PDA

View Full Version : could gun nuts possibly overthrow the governmnet



Robot Jesus
2nd February 10, 06:43 PM
to avoid derailing the other thread.

if Obama threw out the constitution tomorrow, and the military backed him could all the gun owners in the US organize and overthrow the government; basically fulfill phrost's main augment to why the 2nd amendment is necessary.

WarPhalange
2nd February 10, 07:07 PM
No. Tanks and trained troops > crazy guys with arsenals who like to pretend they are soldiers.

HappyOldGuy
2nd February 10, 07:13 PM
Of course not. But there is quite a bit of excluded middle in your scenario, where some number of self armed gun nuts combine with some number of disaffected military types in various permutations to do the job.

The punchline would be when all the libertarian types saw the government that they would impose.

SoulMechanic
2nd February 10, 07:17 PM
OP, do you think I could eat a diet of gravel, icecream and beef jerky soaked in battery acid and never ever be in need of dental care?


Semi-serious answer. No way in hell, gun nuts and bucktoothed back country militias, isolationists, racist hate groups, organized street gangs, average joe's ect. all have very different agendas and there is no way in hell you could even get them to come together let alone many of them to even sit in the same room together.

Robot Jesus
2nd February 10, 07:18 PM
I would argue, if there is a civil war it will be between branches of the military and irregular troops will mean dick all at the end of the day.

even working with some military faction the average person is more likely to get someone killed then help.

Cullion
2nd February 10, 07:20 PM
No. Tanks and trained troops > crazy guys with arsenals who like to pretend they are soldiers.

Unless some element of the armed forces is on the gun nuts' side. But that would never happen because there isn't anybody in the US military who would turn against the executive if they declared the constitution null and void. Uhh.. right?

Oh, and unless it's Vietnam or Afghanistan. Or Northern Ireland.

I think you get the picture.

Regular soldiers aren't like, really big GI-Joe dolls that always do what they're told and can always shoot straighter than the bad guys and can always call in depleted uranium and heavy artillery in an urban shoot-out. People with shoulder-launched rockets and Kalashnikovs really can fend off professional soldiers with heavy armour and air support.

I think you should spend less time flicking through the character generation section of Twighlight 2000 (wow, look at that rifle skill! there's no way that Ukranian farmer stands a chance against my Green Beret!), and more time watching the news and learning some history.

WarPhalange
2nd February 10, 07:31 PM
Unless some element of the armed forces is on the gun nuts' side. But that would never happen because there isn't anybody in the US military who would turn against the executive if they declared the constitution null and void. Uhh.. right?

Oh, and unless it's Vietnam or Afghanistan. Or Northern Ireland.

I think you get the picture.

Regular soldiers aren't like, really big GI-Joe dolls that always do what they're told and can always shoot straighter than the bad guys and can always call in depleted uranium and heavy artillery in an urban shoot-out. People with shoulder-launched rockets and Kalashnikovs really can fend off professional soldiers with heavy armour and air support.

I think you should spend less time flicking through the character generation section of Twighlight 2000 (wow, look at that rifle skill! there's no way that Ukranian farmer stands a chance against my Green Beret!), and more time watching the news and learning some history.

And I think you need to come off your god damned high horse and get yourself some reading comprehension. The question was "Would gun nuts be able to overthrow the government if it was backed by the military?" and not "Would gun nuts be able to overthrow the military if the military split and part of it joined the gun nuts??"

Dumbass.

Phrost
2nd February 10, 07:34 PM
Considering the number of armed citizens outnumbers the number of soldiers something like 70 to 1, last time I checked, they have a chance.

Not to mention that, along with the numbers advantage, there's all kinds of other factors involved that your scenario does not consider should the Federal Government descend into tyranny, including:

*Foreign Interference (Canada, EU, UN, China, etc)
*Management of public perception (winning hearts and minds, appearing as the "good guys" while murdering civilians)
*Overcoming deeply-ingrained values of freedom and independence (despite the leanings of some of you government-teat-suckers).
*The virtually guaranteed, instant defection of much of the southern and southwestern states.
*The Christian population, who are mostly unarmed but already conditioned to associate their religion with their liberty and would take up arms in a heartbeat.

etc.


It's not a simple matter of exercising force. War is never simply a matter of exercising force.

Cullion
2nd February 10, 07:36 PM
And I think you need to come off your god damned high horse and get yourself some reading comprehension. The question was "Would gun nuts be able to overthrow the government if it was backed by the military?" and not "Would gun nuts be able to overthrow the military if the military split and part of it joined the gun nuts??"

Dumbass.

The answer is still yes, fuckstick. Because it's already happened in lots of countries. So I'd shut up about all this grownup stuff you don't understand if I were you.

socratic
2nd February 10, 07:42 PM
I suppose it all depends what kind of force the US government was willing to use on its own people. If they rolled in the tanks and fighter-jets you're six different kinds of fucked, unless John Q Public figured out how to get military-grade weapons naturally not sold to the public (which some would thanks to smuggling, but not all and probably not enough).

Control of the military and police is a key factor of course. That's the difference between a successful or a failed insurrection/revolution.

I don't think it would be over very quickly or easily either way, and there'd be heavy casualties on both sides.

It'd never happen, though. People should be more worried about Neocons throwing out the constitution (they did it before, remember?) than Obama.

SoulMechanic
2nd February 10, 07:42 PM
Yeah but whats to stop the civilian militias with deviating theologies from working against the cause apposed to for it? The complexities of our social construct seem to do a better job working against your argument then for it.

Cullion
2nd February 10, 07:46 PM
People should be more worried about Neocons throwing out the constitution (they did it before, remember?) than Obama.

Why? Obama didn't vote against any of the bad stuff they did.

socratic
2nd February 10, 07:48 PM
The answer is still yes, fuckstick. Because it's already happened in lots of countries. So I'd shut up about all this grownup stuff you don't understand if I were you.
There's still plenty of examples of failed revolutions and insurrections and whatnot. I guess it depends on how good you are at guerilla warfare and how good your government is at killing its own people. Every single (and there's been a LOT) insurrection in Burma for example has all been guerilla and often heavily armed and all of them have inevitably failed.

socratic
2nd February 10, 07:50 PM
Why? Obama didn't vote against any of the bad stuff they did.
At least it wasn't his idea?

For awhile he was agitating like he was going to go against that shit and then I suppose his cabinet said "No actually, being able to waterboard people is pretty cool...."

He doesn't seem like the tyrant type to me. Maybe he has his own Dick Cheney but I doubt it.

Cullion
2nd February 10, 07:50 PM
I think you've just been fooled by the smile.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 07:54 PM
A foreign sponsored insurrection would be awesome

Phrost
2nd February 10, 07:57 PM
I think you've just been fooled by the smile.

And the "Hope".

Keep in mind that the American soldier is sworn to defend the Constitution, not the government.

HappyOldGuy
2nd February 10, 08:02 PM
The answer is still yes, fuckstick. Because it's already happened in lots of countries. So I'd shut up about all this grownup stuff you don't understand if I were you.

Name 1. (without external support)

WarPhalange
2nd February 10, 08:02 PM
The answer is still yes, fuckstick. Because it's already happened in lots of countries. So I'd shut up about all this grownup stuff you don't understand if I were you.

People with guns overthrew the greatest military power in the world in other countries? Really?

Even smuggling these rocket launchers and AK's would be a pain, since we only have two borders and it's not like you can cross the fucking Atlantic or Pacific oceans on your tiny speedboat.

People are also way too spread out here to have any organization on a national level. It took my dad and I a solid 20 hours of driving to get from Seattle to an hour south of LA. This means that the military would only have to worry about one coast at a time and just blockade the other in the mean time.

The only reason they are getting as many (which still isn't a lot) casualties as they are in Iraq and Afghanistan is because they want to get the support of the locals so they can't just go balls out and shoot anybody who gives them any lip. If they were to try and exert marshal law in the US, you think they'd give a fuck about what the people think of them?

And like it's been said, the various "factions" in this country have different goals and it's doubtful they'd work together. People in Iraq and Afghanistan are a lot more homogenous, with one goal in mind, i.e. "Make Americans leave" and not "Put in a new government, with X, Y, Z rules".

Phrost
2nd February 10, 08:05 PM
People with guns overthrew the greatest military power in the world in other countries? Really?

Dude, it's on the front page:

http://www.willowtown.com/promo/moto%2015.jpeg

Cullion
2nd February 10, 08:09 PM
Name 1. (without external support)

Why shouldn't there be some external support?

socratic
2nd February 10, 08:11 PM
Why shouldn't there be some external support?
Who would support the American people over the government? I doubt the UN would even sneeze.

WarPhalange
2nd February 10, 08:13 PM
Dude, it's on the front page:

http://www.willowtown.com/promo/moto%2015.jpeg

You do know that things aren't like back then, right? For one, we have automatic weapons and these things called telephones.

SoulMechanic
2nd February 10, 08:14 PM
Yeah uhhh Frost that might have worked then but that shit would never fly in the modern age and deep down I think you know that.

Cullion
2nd February 10, 08:14 PM
People with guns overthrew the greatest military power in the world in other countries? Really?

Yes, Afghans driving the Soviet Bear out of their country being one example.



Even smuggling these rocket launchers and AK's would be a pain, since we only have two borders and it's not like you can cross the fucking Atlantic or Pacific oceans on your tiny speedboat.

You have two large borders and a network of loosely governed islands in the Caribbean nearby. There's also no reason to assume that it would have to be a small boat.



People are also way too spread out here to have any organization on a national level.

Rubbish. You have cell phones and the Internet. Afghans didn't.



It took my dad and I a solid 20 hours of driving to get from Seattle to an hour south of LA. This means that the military would only have to worry about one coast at a time and just blockade the other in the mean time.

Wow, why don't they do that to stop all the cocaine getting in? that's a brilliant idea!

idiot.



The only reason they are getting as many (which still isn't a lot) casualties as they are in Iraq and Afghanistan is because they want to get the support of the locals so they can't just go balls out and shoot anybody who gives them any lip.

uhuh.



If they were to try and exert marshal law in the US, you think they'd give a fuck about what the people think of them?

Yes of course they would you fucking fool. Do you think none of those soldiers have immediate family who aren't in the military?


People in Iraq and Afghanistan are a lot more homogenous, with one goal in mind, i.e. "Make Americans leave" and not "Put in a new government, with X, Y, Z rules".

See your theory above about the government 'not caring what it has to do to kill the opposition' and then read about 'blitz spirit' etc..

You're talking in absurdities. It's like you're trying to analyse the concept using top-trump cards with pictures of Apaches and tanks on them with stats like 'killpower: 7' and 'speed:10!!'

Angry Mandrill
2nd February 10, 08:20 PM
i vote 'no chance.'

object lesson: chechnya. a committed, fanatical fighting force, comprising civilians who had all served in the soviet army, many with combat experience (afghanistan, abkhazia), versus a demoralized, practically starving, ragtag but gigantic russian army willing to bomb everyone and everything to shit.

result: chechens had machine guns and rpgs vs. tanks and planes. they're pretty much down to the last man. perhaps a third of their population has been destroyed in the process.

us comparison: much better military, much worse civilians - 70% overweight or obese. more TVs than guns. relatively few with military training. markedly lacking requisite nationalistic or religious fanaticism, or even a unifying idea. shit, soon as the gubmint turned off the internet americans would quit.

that'll be $.02, please.

Cullion
2nd February 10, 08:23 PM
Who would support the American people over the government? I doubt the UN would even sneeze.

The UN would do nothing, but plenty of third parties would be interested in shaping the new govt. that would emerge. That's why other nations intervened in the US civil war.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 08:23 PM
Yes, Afghans driving the Soviet Bear out of their country being one example.

Not really a good comparison.

Though a Chinese sponsored operation would be awesome

Phrost
2nd February 10, 08:29 PM
The UN would do nothing, but plenty of third parties would be interested in shaping the new govt. that would emerge. That's why other nations intervened in the US civil war.

It's pretty myopic to think that a country like Venezuela wouldn't be smuggling in weapons to aid insurgents, or that foreign-run crime syndicates wouldn't play a part either.

Hell, I'll bet there'd even be a MS-13 Division.

danno
2nd February 10, 08:38 PM
here's my scenario:

i don't think the government could keep the whole country under complete control. insurgency in the middle east has set a precedent and shown us how to resist with next to nothing.

the military who still supported the government would probably retreat back to a smaller area of the country to consolidate. maybe near the capital.

the rest of the country would split up into a number of factions, and american society and lifestyle as we know it would disappear. everyone would suffer terribly. breakdown of infrastructure, starvation, lawlessness.

basically you'd end up with another africa/middle east type of thing.

then possibly other countries like china or india would find it easy to move in and take control of some areas.

HappyOldGuy
2nd February 10, 08:52 PM
Why shouldn't there be some external support?

Because the point of the argument is that it's the guns we already own that protect us. Not the guns we can wrangle from the superpower enemies of our superpower oppressors.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 08:58 PM
Because the point of the argument is that it's the guns we already own that protect us. Not the guns we can wrangle from the superpower enemies of our superpower oppressors.
Or other superpowers can supply us.

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 09:04 PM
Let's talk strategy.

1:Government goes all-out, scorched earth on us; Indiscriminately targeting urban centers and resistance hold-outs. No consideration is given for collateral damage. High-prejudice scenario.

-We're in bad shape here. We (vive la resistance!!!) will be reduced to small unit, hit-and-run operations in a mostly-harassment role. However, realistically, the public support for this would evaporate almost instantly. Mass defections and desertions would reduce the military, and possibly re-distribute high-value assets to our side.

Soon it will just be 1861 all over again.

2: Government tries to soft-ball it. Mass-propaganda and para-military police tactics attempt to root out hold-out weapons owners.

-State and local-level hold-out governments will block and fail to support this. Squad level conflicts will occur in the dark of night, with the advantage going to the gov troops...but not by much. Some Waco-style fortified positions will hold out until hammerd by tanks and/or planes; or they will fall in bloody (for both sides) attrition-style sieges.

Ultimately, without local support, the conflict will escalate into federal vs. State's rights and it will be 1861 all over again.





There are over 80 million gun owners in this country, and an active military of 1.4 million people. If the second amendment was repealed I bet you will lose 25% of your armed forces teh first day. and 1% every day after that. Even with the superior firepower and resources, that is a hell of a disadvantage for the military.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 09:25 PM
1981 scenario is preferable.


For the government

Sun Wukong
2nd February 10, 09:32 PM
It's totally inconcievable that our nation could be overthrown without a full fledged military coup started and supported within our existing government unless we experience some kind of apocalyptic calamity as a precursor.

All that crap about outside support is just that; crap.

We've got the most powerful navy and air force on the planet. Regular armed shmucks wouldn't stand a chance and could at best hope to run and create minor random attacks. Most of the nation would likely NOT go along with any plan to oppose the government with force of arms.

Drawing comparisons between present day america and colonial america is an excercise in fantasy.

Sun Wukong
2nd February 10, 09:39 PM
There are over 80 million gun owners in this country, and an active military of 1.4 million people. If the second amendment was repealed I bet you will lose 25% of your armed forces teh first day. and 1% every day after that. Even with the superior firepower and resources, that is a hell of a disadvantage for the military.

I think you're on the crack.

Wounded Ronin
2nd February 10, 09:43 PM
to avoid derailing the other thread.

if Obama threw out the constitution tomorrow, and the military backed him could all the gun owners in the US organize and overthrow the government; basically fulfill phrost's main augment to why the 2nd amendment is necessary.

Can random idiots with AKs and suicide vests in Iraq defeat the US military?

SoulMechanic
2nd February 10, 09:43 PM
It's pretty myopic to think that a country like Venezuela wouldn't be smuggling in weapons to aid insurgents, or that foreign-run crime syndicates wouldn't play a part either.

Hell, I'll bet there'd even be a MS-13 Division.


Yeah and the MS-13 Division would work in total harmony with the well armed and stockpiled white separatists who would be just stoked to be working with their militant Muslim black brothers. Uh-huh. . .

Well at least the El Salvadorian backed MS-13 could take solise in knowing their Mexican gang counterparts and their drug cartel backed partners would join them in the fight.

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 09:45 PM
How so?

80 million gun owners with 250 million guns. That's a real stat. Hell...I could loan some of mine out to willing volunteers!

Our military has a significant number of pro-gun, pro 2nd ammendment types. Not to mention those that wil refuse to attack their own people. I think it's reasonable to expect desertions if the military is deployed on US soil for the purpose of confiscating firearms.

ANd I've never touched an illegal narcotic in my life.

Wounded Ronin
2nd February 10, 09:48 PM
I think you should spend less time flicking through the character generation section of Twighlight 2000 (wow, look at that rifle skill! there's no way that Ukranian farmer stands a chance against my Green Beret!), and more time watching the news and learning some history.

Holy shit, you played Twilight 2000? You're MUCH cooler than I thought!

Did you ever play Pheonix Command?

Phrost
2nd February 10, 09:48 PM
You see, maintaining the belief that there's no point in fighting the government means you don't have to feel guilty about your lack of character, courage, or drive to preserve your own freedom.

That kind of moral flaccidity is typical of today's 20-somethings. It makes me want to vomit.

jvjim
2nd February 10, 10:11 PM
You see, maintaining the belief that there's no point in fighting the government means you don't have to feel guilty about your lack of character, courage, or drive to preserve your own freedom.

That kind of moral flaccidity is typical of today's 20-somethings. It makes me want to vomit.

That would change once they saw pictures of fire bombed US cities on flickr.

SoulMechanic
2nd February 10, 10:11 PM
Your raging hard on for the what if scinerio makes me want to take you out back old yeller style. From what you say I see the likelihood of a multinational backed race war coming into play more then I do some sort of lets all rally together and over through the government bullshit. Your lack of maturity, rationality and fore site just makes me giggle a little bit while I roll my eyes and shake my head in baffled amusement.

You are talking to a gun owning, card carrying member of the NRA that has been shot twice and stabbed twice. Hell I would wager a bet Ive been through more fights for my freedom to continue living then the majority of the ignorant ex military dunces who frequent this board during their time in active duty.

Did it ever occur to you that in your "drive to preserve your own freedom" you would end up with much less then you do now being that if and when the government would be overthrown peons like you and I would be in far less position to stand upon a soap box then before your little coup d'état. So please tell me how this little brainfart of yours would even benefit the people?

jvjim
2nd February 10, 10:20 PM
Also, no shell, bullet, or Orwellian dogma can slate the innate thirst for liberty in every American. Why? Because the average American is descended from the greatest freedom fighters, pioneers, revolutionaries, and crusaders to ever have been born. A truly tyrannical government would run out of people to govern before it could truly claim sovereignty over any American providence.

jvjim
2nd February 10, 10:23 PM
Wait, are we talking about the legitimate, republican, democratically elected, constitutional federal government we have now, or not kneeling to an unconstitutional autocracy?

Scrapper
2nd February 10, 10:24 PM
Remember the original post.

It has more to do with intellectual exercise than actual likelihood. THere are approximately 23976 things that are more likely to ruin my day right now than the scenario presented here.

mike321
2nd February 10, 10:24 PM
US revolution version 1: Colonies + Superpower backing = win
US revolution version 2: South without Superpower backing = No win

Big fan of our Founding Fathers but felt compelled to point out history.

Also, my understanding of Civil War history is a bit weak, my understanding is that Superpowers stayed out of it mostly.

jvjim
2nd February 10, 10:28 PM
US revolution version 1: Colonies + Superpower backing = win
US revolution version 2: South without Superpower backing = No win

Big fan of our Founding Fathers but felt compelled to point out history.

Also, my understanding of Civil War history is a bit weak, my understanding is that Superpowers stayed out of it mostly.

The actual causes of and policies during the Civil War have been so romanticized and conflated that it's almost useless to compare the Civil War to anything in the modern context.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 10:32 PM
Also, no shell, bullet, or Orwellian dogma can slate the innate thirst for liberty in every American. Why? Because the average American is descended from the greatest freedom fighters, pioneers, revolutionaries, and crusaders to ever have been born. A truly tyrannical government would run out of people to govern before it could truly claim sovereignty over any American providence.
Eat some cheetos and watch Jersey Shore, pay no attention to the machinations behind the curtain.


But, oh, hey..right... Freedom in ur blood n'stuff

jvjim
2nd February 10, 10:37 PM
Eat some cheetos and watch Jersey Shore, pay no attention to the machinations behind the curtain.


That's a bullshit argument. In fact, I'd say it strengthens the idea of the innate desire for freedom held by Americans. Freedom does not equal advancing positive cultural mores. You can use it to engage your fellow citizens in creating a better world OR sit around watching bad TV all day while you eat shitty food.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 10:44 PM
Yes, freedom to eat shitty tv and watch shitty food..

Need I remind you, that just recently, Supreme Court granted mega corps more rights and power than any individual and no one cared?

danno
2nd February 10, 10:52 PM
Also, no shell, bullet, or Orwellian dogma can slate the innate thirst for liberty in every American. Why? Because the average American is descended from the greatest freedom fighters, pioneers, revolutionaries, and crusaders to ever have been born. A truly tyrannical government would run out of people to govern before it could truly claim sovereignty over any American providence.

i just cringed so hard it put my back out.

jvjim
2nd February 10, 10:55 PM
Need I remind you, that just recently, Supreme Court granted mega corps more rights and power than any individual and no one cared?

First, false.

Second, there has been some pretty massive blow back from that decision.

Third, there IS a compelling free speech argument for allowing corporations to spend their money how they see fit, it's just the exercise of that freedom that has troubling results. This isn't as cut and dry of an issue as certain people (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/olbermann-on-supreme-court-campaign-finance/) are making it out to be.

jvjim
2nd February 10, 10:55 PM
i just cringed so hard it put my back out.
:)

EDIT: danno my man, I don't want you to get in trouble with the PM, you better sign your real name and address to your posts.

danno
2nd February 10, 10:59 PM
+rep for responding with humour.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 10:59 PM
First, false.

Second, there has been some pretty massive blow back from that decision.

Third, there IS a compelling free speech argument for allowing corporations to spend their money how they see fit, it's just the exercise of that freedom that has troubling results. This isn't as cut and dry of an issue as certain people (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/01/olbermann-on-supreme-court-campaign-finance/) are making it out to be.
granting personhood to corperations without the same accountability was ludicrous in the first place.

I don't care if it happened back in eighteenhundredwhenever. It was a stupid decision that would have made Mussolini nod in approval.

jvjim
2nd February 10, 11:02 PM
It was a stupid decision that would have made Mussolini nod in approval.

It didn't by law nationalize corporations. Just sorta de facto.

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 11:03 PM
I'm pretty sure they didn't foresee the consequences thereof.

mike321
2nd February 10, 11:04 PM
I don't think the we are more or less apathetic than other times in history, I think the Corporations gets Rights (as in Rights endowed by the Creator) is going to go down as a big flop of a Supreme Court decision. It just needs some time to work itself through...

EuropIan
2nd February 10, 11:06 PM
In my heart of hearts I'm hoping it was a ploy to get their status revoked.

bob
2nd February 10, 11:45 PM
All those people who equated throwing off your own government with throwing a foreign power out of your country please report for re-education.

Syntactical Disruptorize
3rd February 10, 01:34 AM
It looks to me as if all of the respondents with actual military experience or strong military focus think that an armed populace is a significant deterrent to a military takeover, while all of the people who discount this possibility do not.

Why is that?

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 01:35 AM
It has been implied, but I don't think anyone has yet asked the question:

Do these gun nuts WANT to overthrow the government?

I'd say, with the exception of the overtly and expressly racist groups, NO. I'm a gun owner, growing into a nut of sorts, and I just want to keep my guns.

SFGOON
3rd February 10, 04:01 AM
Americans can't agree on the color of shit.

No fucking way a culturally balkanized Federation like ours could unite under a single banner to overthrow a common enemy.

These days, anything seized by violence isn't worth retaining anyway. It's not as though the conscripts would just go back to farming potatoes once the armistice was declared. Our world order has become much too interdepdendant for that. Too much civization would be lost in total war to make it worthwhile.

The object of the game was, in the recent past, to control swaths of geography, to expand jurisdiction and lay explicit claim to the peoples and resources therein.

Increasingly, conflicts are waged for public opinion, brand loyalty, and the proliferation of various shades of economic liberalism. Hearts and minds, along with the zeitgeist they collectively engender, are the true trophy of statesmen and generals. Information and the context of presentation are the very stuff of power.

Unfortunately for the NRA and it's frenetic adherents, some things just can't be shot. Were the Conspiracy to descend upon the American population, it would not take the form of shock troops bearing rifles. It would be rather more insidious than that.

Kiko
3rd February 10, 04:26 AM
What if it wasn't 'the gun nuts' or more that it wasn't through force at first... say someone knocked out things like TV, the internet and the stuff folks think is their right to sit at home and OD on.... and made sure to blame the govt for their absence?

The best way to piss off spoiled, entitled people is to take away their toys.

Just a different what if...

MSphinx
3rd February 10, 05:38 AM
Our military has a significant number of pro-gun, pro 2nd ammendment types. Not to mention those that wil refuse to attack their own people. I think it's reasonable to expect desertions if the military is deployed on US soil for the purpose of confiscating firearms.

The Milgram Experiment, followed by the Charles Sheridan and Richard King experiment, showed that people can be ordered to do the most terrible things. They will go against their very own values if a man in authority told them to. It's just human nature.

You will get desertions, but those brave enough to stand up will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

PS: government spelling fail in headline

Kein Haar
3rd February 10, 07:41 AM
Could any group overthrow a government?

Sure. Why not? It doesn't even have to involve shooting.

It can. But it doesn't have to.

Theoretically, a large enough gun support contingent could non-violently do it. Or do it violently on a scale which pisses off lots of sympathizers and simply erodes confidence from the inside.

Something Waco-esque, for example.

Otherwise the FUCKING ANSWER IS NO IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LINING UP and EXCHANGING FUCKING VOLLEYS. NO FUCKING SHIT ASSWIPES (like poop loops and is many funny opinions about things outside a room lighted by flourescent bulbs).

But governments, ultimately, need some sort of cooperation from their people. Without that, they are all but overthrown regardless of violence. Violence can be helpful though.

Sun Wukong
3rd February 10, 10:43 AM
How so?

80 million gun owners with 250 million guns. That's a real stat. Hell...I could loan some of mine out to willing volunteers!

Our military has a significant number of pro-gun, pro 2nd ammendment types. Not to mention those that wil refuse to attack their own people. I think it's reasonable to expect desertions if the military is deployed on US soil for the purpose of confiscating firearms.

ANd I've never touched an illegal narcotic in my life.

What we would need to ask is, in what situation would the the government attempt to use military force against it's own people?

A: the government slides into a police state because of a major failure to maintain order.

B: a portion of society no longer feels they are capable of winning elections to make the changes they need and decide to over throw the government. This is the military coup option.

C: The government falls. The U.S. Federal government ceases to exist or govern the states.


I don't take the possibility of the 2nd amendment being repealed seriously because we have a democracy. If it ever gets to that point, there won't be a large enough portion of society still supporting gun rights or we won't have a government at all because if there was, they could just vote the rights back in.

In the government is gone, well, obviously we are already in a very bad situation.

If we are having a coup, then we may be in serious shit as our forces are divided and we must engage in civil war.

In all three of those scenarios I think that having a gun and a lot of ammunition is a very good idea.

I don't think any of them are likely though, just as I think that most of the talk from the "They're gonna take my guns community" is nothing more than a political wedge issue being used as an exploit to get votes.

EvilSteve
3rd February 10, 11:07 AM
It looks to me as if all of the respondents with actual military experience or strong military focus think that an armed populace is a significant deterrent to a military takeover, while all of the people who discount this possibility do not.

Why is that?

For the record, I have no military experience and I think that an armed populace is a significant deterrent to a military takeover. No, the average citizen militia would not stand a chance in a direct confrontation with a comparably sized military force, but they could over an extended period of time demoralize the military via sabotage and subterfuge to the point that mass desertions started causing problems. This would be substantially more difficult than throwing out a foreign military, but it would be possible.

WarPhalange
3rd February 10, 11:11 AM
Yes, Afghans driving the Soviet Bear out of their country being one example.

Right. I forgot about that one, sor-- oh no wait! We're talking about a country taking back its government, not driving out an invader. You clearly have no fucking clue how to read properly, so I won't bother responding to the rest.

Syntactical Disruptorize
3rd February 10, 11:18 AM
Right. I forgot about that one, sor-- oh no wait! We're talking about a country taking back its government, not driving out an invader.
Because unless something has happened exactly according to your worded constraints, it can have no implications for your question!


You clearly have no fucking clue how to read properly, so I won't bother responding to the rest.
Read: "I have nothing of substance to say and don't know how to dissemble the fact, so I'll just throw a fit."

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 11:31 AM
Right. I forgot about that one, sor-- oh no wait! We're talking about a country taking back its government, not driving out an invader. You clearly have no fucking clue how to read properly, so I won't bother responding to the rest.

Poops, I sorta think you're moving the goal posts on this one.

MSphinx
3rd February 10, 12:05 PM
Poops, I sorta think you're moving the goal posts on this one.

I agree with Poops. It's easier to foster patriotic uprisings again an Other than it is to rebel against your own leaders, your own people.

EvilSteve
3rd February 10, 12:10 PM
I think Poops has a valid point- it is easier to oust a foreign enemy where the soldiers all probably just want to go home anyway, than to topple a tyrannical government where the soldiers ARE home, but the process is the same- you engage in guerrilla action to demoralize the organized force. They can respond with intimidation tactics such as summary execution of civilians, but each time they do that, it will turn the populace further against them, which will demoralize them further.

It will take longer, and the insurgents will have to suffer heavier losses, but it is still possible.

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 12:16 PM
I agree with Poops. It's easier to foster patriotic uprisings again an Other than it is to rebel against your own leaders, your own people.

So why doesn't the same logic apply to the military? Not to mention that Iraq and Afghanistan vs. our own military has been brought up - that's a small portion of the overall populations of those countries, and we're still feeling it. So what if just a small percentage of our population was willing to go to those lengths? Maybe we should define our terms - what constitutes 'overthrowing' a government? Because I don't know that those diverse groups could replace the government, but causing it to fall apart and cease to be very well might be possible.

Plus, I felt that the conversation had sort of moved in a 'We did it 230 years ago, but it couldn't happen today" direction and Cullion's response was pertinent. I don't think any other poster is viewing the conditions of the thought exercise so rigidly.

SFGOON
3rd February 10, 12:46 PM
In Afghanistan it was actually the Stinger Antiaircraft missiles the US smuggled to the mujahedeen which allowed them to win the war.

When all they had was their AK's (which were their right to own thanks to the second amendment, praise be to al Lah!) they got their asses kicked by commies.

Commies!

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 12:53 PM
In Afghanistan it was actually the Stinger Antiaircraft missiles the US smuggled to the mujahedeen which allowed them to win the war.

When all they had was their AK's (which were their right to own thanks to the second amendment, praise be to al Lah!) they got their asses kicked by commies.

Commies!

Yeah, but as a nation we acted pretty scared of those same commies throughout my youth...

SFGOON
3rd February 10, 12:56 PM
You've never seen movies like Iron Eagle, or Red Dawn.

I bet you didn't have Rush'n Attack for your NES during the Cold War.

So I'll tell you a fact about communism - they drop like flies at the slightest wound, but don't let them touch you or they'll infect you with their commie germs!

We were only ever scared of their nukes, which THEY NEVER USED!!

So losing to commies on the ground is uber-pussy.

See?

kracker
3rd February 10, 01:33 PM
I don't see guns as so much important for revolution than deterrence. Guns don't destroy a facist government, they prevent it. They are essential to liberty because of the fact that the government knows it's going to be a BLOODBATH if they ordered police/military to round up citizens and put them into death camps. They might succeed in the end, but it will be over the corpses of thousands of their own. Canada or UK on the other hand could round up and kill their people with acceptable losses.

mrblackmagic
3rd February 10, 01:35 PM
A foreign sponsored insurrection would be awesome
El Rukn, sponsored by Libya, tried for a measly two million. Did not go down too well.

Syntactical Disruptorize
3rd February 10, 01:37 PM
I don't see guns as so much important for revolution than deterrence. Guns don't destroy a facist government, they prevent it. They are essential to liberty because of the fact that the government knows it's going to be a BLOODBATH if they ordered police/military to round up citizens and put them into death camps. They might succeed in the end, but it will be over the corpses of thousands of their own. Canada or UK on the other hand could round up and kill their people with acceptable losses.This. This, right here.

Commodore Pipes
3rd February 10, 01:45 PM
You've never seen movies like Iron Eagle, or Red Dawn.

I bet you didn't have Rush'n Attack for your NES during the Cold War.

So I'll tell you a fact about communism - they drop like flies at the slightest wound, but don't let them touch you or they'll infect you with their commie germs!

We were only ever scared of their nukes, which THEY NEVER USED!!

So losing to commies on the ground is uber-pussy.

See?

Sir, you have inspired me to make exploding arrowheads.

bob
3rd February 10, 03:43 PM
I may have to go and dig up that article I posted some time ago about how gun owners had a lower rate of voting than the average.

KO'd N DOA
3rd February 10, 04:29 PM
Gun owners could make it difficult to get around the states. A few might seceed from the Union... Alaska can become a Monarchy under Queen Palin or something, oil rich counties are run better that way.

Hawai can go back to their kingdoms and clans. Vermont and smaller states could get just forgotten, and be overrun with Moose and trees.

Ajamil
4th February 10, 05:19 AM
There was a great sci-fi short story about the an armed insurrection because DC got bombed and they moved the capital to Graceland. Freakin hilarious, and no president better mess with the king.

socratic
4th February 10, 06:12 AM
Like the ancient Romans, no self-respecting American would ever bow to a king.

MSphinx
4th February 10, 08:39 AM
So why doesn't the same logic apply to the military?

Hm, I'd think it would be because military forces have formal leadership, training, etc.


Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

... and this just refers to ordinary people, not professionals who have extensive training in following orders.

The gun nuts would need a leader to rally around before they become effective.

Vieux Normand
4th February 10, 09:28 AM
The gun nuts would need a leader to rally around before they become effective.

Gun-nuts accepting authority...

Yeah. Then their pickup-trucks and three-oughts would > a squadron of A-10s.

Sun Wukong
4th February 10, 09:42 AM
It looks to me as if all of the respondents with actual military experience or strong military focus think that an armed populace is a significant deterrent to a military takeover, while all of the people who discount this possibility do not.

Why is that?


For the record, you don't know what you are talking about.

US Army, I got the DD 214 and bad knees to prove it.


Edit: and you just touched on something that really pisses me off to no end. Wanna be nut riders who just assume everyone whose ever held a weapon for uncle sam votes republican.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 10:20 AM
to avoid derailing the other thread.

if Obama threw out the constitution tomorrow, and the military backed him could all the gun owners in the US organize and overthrow the government; .


No.

As someone else wrote, the U.S. military is sworn to uphold the constitution.

This means that any changes to the constitution would be defended by the military because they would be part of the constitution.

Civilian insurrections would fail. Most of the U.S. tends to get cold in the winter and the citizens like to eat. Modern society is extremely dependent on the national transportation, power and medical infrastructures. In the event of large scale social disturbances the power grids, and food transportation ditribution into these areas could be reduced.

Argue against it. The bigger question comes to: Are you willing or even able to maintain an armed conflict when your pipes freeze and burst, you have no water, little or no food, your wife/husband and children have influenza or some other illness.

Do you have a generator? How much food is in your house right now? Do you have extensive medical supplies? Fuel for vehicles, secure communications equipment? Blah, blah, blah blah?


The United States is more vulnerable and likely to experience a Venezuelan type of government takeover.



Also, if you equate a citizen using his constitutional right to possess and use arms for defense as a "nut", then consider that there have been suggestions that the right to free speech should have "reasonable" restrictions.

EvilSteve
4th February 10, 10:46 AM
You know, something just occurred to me- no one has yet mentioned the possibility that if the government dissolved the constitution and instituted martial law that a lot of gun nuts might actually SUPPORT it.

Consider, what if a hard right candidate gets elected. Hardcore religious fundie. The new authoritarian government makes Christianity the state religion, rolls back any sort of progressive rights, dismantles welfare, public education becomes xtian and pledging allegiance goes back in the classroom, insert conservative wedge issue here.

Now, I doubt any of the gun nuts present would support this, but a lot of gun nuts in general would. A lot of gun nuts think Sarah Palin would make a great president. If you want to see this in action, take a look at Iran. Their gun-nut analogues are the Basiji militias, and they support the repressive, autocratic regime.

And I think this is the best argument so far AGAINST liberal anti-gun campaigners. You may eventually need guns to be legal in order to protect yourself from people who think guns should be legal. So, since February is already white trash month (which is a pretty ironic twist on Black History Month, btw), how about we make March "Let's all give guns to the commies month?"

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 10:52 AM
Hm, I'd think it would be because military forces have formal leadership, training, etc.



The US military doesn't train its members to be heartless killing machines that can exercise their full might and power against their fellow US citizens with absolutely no moral qualms about it. Quite the opposite - they are instructed in their moral imperative to resist illegal/immoral orders. It be only a small part of their overall training, but if we're going to say that if an insurrection wouldn't work against a domestic enemy, we have to consider, as many others have on this thread, that many members of the US military would be unwilling to exercise their might against their neighbors.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 11:00 AM
The object of the game was, in the recent past, to control swaths of geography, to expand jurisdiction and lay explicit claim to the peoples and resources therein.

And resources. Consider the current experience with Mexican illegal aliens. My state is estimated to have 200,000 to 800,000 illegal aliens. That is out of a population of 8 million. Citizens? NO. Remittances from illegal aliens are second only to oil as Mexico's number one source of foreign exxchange In 2008 the first year Mexico had a decline in these remittances, Mexico has US $25 billion dollars remitted. Occupying army? No. Occupying swaths of terrritory? Claiming, extracting and exporting resources to Mexico(a foreign country)? Yes.


Efffective government response? No. Why? See below.


Increasingly, conflicts are waged for public opinion, brand loyalty, and the proliferation of various shades of economic liberalism. Hearts and minds, along with the zeitgeist they collectively engender, are the true trophy of statesmen and generals. Information and the context of presentation are the very stuff of power.

Sun Wukong
4th February 10, 11:09 AM
Also, if you equate a citizen using his constitutional right to possess and use arms for defense as a "nut", then consider that there have been suggestions that the right to free speech should have "reasonable" restrictions.

You were being pretty lucid and understandable up to this point.

Freedom of speech does have restrictions so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Syntactical Disruptorize
4th February 10, 11:19 AM
For the record, you don't know what you are talking about.

US Army, I got the DD 214 and bad knees to prove it.
OK, that explains your apparent need to assume that the Army can destroy everything it chooses.


Edit: and you just touched on something that really pisses me off to no end. Wanna be nut riders who just assume everyone whose ever held a weapon for uncle sam votes republican.
I did not assume that. I just saw no Military tag on your profile, and between that and your general level of bitchery, I figured you for a non-military fuckwit instead of a fuckwit who did serve. For which, thanks.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 11:23 AM
Consider, what if a social leftist candidate gets elected. A secular elitist who believes that if you can think of an idea it should have validity. The new authoritarian government makes belief in religion a subversive activity, rolls back any sort of progressive rights, increases welfare by enacting public policy and laws that destroy businesses and jobs, public education becomes worship of government and its beaurocrats, pledging allegiance to a new world order of laws and obedience, dissent becomes an act of terrorism.


Fixed.

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 11:33 AM
Fixed.

Gay.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 11:39 AM
You were being pretty lucid and understandable up to this point.

Freedom of speech does have restrictions so I'm not sure what you are trying to say.


Please tell me you are not trolling.

You mean beyond the not yelling fire in a crowded theater, yelling outside my window at 2:00am, trespassing on private property to make a "statement"? speech? Those kind of restrictions?

If not, what are the restrictions to a citizen's freedom of speech as constitutionally protected?

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 11:44 AM
Gay.

and that was refutation?

EvilSteve
4th February 10, 11:44 AM
Fixed.

You fixed my post by removing the whole point of posting it?

Yeah, given that gun fans tend to lean to the right politically, of course they're going to oppose any left-leaning government they view as authoritarian. A lot of them view THIS government as authoritarian. My point is, all it takes is a little appeasement and those freedom loving gun fans would be more than willing to put their boots in the face of anyone who doesn't toe their line. And I'm sure they'll justify it by saying they're fighting for liberty. That's what the second paragraph was about.

In short- if you believe in the first ammendment, you believe in free speech for those who disagree with you. Corollary to that- if you believe in the second ammendment, you believe in gun rights for people who want to kill you.

This should be no problem for anyone who really believes that an armed society is a polite society. (No, I'm not taking aim at Phrost specifically, it was just an appropriate reference).

Sun Wukong
4th February 10, 11:57 AM
Please tell me you are not trolling.

You mean beyond the not yelling fire in a crowded theater, yelling outside my window at 2:00am, trespassing on private property to make a "statement"? speech? Those kind of restrictions?

If not, what are the restrictions to a citizen's freedom of speech as constitutionally protected?

Those are examples of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech are they not?

I'm not trolling, but you can't say that people are free to say whatever they want or produce what ever depictions they want at liberty. Reasonable restrictions are just that, reasonable restrictions. They put limits on how far we can take our freedoms and prevent them from being abused.

There are tons of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech:

state laws against all forms of pornography being produced or distributed. felonies such as forgery, uttering threats, libel, defamation, obscenity, conspiracy, soliciting, sexual harrassment, fraud, invasion of privacy, multiple instances of restrictions in the military, etc.

All of which are are reasonable restrictions on free speech because they all have implications that can clearly be seen.

Saying that the 2nd amendment should not have reasonable restrictions is like saying it's okay for 1st graders to play with guns while consuming alcohol and watching hardcore pornography.

What bothers you, is the possibility of reasonable restrictions to somebody else, being completely unreasonable to you.

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 11:59 AM
and that was refutation?

No, that was actually just me being bitchy. This was a refutation, though:


You fixed my post by removing the whole point of posting it?

Yeah, given that gun fans tend to lean to the right politically, of course they're going to oppose any left-leaning government they view as authoritarian. A lot of them view THIS government as authoritarian. My point is, all it takes is a little appeasement and those freedom loving gun fans would be more than willing to put their boots in the face of anyone who doesn't toe their line. And I'm sure they'll justify it by saying they're fighting for liberty. That's what the second paragraph was about.

In short- if you believe in the first ammendment, you believe in free speech for those who disagree with you. Corollary to that- if you believe in the second ammendment, you believe in gun rights for people who want to kill you.

This should be no problem for anyone who really believes that an armed society is a polite society. (No, I'm not taking aim at Phrost specifically, it was just an appropriate reference).

Sun Wukong
4th February 10, 12:09 PM
OK, that explains your apparent need to assume that the Army can destroy everything it chooses.



I did not assume that.

You just assumed they agreed with you.


[quoteI just saw no Military tag on your profile, and between that and your general level of bitchery, I figured you for a non-military fuckwit instead of a fuckwit who did serve.[/quote]

First of all, you rely more on ad hominem attacks than most people who post here and nearly all of the people who disagree with you.

Second of all, you prove my point about being a nut rider by assuming because I don't agree with you, you just assumed that I didn't serve.

AND FUCK YOU. I didn't do a god damn thing for you asshole, so don't pretend to be gracious about shit you don't understand.

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 12:20 PM
Who was it on here who said about military service "Don't thank me until you fill out your taxes?" That was great.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 12:37 PM
Those are examples of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech are they not?

I'm not trolling, but you can't say that people are free to say whatever they want or produce what ever depictions they want at liberty. Reasonable restrictions are just that, reasonable restrictions. They put limits on how far we can take our freedoms and prevent them from being abused.

There are tons of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech:

state laws against all forms of pornography being produced or distributed. felonies such as forgery, uttering threats, libel, defamation, obscenity, conspiracy, soliciting, sexual harrassment, fraud, invasion of privacy, multiple instances of restrictions in the military, etc.

All of which can be reasonable restrictions on free speech because they all have implications that can be clearly seen



As you well know, there is no universal definition of pornography? I may see a painting by a Renaissance master. You may see smut.

The rest are criminal acts and not constitutional rights or freedoms. AFAIK, criminal acts are not constitutionally protected. It may be convenient but ignoring that the exercise of constitutional freedoms/rights does not give the exerciser the right to infringe upon the freedoms/rights of others does not make a statement valid.





Saying that the 2nd amendment should not have reasonable restrictions is like saying it's okay for 1st graders to play with guns while consuming alcohol and watching hardcore pornography.


The 2nd Amendment is the right to possess and bear arms. If you shoot some one that may be a criminal act. If you terrify someone, that may be a criminal act.

Allowing a child to posses a firearm is not unconstitutional. Allowing a child to handle a loaded firearm in a negligent manner is a criminal offfense and really poor safety training.

Not allowing first graders to abuse alcohol is a common sense and the responsibility of the supervising adult. Allowing a child to abuse alcohol is also a criminal offense.

Please to give the universal definition of pornography and then the universal definition of hardcore pornography.





What bothers you, is the possibility of reasonable restrictions to somebody else, being completely unreasonable to you.


Intellectual crack kills more than just the user. You are fully supported in your right to restrict your own constitutionally protected actions.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 01:12 PM
You fixed my post by removing the whole point of posting it?


Was there really a point? It is all the same stage just different actors.

The U.S. is more likely to experience a leftist socialist takeover of the federal government. The the portion of the general population wit those beliefs is fairly small. At this time average U.S. citizen will not support that type of behavior and given the opportunity will actively take part in stopping it.



Yeah, given that gun fans tend to lean to the right politically

I believe that this is false. Where do you get that belief. Remember, we are discussing a constitutional right to protect ones self, family, and community. Whatever the community is or is composed of; Asian-American, African-American, GLT, Mormon, Baptist, Hebrew, Catholic.





In short- if you believe in the first ammendment, you believe in free speech for those who disagree with you. Corollary to that- if you believe in the second ammendment, you believe in gun rights for people who want to kill you.


Well, duh.

What? It seems you are implying that any who has access to a weapon will want to kill someone.

Guns don't have rights.

Why does your avatar have you holding a weapon?




This should be no problem for anyone who really believes that an armed society is a polite society. (No, I'm not taking aim at Phrost specifically, it was just an appropriate reference).


You seem to be implying it would be a problem. It is not.

Ajamil
4th February 10, 01:44 PM
This is fun, I read a book about the Army and the US being taken over by the Militant Order of the Brothers in Christ, and all the scares of the left, AND I read a book about the Army taking over after a leftist pres screwed up all our farming and all the scares of the right. And now here we are imagining the same scenarios on Sociocide (BTW, the lefty author writes better stories, so the left side is right).

EvilSteve
4th February 10, 02:06 PM
Was there really a point? It is all the same stage just different actors.

The U.S. is more likely to experience a leftist socialist takeover of the federal government. The the portion of the general population wit those beliefs is fairly small. At this time average U.S. citizen will not support that type of behavior and given the opportunity will actively take part in stopping it.


Actually, I think the US is most likely to experience a centrist corporatist takeover of the federal government. See the thread on corporate personhood. For all the left's lionizing of Obama or the right's demonizing of him, his most radical actions were to funnel a ton of money to the banks.



I believe that this is false. Where do you get that belief. Remember, we are discussing a constitutional right to protect ones self, family, and community. Whatever the community is or is composed of; Asian-American, African-American, GLT, Mormon, Baptist, Hebrew, Catholic.


I get this belief because I used to shoot competition when I was in high school, continued recreationally in college, and still shoot occasionally. I've spent a fair amount of time around guns and around gun clubs and I have to say the vast majority of gun owners that I've met are pretty right wing. The NRA, the most prominent gun advocacy group in the country is right wing, the GOP which supports gun rights is right wing and conversely, every gun control advocate I've evet met or even heard of is pretty left wing, and the Democratic party which supports gun control is center-left. I'm sure there are exceptions to these rules, but by and large, yeah, gun owners tend to lean to the right.





Well, duh.

What? It seems you are implying that any who has access to a weapon will want to kill someone.

Guns don't have rights.


No, I'm just saying that the reason we have the second ammendment is so we can kill people if necessary. Specifically, it's so we can kill people in defense of ourselves, our homes, and our country. That last one is a bit sticky. You refer to Venezuela as having undergone a government "takeover." Criticism of Hugo Chavez aside (I'm not a huge fan of his), so far as I can tell Venezuela has the government it has because it has a lot of dire poor and Chavez appealed to them. Unfortunately this came at the expense of the middle class, as it always does.



Why does your avatar have you holding a weapon?


That was from the last Bullshido shootout at Scrapper's place. Aside from the fact that it was a lot of fun and I absolutely loved that shotgun, Ming, Scrapper, Sam Browning and I switched our avatars to photos taken that weekend in hopes of promoting future shootouts.



You seem to be implying it would be a problem. It is not.

Much as I rail against New York's draconian gun laws, I don't see how anyone who has ever been on a crowded NYC subway at rush hour could argue that it would be safer if everyone was packing.

Personally, I think that U.S. citizens should have the right to purchase fully automatic assault weapons if they choose to. To me, this is just a point of liberty, not about self defense, and to me advocating liberty is part and parcel of being liberal. I vote God, Gays and Guns too- as in, we have the right to all three. In my experience, however, most people DON'T feel this way. If that doesn't describe you, that's commendable, but for reference, ask a hard core teabagger how he or she feels about heavily armed socialists.

Kein Haar
4th February 10, 02:53 PM
Much as I rail against New York's draconian gun laws, I don't see how anyone who has ever been on a crowded NYC subway at rush hour could argue that it would be safer if everyone was packing.

Not everyone would be. Not ever. Carrying is slightly uncomfortable at best.

VSR. Important term in animal training. Variable schedule of reinforcement.

Fill in the blanks.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 02:55 PM
Actually, I think the US is most likely to experience a centrist corporatist takeover of the federal government. See the thread on corporate personhood. For all the left's lionizing of Obama or the right's demonizing of him, his most radical actions were to funnel a ton of money to the banks.

While that is a nice conspiracy theory is is still the same stage just different players. You forgot the healtcare system and insurance companies.

it is just a perception, your descriptions and arguments seem to use generalities and inflammatory extremist statements and undefined terms.

Question: Do you believe any person regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or any characteristics of the human condition have the right to freedom of assebly, speech, religion and all the other rights as enumerated or otherwise included in the bill of rights and or U.S. Constitution?





I get this belief because I used to shoot competition when I was in high school, continued recreationally in college, and still shoot occasionally. I've spent a fair amount of time around guns and around gun clubs and I have to say the vast majority of gun owners that I've met are pretty right wing. The NRA, the most prominent gun advocacy group in the country is right wing, the GOP which supports gun rights is right wing and conversely, every gun control advocate I've evet met or even heard of is pretty left wing,

and the Democratic party which supports gun control is center-left.

I'm sure there are exceptions to these rules, but by and large, yeah, gun owners tend to lean to the right.


The Democratic party as currently ruled supports firearm BANS. That seems to be a further off than center left.



You refer to Venezuela as having undergone a government "takeover." Criticism of Hugo Chavez aside (I'm not a huge fan of his), so far as I can tell Venezuela has the government it has because it has a lot of dire poor and Chavez appealed to them. Unfortunately this came at the expense of the middle class, as it always does.


Humor me. Start a new thread as to how it happened in Venezuela and could not possibly happen here.

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 03:01 PM
While that is a nice conspiracy theory is is still the same stage just different players.

Okay, what does this even mean?

EvilSteve
4th February 10, 03:10 PM
While that is a nice conspiracy theory is is still the same stage just different players. You forgot the healtcare system and insurance companies.

it is just a perception, your descriptions and arguments seem to use generalities and inflammatory extremist statements and undefined terms.


Wut? Unless I'm mistaken, you're agreeing with me- healthcare reform as currently in the bill is a total giveaway to the healthcare and insurance industry. That's not really left or right, it's just giving more money to entities that already have it.



Question: Do you believe any person regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or any characteristics of the human condition have the right to freedom of assebly, speech, religion and all the other rights as enumerated or otherwise included in the bill of rights and or U.S. Constitution?


Yes, I think I stated that in my last post.



The Democratic party as currently ruled supports firearm BANS. That seems to be a further off than center left.


That's only one plank in the democratic platform, and they have yet to act on it. They have yet to nationalize healthcare, another plank. As mentioned, however, they have had great success in crafting (and failing to pass) a healthcare bill that benefits the insurance co's, and a bailout bill that rewards grossly irresponsible behavior in the financial industry. The dems love to talk the talk but they never walk the walk. It's a bit like the GOP and abortion. Notice that it's still legal.



Humor me. Start a new thread as to how it happened in Venezuela and could not possibly happen here.

Unfortunately, I don't have time, but in short anything can happen anywhere. We're unlikely to drift as far to the left as Venezuela because there is no "market" for the type of political changes Chavez is enacting. Also, we don't have massive oil reserves that are being plundered by foreign entities. We're generally the ones who do the plundering. But, my main point is that Chavez didn't take over the government against the public will, he keeps getting elected because he appeals to the poor, and they have a lot of them down there.

Syntactical Disruptorize
4th February 10, 04:18 PM
You just assumed they agreed with you.
No, moron. I saw that the people on the thread who had Military tags took a particular position. I didn't assume that this made them right. I just wondered why it was.


First of all, you rely more on ad hominem attacks than most people who post here and nearly all of the people who disagree with you.
False. Insult and arrogance are about all you have to offer, for example, or HoG, or numerous others.


Second of all, you prove my point about being a nut rider by assuming because I don't agree with you, you just assumed that I didn't serve.
Now you're actually lying. I stated why I assumed you had not served (the lack of a tag).


AND FUCK YOU. I didn't do a god damn thing for you asshole, so don't pretend to be gracious about shit you don't understand.
No, FUCK YOU. You did it for me whether you wanted to or not. Apparently YOU didn't understand.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 04:18 PM
Wut? Unless I'm mistaken, you're agreeing with me- healthcare reform as currently in the bill is a total giveaway to the healthcare and insurance industry. That's not really left or right, it's just giving more money to entities that already have it.

By the Obama Democrats

But wait, are you saying that they re so self hating that they are selling our souls to industry?





Unfortunately, I don't have time, but in short anything can happen anywhere. We're unlikely to drift as far to the left as Venezuela because there is no "market" for the type of political changes Chavez is enacting. Also, we don't have massive oil reserves that are being plundered by foreign entities. We're generally the ones who do the plundering. But, my main point is that Chavez didn't take over the government against the public will, he keeps getting elected because he appeals to the poor, and they have a lot of them down there.

No. You have no idea of what has happened and is happening in Venezuela and how it can happen here, do you? There is a market. Yes, Chavez was elected.

jvjim
4th February 10, 04:25 PM
Please tell me you are not trolling.

You mean beyond the not yelling fire in a crowded theater, yelling outside my window at 2:00am, trespassing on private property to make a "statement"? speech? Those kind of restrictions?

If not, what are the restrictions to a citizen's freedom of speech as constitutionally protected?

This is about to be pwned very hardly.

Phrost
4th February 10, 04:36 PM
I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but I think someone mentioned the level of training of the military vs. civilian population.

Whoever it was seems to forget that there are more ex-military civilians than there are current military servicemen. Not to mention that the SPECOPs types would immediately throw in their lot with the rebels given the rise of a tyrannical regime in the US.

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 04:39 PM
Reader1, I feel like I might be missing something - are you talking about what is going on now, or what might occur in the scenario described in the original post?

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 04:39 PM
I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but I think someone mentioned the level of training of the military vs. civilian population.

Whoever it was seems to forget that there are more ex-military civilians than there are current military servicemen. Not to mention that the SPECOPs types would immediately throw in their lot with the rebels given the rise of a tyrannical regime in the US.

And I get the feeling that SPECOPS are the guys who could run a very effective insurgency...

KO'd N DOA
4th February 10, 04:49 PM
What if the insurgancy was done in the very American way of outsourcing to Blackwater or the French Foriegn Leagion, Samolian Pirates or some other such player? Financed by Billionaires, secessionist states, and Multi Nationals and huge corporations with a vested interest for destabalizing the union?

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 04:53 PM
What if the insurgancy was done in the very American way of outsourcing to Blackwater or the French Foriegn Leagion, Samolian Pirates or some other such player? Financed by Billionaires, secessionist states, and Multi Nationals and huge corporations with a vested interest for destabalizing the union?

Didn't they already outsource it to the tea party?

KO'd N DOA
4th February 10, 04:58 PM
The Tea Party used Native Americans so you do have a point...

Sun Wukong
4th February 10, 06:20 PM
As you well know, there is no universal definition of pornography? I may see a painting by a Renaissance master. You may see smut.

The rest are criminal acts and not constitutional rights or freedoms. AFAIK, criminal acts are not constitutionally protected. It may be convenient but ignoring that the exercise of constitutional freedoms/rights does not give the exerciser the right to infringe upon the freedoms/rights of others does not make a statement valid.


They became illegal because someone made a law. Plenty of people use the 1st amendment as defense in porn and libel cases and justly so.

The Brady Bill became law as well. It reasonably restricts 2nd amendment rights according to the courts and legislators. The Supreme Court did not over turn it, so this is an example of a law that so far both restricts the 2nd amendment and has been determined to be a reasonable restriction.




Please to give the universal definition of pornography and then the universal definition of hardcore pornography.

That's my point, the law and he interpretation of the law is frequently subjective, as is the interpretation of the US Constitution in many instances. What you or I consider unreasonable may not be reasonable to others.



Intellectual crack kills more than just the user. You are fully supported in your right to restrict your own constitutionally protected actions.

So, your point is that it's OK for me to believe something, but it may not be if I share my ideas with others?

Wow, you know you might have something there. Thanks, I'll pass that along to all my friends.
http://pics.nerdnirvana.org/d/11592-1/girl-hitler-costume.jpg

EvilSteve
4th February 10, 06:36 PM
By the Obama Democrats

But wait, are you saying that they re so self hating that they are selling our souls to industry?


No- I'm saying they're the sock puppet on the left hand as opposed to the sock puppet on the right hand. In other words, both parties are far more beholden to moneyed interests then they are to the electorate.



No. You have no idea of what has happened and is happening in Venezuela and how it can happen here, do you? There is a market. Yes, Chavez was elected.

Well, I do have a Venezuelan friend who is none too happy with Chavez' crackdowns on non-state sponsored media and apparent restriction of property rights (?), and despite all of WBAI's cheerleading of Chavez stickin' it to the oil companies, I can tell that the people getting screwed are the middle class, theoretically to benefit the extremely poor. In reality, some of his reforms have apparently benefitted the country's vast poor population, but it's not the panacea his advocates stateside like to think it is.

I got a beef with the guy because he's backing Ahmadinejad.

Do you have friends or family down there? If so, hey, fill me in. I'd love to hear it.

However, I think that in order to have the widespread taxation and property redistribution you're talking about we would have to have a lot more either poor or socialists (we have comparatively few of either- Obama is not a socialist) and leaders who don't rely on campaign contributions from really rich folks and companies in order to get elected.

Cullion
4th February 10, 06:48 PM
SWK, judges making a law which restricts a constitutional right is not an example of why that right should be restricted, it is an example of legal activism which bypasses the process for changing the constitution because the activists concerned lack the guts to put it to a vote.

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 06:48 PM
However, I think that in order to have the widespread taxation and property redistribution you're talking about .

I said that?


Question: Do you believe any person regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or any characteristics of the human condition have the right to freedom of assembly, speech, religion and all the other rights as enumerated or otherwise included in the bill of rights and or U.S. Constitution?

BadUglyMagic
4th February 10, 07:00 PM
Plenty of people use the 1st amendment as defense in porn and libel cases and justly so.

Because someone decided it was porn. The person being prosecuted said,"Hey wait, I am allowed to that. It is constitutionally within my rights."


The Brady Bill became law as well. It reasonably restricts 2nd amendment rights according to the courts and legislators. The Supreme Court did not over turn it, so this is an example of a law that so far both restricts the 2nd amendment and has been determined to be a reasonable restriction.


Laws are interpreted against the constitution and its amendments.



That's my point, the law and he interpretation of the law is frequently subjective, as is the interpretation of the US Constitution in many instances. What you or I consider unreasonable may not be reasonable to others.

So, your point is that it's OK for me to believe something, but it may not be if I share my ideas with others?

Now you are making up statements and attributing to me.

btw: It is very brave of you to post your picture and to so blatantly show your anti-semitism and racist beliefs.

P.S. shave the 'stache. It doesn't do anything for you.


http://pics.nerdnirvana.org/d/11592-1/girl-hitler-costume.jpg[/quote]

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 07:11 PM
I said that?


Question: Do you believe any person regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or any characteristics of the human condition have the right to freedom of assembly, speech, religion and all the other rights as enumerated or otherwise included in the bill of rights and or U.S. Constitution?

I think this might shed some light on the issue at hand:
M9MnF3BMCmY

bob
4th February 10, 10:30 PM
Who do you guys think would win a fight between an Elephant and a Killer Whale?

danno
4th February 10, 10:37 PM
in sea or on land?

bob
4th February 10, 10:38 PM
Zero G.

danno
4th February 10, 10:42 PM
in a hypothetical infinite area with no walls? so they can't push off anything.

Commodore Pipes
4th February 10, 10:46 PM
in a hypothetical infinite area with no walls? so they can't push off anything.

C'mon. Let's try to keep this realistic.

resolve
4th February 10, 10:48 PM
Who needs guns?

Just find a time when most of Washington is in session (lulz) and hold a "peace rally" on the mall, then at a coordinated set time, unleash hell!!!!

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1522/4503826238ec38093bc.jpg

Ajamil
4th February 10, 11:38 PM
If the atmosphere has enough friction, killer whale would own.

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 09:23 AM
I said that?

I thought so- it's difficult to tell what you're saying. You were going on about how I have no idea what's going on in Venezuela, so I told you what a Venezuelan friend of my had said was going on and asked if you had any pertinent updates. Look, why don't you tell me what you think Chavez is doing that you have a problem with and how you think we're so in peril of that happening here?



Question: Do you believe any person regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or any characteristics of the human condition have the right to freedom of assembly, speech, religion and all the other rights as enumerated or otherwise included in the bill of rights and or U.S. Constitution?

Once again, yes. You going to make a point here or just keep asking the same question?

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 09:33 AM
If the atmosphere has enough friction, killer whale would own.

Who would win this thread, a shark or a snow man?

BadUglyMagic
5th February 10, 10:33 AM
I thought so- it's difficult to tell what you're saying.

Directly within the context of the (at the time) at hand discussion, I do not recall making any remarks regarding taxation or the other thing regarding Venezuela.

Mmmm. A better descriptor would be concise.




You were going on about how I have no idea what's going on in Venezuela, so I told you what a Venezuelan friend of my had said was going on and asked if you had any pertinent updates. Look, why don't you tell me what you think Chavez is doing that you have a problem with and how you think we're so in peril of that happening here?


Venezuela has experienced a coup d'etate. An army officer, elected the office of president consolidates and increases his power using constitutionally given powers and military and paramilitary forces. Additionally, he nationalizes any industry deemed essential to the nation. He maintains a campaign against the currency to devalue it and use inflationary pressures to destroy the bourgie class.

At this time, barrring any intra national action to depose him, he is president for life. A goal he made public before becoming elected.

Because of the "wealth" and income of its oil reserves and exports, the bloodiness of the Castro Cuba was not necessasry.

The same basic model that Chavez used will work in the United States.

If you wants a mo' betta discussion about the country, start a new thread.



Originally Posted by Reader1
Question: Do you believe any person regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or any characteristics of the human condition have the right to freedom of assembly, speech, religion and all the other rights as enumerated or otherwise included in the bill of rights and or U.S. Constitution?




Once again, yes. You going to make a point here or just keep asking the same question?

Are you sure? Those are moderate to conservative values. OH NO! ! ! You are a Republican!

What will your friends say?

FWIW; While I may occasionally miss something, I respect your opinion enough to read all your posts and respond to the points of the post with the intention of an open and honest exchange of views and information.

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 11:19 AM
Directly within the context of the (at the time) at hand discussion, I do not recall making any remarks regarding taxation or the other thing regarding Venezuela.

Yeah, that was the issue- you didn't say anything specifically so I had to infer.



Venezuela has experienced a coup d'etate. An army officer, elected the office of president consolidates and increases his power using constitutionally given powers and military and paramilitary forces. Additionally, he nationalizes any industry deemed essential to the nation. He maintains a campaign against the currency to devalue it and use inflationary pressures to destroy the bourgie class.

At this time, barrring any intra national action to depose him, he is president for life. A goal he made public before becoming elected.

Because of the "wealth" and income of its oil reserves and exports, the bloodiness of the Castro Cuba was not necessasry.

The same basic model that Chavez used will work in the United States.

If you wants a mo' betta discussion about the country, start a new thread.


That's not really a coup d'etat. That's sweeping reforms that you don't agree with. A coup d'etat implies the leader assumed authority by force or other extralegal means. I don't see that this has happened in Venezuela, but okay, that's outside of the scope of this thread.




Are you sure? Those are moderate to conservative values. OH NO! ! ! You are a Republican!

What will your friends say?


First off, when I was 18 and first registering to vote, I registered Republican. In the people's republic of Cambridge, Massachusetts. I'm registered independent now, but unlike most New Yorkers you can't tweak me by accusing me of being conservative.

Second, those aren't moderate conservative values, they're American values enshrined in our constitution, and while both parties like to tout them, both can be accused of attempting to abridge them.

Commodore Pipes
5th February 10, 11:32 AM
So anyway, I don't think a civil insurrection could replace the federal government we have with anything of any real longevity, but it could destablize it to the point where it transforms into something even more unrecognizable than it is now. So maybe worse than the scenario that faced France for the eighty years after the revolution.

And a snow man would totally own a shark, because a snow man is a real guy.

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 11:39 AM
And a snow man would totally own a shark, because a snow man is a real guy.

See? Yeah, that's TOTALLY what I thought. But what if you added an octopus to the mix? I still think the snowman would pwn, but only if he was wearing a wetsuit.

Commodore Pipes
5th February 10, 11:40 AM
is the octopus fighting the shark or the snowman or both?

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 11:43 AM
I'm thinking free-for-all here. Once again, in zero G. Although we'd have to give the shark and the octopus some kind of breathing devices so as not to give the snowman the home field advantage, you know?

Commodore Pipes
5th February 10, 11:46 AM
I consulted my good friend the Internet (he's sort of a general expert) and he tells me that octopussies can already take sharks, so... octopus.

BadUglyMagic
5th February 10, 12:00 PM
That's not really a coup d'etat.


Yes. You are correct.




That's sweeping reforms that you don't agree with.

Not reform. Change of government. The USSR held elections.




Second, those aren't moderate conservative values, they're American values enshrined in our constitution, .

Observation made in context of the language iused in your posts.

Ajamil
5th February 10, 12:03 PM
What type of octopus? I mean, if we're thinking three inch reach with tentacles octopus vs. tiger shark, there's no contest. But giant octopus or blue-ringed octopus might have a chance.

And the snowman would only win if the flaming in here doesn't flare up again, otherwise he'll melt.

So on level, zero-G playing environment, I'd say shark get first attack going for the snowman, but will be confused at getting a mouthful of cold water. Since the shark would most likely go for body rather than stick arms, he wouldn't hit anything vital on the snowman and leave his gills open for a corncob surprise.

Distracted by this battle, the giant octopus floats in and tries to simply surround both and smother, but this move takes away the shark's confusion and he makes the octopus and septopus, then jets off to regroup for a nother strafing run. Now the snowman and the septopus are locked in a struggle.

Snowman starts losing snow chunks to the suckers, but he jams a coal piece into the parrot-like beak of the invertebrate. He'll lose some vision, but take away the septopus's most dangerous weapon.

End Round 1.

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 12:25 PM
Hmm... you could be right Arjuna. I think I'll have to re-watch Megashark vs. Giant Octopus for reference.

...although I think I've got a pitch for a sequel: Megashark vs. Giant Octopus vs. Ubersnomensch!*

*you know, to distinguish from the abominable snowman. That would just be silly.

Commodore Pipes
5th February 10, 12:45 PM
No one has referenced that magic hat. That could be a game changer. I might have to reconsider my earlier assessment.

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 12:51 PM
You've got a point there- which brings up the salient issue- could snowmen with magic hats overthrow the government if there was a coup d'etat led by sharks and octopusses?

Zendetta
5th February 10, 01:38 PM
This conversation is ridiculous. History certainly shows that well-equipped irregulars can throw a wrench into the gears of the Empire.


Furthermore, have none of you n00bs considered Polar Bears? They can pwn on Land or at Sea, and they certainly won't be impressed with this Snowman bullshit.

When Global Warming hits they just go inland to crossbreed with Grizzlies and eat Canadians, whereas Frosty just fucking melts.

Jeez.

Commodore Pipes
5th February 10, 01:44 PM
When Global Warming hits they just go inland to crossbreed with Grizzlies and eat Canadians, whereas Frosty just fucking melts.



At first I thought you said "they just go inland and crossbreed with Gorillas" and I thought to myself "That is so crazy it just might work."

Ajamil
5th February 10, 02:01 PM
Of course we considered polar bears. That's why we're killing them off.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8581/polarduh.jpg

bob
5th February 10, 03:48 PM
So, just to get the conversation back on track. Which of the above mentioned species would make best use of a Green Lantern power ring? I'm going to have to go with Elephants. I think they at least possess a little imagination.

Ajamil
5th February 10, 03:51 PM
Killer whales can be pretty smart though. Polar bears are out, and would probably get a red ring anyway.

Commodore Pipes
5th February 10, 03:56 PM
I think a gorilla bear might easily fit into the Green Lantern Corps.

He might also be uglier than Beta Ray Bill.

Zendetta
5th February 10, 03:58 PM
No one can deny that GorillaBear is a capitol idea.

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 04:08 PM
Ummm... RINGS REQUIRE FINGERS GUYS? Gonna have to go with either the octopus*, or the gorillabear, depending on the latter's anatomy.

*yeah, I know, octopusses don't have fingers, but they could fit the ring on one of their arms.

Ajamil
5th February 10, 04:36 PM
Tell that to Bzzd
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/7658/408619-15660-bzzd_super.jpg

Or Mogo

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/308/90183-195936-mogo_super.jpg

EvilSteve
5th February 10, 04:41 PM
I stand corrected...

...still, I'm going with gorillabear.

Kein Haar
7th February 10, 08:13 PM
A crocodile could still beat gorillabear.

Sorry.

Crocobear, I think, would own on all terrain.

Commodore Pipes
7th February 10, 08:15 PM
A crocodile could still beat gorillabear.

Sorry.

Crocobear, I think, would own on all terrain.

Crocorillabear?

Kein Haar
7th February 10, 08:17 PM
I see no advantage to the ape.

Commodore Pipes
7th February 10, 08:20 PM
Opposable thumbs.

Ajamil
8th February 10, 12:17 AM
Cock-a-labradoodle-Pooh!

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/3200/cockalabradoodlepooh.jpg

Kein Haar
8th February 10, 07:54 AM
Opposable thumbs.

I'm not banking on a lot of dexterity. Claws (i.e. bear paws) would suffice.

Unless...UNLESS...one were willing to add a dash of collossal squid...with rows of tiger claws lining several tentacles.

Commodore Pipes
8th February 10, 09:27 AM
I think you're probably right about opposable thumbs. A Crocobear wouldn't need to, say, choke something, and even if it did, it could probably use it's jaws to much greater effect. That is an instance of my anthropic bias.

Commodore Pipes
8th February 10, 09:28 AM
I'm not banking on a lot of dexterity. Claws (i.e. bear paws) would suffice.

Unless...UNLESS...one were willing to add a dash of collossal squid...with rows of tiger claws lining several tentacles.

I suspect we might be designing Cthulhu.

Vieux Normand
8th February 10, 09:41 AM
I suspect we might be designing Cthulhu.

If we're going to bring that into it, just go with a shoggoth. It'll instantly grow whatever weaponry needed to rape, kill and then consume any opposition.

Zendetta
8th February 10, 02:19 PM
Seriously though, we gotta talk about that Collosal Squid. I mean, goddam.

Cullion
8th February 10, 02:26 PM
The ChickenCow is the last word on this.

KO'd N DOA
8th February 10, 03:58 PM
Bonobo Mallard Komodo

There will be some involuntary loving to the oppostition who will die from the bite marks.

Vieux Normand
8th February 10, 06:25 PM
Clowns.

Lethal virus, followed by planet-shattering asteroid.

(Because 'asteroid' is the opposite of 'steroid'.)

Kein Haar
8th February 10, 08:03 PM
http://tepapa.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/hook-arm1.jpg

Zendetta
8th February 10, 08:18 PM
ThatswhatI'mtalkin'bout.

Vieux Normand
9th February 10, 09:54 AM
http://tepapa.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/hook-arm1.jpg

Colossal squid.

So dangerous, you can hold it safely in your hand.

Yeah, yeah...it's dead.

Colossal squid.

So dangerous, air kills it.

EvilSteve
9th February 10, 09:58 AM
How about Humboldt squid then?

Or like, a cross between a colossal squid and a humboldt squid and a swarm of bees?

Vieux Normand
9th February 10, 04:17 PM
How about Humboldt squid then?

Humboldt for attitude. Colossal for size. Terasquid (google it) for land-capability.

Blend DNA, raise the result on live, struggling prey.

'Course, we could find an über-predator--say, a clever primate of some kind--which has the capability of replicating its own kind to overwhelming numbers, all the while inventing and manufacturing weapons of unprecedented levels of destruction and the means to deliver them virtually anywhere.

Said apes must be stupid enough to actually do all of the above. This mélange of cleverness and stupidity will make them especially dangerous...but will also be their self-limiting factor. Once they've destroyed many larger species--including their own--their home planet will recover.

EvilSteve
9th February 10, 04:23 PM
I see what you did there

Robot Jesus
9th February 10, 04:45 PM
who else started downloading impossible creatures

Stick
9th February 10, 11:15 PM
I sincerely hope that gun nuts cannot over throw the government.

Let me qualify this by saying that I do not believe the government should be unassailable, only that people we would currently consider to be "gun nuts" should not be able to over throw the government with out broader support from citizens who are most certainly not "gun nuts"- me, for example.

If the current segment of the population that widely believes this country to be morally bankrupt and in need of violent over throw decides tomorrow to start popping off federalis at every corner, I will be armed, I will be on the government's side and I will kill every rifle rack in a Ford F150, rebel flag trucker hat wearing, gubermint hate'n, tru blu Amurican I see.

However, if the government does truly go over the deep end, and even pussy-footed big-government teet sucking liberals like me are convinced its time to tear down some statues, well, then I sure hope we- gun nuts + libertarians + centerists + liberals + conservatives- actually can.

Ajamil
10th February 10, 12:32 AM
We're in trouble - the squids have become gun nuts.
http://images.tvrage.com/shows/3/2292.jpg

Syntactical Disruptorize
10th February 10, 12:40 AM
If the current segment of the population that widely believes this country to be morally bankrupt and in need of violent over throw decides tomorrow to start popping off federalis at every corner, I will be armed, I will be on the government's side and I will kill every rifle rack in a Ford F150, rebel flag trucker hat wearing, gubermint hate'n, tru blu Amurican I see.
To explicate all of the stupidity and failure in your ragbag of a position would require more time and effort than I can bring to bear on such an unworthy objective.

I'll keep it short: Shut the fuck up. You don't know much about "gun nuts", you don't know much about anything, and my main consolation is my certain knowledge that your glutinous adherence to numerous -isms is only exceeded by your complete inability to act on your big fucking talk.

Stick
10th February 10, 01:44 AM
Yerp derp, rebellion's ok as long as I agree!

Syntactical Disruptorize
10th February 10, 01:52 AM
Not my point, but I am unsurprised at your inability to get a fucking clue.

Stick
10th February 10, 02:03 AM
One social sub group should not be capable of overthrowing the whole; revolution requires broad support from the populous, and no "gun nuts" do not constitute a broad segment of the population.

Define "gun nuts":

Those who vote strictly on basis of a candidate's stance on the 2nd ammendment with no regard for his/her other positions.

i.e. Phrost should not be capable of violently overthrowing the government without the support of people like me.

And don't give me any Niemöller crap either.

Syntactical Disruptorize
10th February 10, 03:42 AM
One social sub group should not be capable of overthrowing the whole; revolution requires broad support from the populous, and no "gun nuts" do not constitute a broad segment of the population.
Piffle all the way. Revolutions are generally a minority activity. The NRA enjoys support from a broad segment of the population; its opponents are the greater beneficiaries of a few wealthy donors.

You haven't given this enough thought to have a reasonable opinion. You just don't like those rednecks with guns. Fine. We don't like you. And if our right to bear arms is taken from us by a minority of hoplophobic asshats, you can bet we'll fight it just as hard as we have to.

Until then, get off our back!

SFGOON
10th February 10, 03:57 AM
Those are some strong words cy.

Why not just shoot him if you're going to escalate things to such an intense and irreversible level?

Alternatively, have you considered a less emotionally involved hobby, such as bicycling or insect collecting?

Cathartic though it may be, perhaps savagely emptying a firearm in the general direction of a piece of paper has become something of a self-reenforcing habit which you have allowed to take control of unrelated aspects of your personality.

I really think you need to take it easy, maybe take a lower paying Job with less responsibility and maybe give up refined sugar as well.

I'm deadly serious when I say this.

Syntactical Disruptorize
10th February 10, 04:07 AM
Those are some strong words cy.
I'm a strong personality. I let that show through.


Why not just shoot him if you're going to escalate things to such an intense and irreversible level?
Well, probably because I don't think that holding one's fellow citizens in contempt for caring about their gun rights is worthy of the death penalty. Or even a good kneecapping.


Alternatively, have you considered a less emotionally involved hobby, such as bicycling or insect collecting?
Why did I suspect one of your recommended hobbies would involve a killing jar?


Cathartic though it may be, perhaps savagely emptying a firearm in the general direction of a piece of paper has become something of a self-reenforcing habit which you have allowed to take control of unrelated aspects of your personality.
I haven't been to the range recently enough; that is more likely the issue. I am sorry you think of firearms practice as such a problem. Were you let go from the police force over range qualification issues?


I really think you need to take it easy, maybe take a lower paying Job with less responsibility and maybe give up refined sugar as well.

I'm deadly serious when I say this.I don't doubt that. However, my job is not stressful, and the pay is nice enough to eliminate other forms of stress, like tight budgets and bad meals with lots of refined sugar.

Commodore Pipes
10th February 10, 09:29 AM
... and I will kill every rifle rack in a Ford F150, rebel flag trucker hat wearing, gubermint hate'n, tru blu Amurican I see.


Do your targets have to meet all of those criteria, or just one? Because having a rifle rack in an american truck does not a seperatist make. If you target rebel flag trucker hats, you would have to kill whole swathes of hipsters. And though I don't hate the government, I don't particularly trust it, to varying degrees, most intensely from 2000 to 2008.

Zendetta
10th February 10, 11:37 AM
If you target rebel flag trucker hats, you would have to kill whole swathes of hipsters.

I'm sure there is a downside to this, but I'm not seeing it.

Stick
10th February 10, 11:58 AM
I like my hyperbole.

Ajamil
10th February 10, 12:08 PM
Your luck, they'd drive by just as you put one one to be ironic.

Tom Kagan
10th February 10, 01:24 PM
In order for Cy's position to be qualitatively different than Stick's, the NRA's 'broad segment' of demographics as stated by Cy would have to be comprised almost entirely of 'gun nuts' as defined by Stick's usage of the term. Regardless, if a sub group is in the top 10 of those summarily executed in such a revolution, I don't think it matters much which group gets the guilotine first amoungst the liberals, elitists, gays, jews and so forth.

Tom Kagan
10th February 10, 01:31 PM
V4Biksv6jpE

Ajamil
10th February 10, 01:58 PM
That was amazing - it had STEEV, it had Phrost, it had PL, and I'm pretty sure the two women were NoB and his wife.

Stick
10th February 10, 02:18 PM
Red Dawn is not an instance of violent insurrection against the sitting government of the United States.

In the event the Soviet Union reveals itself ala The Simpsons (or, as is planned in the remake, China) and invades I will be deeply involved in ressistance... assuming of course that I wasn't vaporized in the inevitable nuclear strike or bombing campaign against Washington DC.

Cullion
10th February 10, 02:26 PM
Lets have a 'How would you be deeply involved in resistance ?' thread.

I think I'd take all the street signs down first. Then I'd probably break out the weights and build me some russkie-choking guns. I'd probably leave steganographic instructions on sociocide to coordinate resistance. I might download the blueprints to build a crossbow too.

Keinhaar, you're up next.

Stick
10th February 10, 02:43 PM
You got it! (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1524150#post1524150)

Vieux Normand
10th February 10, 03:58 PM
Lets have a 'How would you be deeply involved in resistance ?' thread.

Does "I'd be the gulag-tsar" count?

SFGOON
10th February 10, 07:01 PM
I'd provide whiskey and whores to the invaders.

Kein Haar
11th February 10, 12:08 PM
Resistance against russians?

What's to resist?

BadUglyMagic
11th February 10, 12:20 PM
The Chinese? eventually, they will gain the advantage technologically, economically and through the suborning of our politicians.

The Chinese are currently invading the former USSR.

Kein Haar
11th February 10, 12:23 PM
I love china food.

I love china wimminz.

I love china dry cleaners.

China actually make some respectable firearms.

China has a th3 gong fu.

China gave us Djimbe (in some ways).

Etc.

Back when we were worried about the Japanese, I was like "wut". I was actively campaigning to make everything more jap more faster.

I hope the chinese don't disappoint me this time around.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 10, 02:20 PM
I hope the chinese don't disappoint me this time around.

They will. We'll do to them what we did to Japan in 1991.

Cullion
11th February 10, 02:35 PM
No you won't.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 10, 03:05 PM
No you won't.

I don't actually believe we engineered japans economic collapse in 1991, but I do entertain the notion occasionally.

However, if we assume that we did then China should be a piece of cake. Japan was in a ridiculously stronger position vis a vis the US in 1991 than China is today by almost any measure you can think of.

BadUglyMagic
11th February 10, 03:22 PM
However, if we assume that we did then China should be a piece of cake. Japan was in a ridiculously stronger position vis a vis the US in 1991 than China is today by almost any measure you can think of.

China is actively engaged in developing itself into the world's preeminent superpower. The United States is currently and without intentional action, devolving from the world's preeminent superpower.

Vieux Normand
11th February 10, 03:25 PM
China is actively engaged in developing itself into the world's preeminent superpower. The United States is currently and without intentional action, devolving from the world's preeminent superpower.

Rare are the pre-eminent powers that have voluntarily abdicated. Nevertheless, the only constant in the Universe is change--welcome or otherwise, resisted or not.

Cullion
11th February 10, 03:29 PM
Britain sorta voluntarily abdicated. Basically our educated elite degenerated generation by generation due to being increasingly spoiled by the success of prior generations, and then the process was radically accelerated by a few generations of the most adventurous and determined being killed off in mass-scale warfare.

The rump that was left felt it was a moral imperative to do all sorts of stupid things to prove how civilised and altruistic they were.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 10, 03:41 PM
China is actively engaged in developing itself into the world's preeminent superpower. The United States is currently and without intentional action, devolving from the world's preeminent superpower.

China has actually not been developing it's military in a fashion that would let it compete with the US anywhere outside it's immediate vicinity. It hasn't been developing (for example) overseas bases and a large surface navy which are basic requirements to exert military force globally. Even it's nuclear arsenal is fairly small. It's enough to deter but not threaten. Diplomatically, it is starting to develop influence in the oil producing regions of the world, but it is still very limited and China has not been pushing it's influence at all outside of those areas.

IOW. China's goal is to be the most powerful nation in Asia. Everything they say and do points to that. Nothing points to China desiring to supplant the US as a global power.

Ajamil
11th February 10, 03:51 PM
Isn't China dealing in Africa and Brasil?

HappyOldGuy
11th February 10, 03:56 PM
Isn't China dealing in Africa and Brasil?

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/

tl:dr It's all about oil.

Syntactical Disruptorize
11th February 10, 05:14 PM
And food, of which the Chinese are also in short supply.

If they are attempting power projection, it is by the cooperative means of trade, not the coercive means of war.

Zendetta
11th February 10, 05:16 PM
Soft Power > Hard Power.

They've read their Sun Tzu.

Cullion
11th February 10, 05:18 PM
Exactly. They don't subscribe to retarded ideas like 'a good way to secure a supply of X is to invade the countries that supply, it at vast expense, whilst watching the price of X skyrocket'.

BadUglyMagic
11th February 10, 05:20 PM
Britain sorta voluntarily abdicated. Basically our educated elite degenerated generation by generation due to being increasingly spoiled by the success of prior generations, and then the process was radically accelerated by a few generations of the most adventurous and determined being killed off in mass-scale warfare.

The rump that was left felt it was a moral imperative to do all sorts of stupid things to prove how civilised and altruistic they were.



Like mother country like.....

BadUglyMagic
11th February 10, 05:27 PM
And food, of which the Chinese are also in short supply.

If they are attempting power projection, it is by the cooperative means of trade, not the coercive means of war.

China's trade habits with lesser developed countries seem to be a bit on the colonialistic/parasitic side. Algeria has been used as an example.

In countries like Tibet or the former USSR frontier lands they are simply encouraging ethnic Chinese to move (and moving them) into the lands. They will simply displace the original inhabitants. The dominance does not have to come from direct military action.

BadUglyMagic
11th February 10, 05:32 PM
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/

tl:dr It's all about oil.


It is also about securing future strategic mineral resources used in building and maintaining space programs both exploratory and defensive/offensive. High tech manufacturing and tech products.

China seems to developing its resource bases in ways that Japan did not in the 40's.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 10, 05:35 PM
Soft Power > Hard Power.

They've read their Sun Tzu.

No, they are quite a bit smarter than that. They know that military power is only relatively less useful now because the guys with an almost absolute monopoly on it enforce limits on themselves or anybody else using it.

Cullion
11th February 10, 05:39 PM
China is doing what Japan prevented itself from doing by spazzing out trying to take stuff by force. Their leaders may be many, many things, but stupid, impatient or weak are not amongst them.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 10, 05:41 PM
China is doing what Japan prevented itself from doing by spazzing out trying to take stuff by force. Their leaders may be many, many things, but stupid, impatient or weak are not amongst them.

I feel like you are confusing 1991 and 1941.

Cullion
11th February 10, 05:49 PM
To be clear, I'm definitely not accusing China of preparing to start a war of conquest. I'm saying that they've (correctly) decided that peaceful trade deals without political 'civil rights' strings attached are a safer and steadier way to become powerful and wealthy.

When China does a deal with some African despot, they turn up with a business contract explaining what they want, and what they'll pay in return, then clink classes over the deal. They don't bust the guy's chops over his human rights record, and they don't need to wait for 'the finance to come through' before they can sign, because they've got real savings.

I'm not describing some militaristic, expansionist 'yellow peril' here.

I'm talking about the competition between a hard-nosed businessman from the rough side of town against a spoiled trustafarian who's got a sweet car and a hard looking security detail (who owes money left right and centre, much of it to aforesaid hardnosed guy), and who rambles about womens' rights at business meetings which all the other participants understand to be about diamonds and bullets.

The trustafarian thinks everything will work out because he's awesome, and his great-grandpa was totally a cowboy.

Does that picture make more sense ?