution/
GasBandit
Staff member
I agree, neither of those apply.
using the internet to ruin peoples political careers because they supported SOPA or PIPA is.
GasBandit
Staff member
Interesting little editorial piece over at cracked.com today, pinning the cause of American gun violence as the fact that Americans, from even before we were a country, generally have always been a violent people who praise and glorify violence.
We are a nation of warriors, most of us without a war.
We are a nation of warriors, most of us without a war.
I dunno, then there's this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
December 2012, so a month old. USA isn't even in the top 10 for violent crimes per 100k.
Yeah USA is Nomber 28 in Violent crime, the UK is wayyyy up there though and they banned guns.
No, no, no. That won't do. We must only compare gun deaths, where the US tops the list, in order to get the sweeping gun regulation Obama wants.
I suppose the nice thing about guns is that in most gun crimes, shots are never fired. Once the victim sees the gun, they allow the robbery to proceed, and neither they nor the assailant are physically harmed. If the assailant is wielding a knife or fists, more people resist, and they would get hurt more.
I suppose the nice thing about guns is that in most gun crimes, shots are never fired. Once the victim sees the gun, they allow the robbery to proceed, and neither they nor the assailant are physically harmed. If the assailant is wielding a knife or fists, more people resist, and they would get hurt more.
But comparing gun deaths to countries with a fraction of our population and not to mention acreage, makes gun deaths sound like a catastrophe.
The NRA:
That baby should be laying on a giant pile of cash.The NRA:
I am literally sick to my stomach this morning. After a very long time of not listening to any GOP radio, I made the mistake of doing it on my morning commute.
On this show, the hosts of the show literally and in a non-joking manner, claimed that the Sandy Hook Shooting is a Hollywood/Government hoax to begin the push to take guns out of the hands of Americans.
I almost vomited. I've never been so sickened by anything I've heard verbally in my entire life.
On this show, the hosts of the show literally and in a non-joking manner, claimed that the Sandy Hook Shooting is a Hollywood/Government hoax to begin the push to take guns out of the hands of Americans.
I almost vomited. I've never been so sickened by anything I've heard verbally in my entire life.
- Status