A well regulated militia...

[Gx1080]

Keep telling yourself that:

http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-913-te ... -way-down/

There were no interpreters you could trust, none of the troops spoke Arabic, most of them had swallowed two years of Muzzie-hating from the US press. They didn’t know anything about the place and didn’t want to. They rolled into Fallujah, shot a bunch of demonstrators, and it was on. Took two more all-out invasions to kill everybody in Fallujah who might be trouble. The Marines didn’t even impress the locals, because they hunkered down under fire and called for air or artillery. That might be good tactics, but it yields a lot of shock and no awe whatsoever.

No. Goverment. is. invincible. Countries last, but they goverments don't. Read about coups in recent history. Or even the American and French revolutions.

You are a fucking dumbass who masturbates to the holy goverment spreading leftism around the globe.

[Kaelik]

You are kind of an idiot.

The argument that because it took a lot of work, and killing way more people than soldiers died in order to accomplish something in an invasion, therefore, you and your pals could totally take the US military, is fucking retarded.

You keep pointing to kill/death ratios of a fucking lot to a fucking little as evidence of how, you, the mostly dead ones, are somehow going to overthrow the government. If you had the numbers you would need to beat the US military, you could just fucking vote them out, because you'd need 112% of the US population on your side to kill the entire US military and have anyone left over alive if you had the same kill/death ratio as Fallujah.

And for added fun, you quoted a list of problems that the US military won't have in repressing your pretend uprising. Turns out, when revolutions occur, they usually speak the same language as the government. PS, not impressing the locals has no bearing on putting down a violent revolution.

[Gx1080]

Your ignorance about asymetrical warfare aside:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

I'm talking about the freedom to opose tyrannical goverments.

Honestly, what's your point? People shouldn't have guns because the angelic goverment knows what is best for them? Please. Every Communist goverment said the same and it ended up on bread lines and death camps. "The Personal is the Political" is a highly shitty policy that ends up on Big Sister suppresing any opposition to the party line.

PS: Your unshakeable faith on the US goverment is cute. Almost religious. The Soviets said the same things.

[Kaelik]

Honestly, what's your point?

Whether or not you have easy access to guns has no bearing on the successfulness of your revolt, because it will not be successful.

So if you want to give a reason why you should have a gun, you can't use "Beat the Government" or "Protect Me from the crim crim."

You can come up with whatever other justifications you want, and some of them will be rejected for similar empirical reasons showing they don't apply, but stop using those two, because they are false.

[Chamomile]

You don't have to actually win a war. You just have to make it too expensive for the suits to prefer fighting one to giving in to public demands. If it ever comes to the point where the US government is actually using nukes on its own population centers, the best they can hope for is a Pyrrhic victory.

[Neeeek]

PS: Your unshakeable faith on the US goverment is cute. Almost religious. The Soviets said the same things.

Your ignorance is incredible. The idea that individual ownership of firearms could do anything to stop the US government from doing anything domestically is, frankly, insane.

[Psychic Robot]

better to go down with a fight than accept leftist defeatism

[Whipstitch]

This conversation is moronic. You know what the best way to win a revolution is, historically speaking? Be the fucking military.

[Chamomile]

I am unconvinced the US military would actually go to war against its own citizens very easily. I'm sure the vast majority of grunts would follow their orders, but they don't get those orders direct from the president, and I imagine putting down a domestic revolution might sit ill with some of the officer corps.

[Josh_Kablack]

the gun argument boils down to three things:

1. constitutionality

And with the title and observations in post #1 of this thread, Frank points out that current trends among nations seems to indicate that what the founders thought to be self-evident has not been borne out among a number of countries - while perhaps being true in an equal number of other countries.

As someone pretty thoroughly in the middle on gun issues, I'm curious if the observed trend of zero correlation between prevalence of guns and whether the society is functional or a"hellscape" has held true through other historical periods than right now, and whether it might have been different in periods with different firearms technology or economics or political divisions ?

[...You Lost Me]

Wow, Gx is just being destroyed. It's like playing LoL where most of the players DC'd and the remaining one is feeding. You've taken down the lane towers, Kaelik, just hit the inhibitors and pretty soon you'll have him locked down.

In other news, Gx, I'm looking forward to your next argument.

[Psychic Robot]

And with the title and observations in post #1 of this thread, Frank points out that current trends among nations seems to indicate that what the founders thought to be self-evident has not been borne out among a number of countries - while perhaps being true in an equal number of other countries.

as if I care what a socialist has to say about matters of the constitution. if it's in there, it's in there, and I'm going to fight to keep it that way. frank on the other hand is a leftist who openly advocates social engineering by the government (that is, tyranny) making his opinions on matters of freedom and individual liberty inherently wrong.

[Draco_Argentum]

In a revolution you need to do what the Egyptians did, cause the army grunts to mutiny so that the brass kicks the government out. You will not win a revolt via force of arms. Violence actually makes it harder to win since the propaganda required to keep the military in line will then write itself.

[Username17]

Stay tuned on the OWS channel....

I think that's a valid point. Own goal once again. While the OWS people have apparently the greatest chance of taking down the government and effecting real change to the way the country works - they are also basically unarmed and using non-violent rhetoric for the most part. In contrast, the Teabaggers run around waving assault rifles all the time and haven't gotten a single thing they asked for. Their number one demand was to keep Medicare safe, and the people who claim Teaparty support in congress are actually the ones trying to take Medicare apart.

As someone pretty thoroughly in the middle on gun issues, I'm curious if the observed trend of zero correlation between prevalence of guns and whether the society is functional or a"hellscape" has held true through other historical periods than right now, and whether it might have been different in periods with different firearms technology or economics or political divisions ?

That is an interesting question. The founding fathers certainly had an idea that arming all the men would be the foundation of security. George Washington signed the Militia Acts, which required every able bodied man to buy themselves a musket. They also abandoned that plan after they got their asses handed to them in the War of 1812. And since that was essentially the first time they put the theory to the test, we can conclude that it already wasn't true when the 2nd amendment was written. Seriously, it was put up in 1791 and they put it to the test in 1812 and it failed that test.

Now if you go back in time far enough, you have systems where armed populaces did their job. Like in Greece. In Sparta and Macedonia, to be a citizen you were required to have and train with weaponry. And this appears to have worked for what it was for: to terrorize the large number of slaves and non-citizens in those societies. In the absence of a professional police force, the "haves" were required to take up bronze spears to stab the "have nots" right in the face if they got uppity.

I question whether such a job is even possible today, and I'm pretty sure it is not desirable. Investment bankers running around shooting poor people who get too mouthy would be terrible and I doubt it would be even a tenth as effective at maintaining public order as having a professional police force.

-Username17

[Gx1080]

I grow bored of discussing with Goverment masturbators who have homoerotic fantasies for their Military Ubermensch, but, just in case, here's one of those "peaceful" Egypt protests:

http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-sparta ... l-jazeera/

Protip: Lynching mobs aren't "peaceful".

[Whatever]

From that article"

It may not be warfare as practiced by Lee and Grant, but it’s weirdly close to what urban combat must have been like before firearms.

In fact, you’ll see the head of the Army making a very, veeeeeeeeery careful speech midway in this clip. He actually says to the demonstrators, “We [the Army] are with you, of you, by you and under you” or whatever, then adds, “We will be there no matter what changes occur….” Man, if I was Mubarak I would not be Mubarak (happy) hearing that line from my enforcers. But if I was a rioter it’d cheer me up no end, because it would mean I wouldn’t have to worry about automatic rifles, APC cannon, anything at army level.

Instead, the best Mubarak’s remaining goons can do is organize a cavalry charge. I kid you not. About ten seconds into the video you’ll see a real live cavalry charge by a dozen riders, some on horses, some on camels. This is Mubarak’s response: amateurs on livestock. Sad.

Once again, the pro-gun arguments are completely divorced from reality.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

And with the title and observations in post #1 of this thread, Frank points out that current trends among nations seems to indicate that what the founders thought to be self-evident has not been borne out among a number of countries - while perhaps being true in an equal number of other countries.

as if I care what a socialist has to say about matters of the constitution. if it's in there, it's in there, and I'm going to fight to keep it that way. frank on the other hand is a leftist who openly advocates social engineering by the government (that is, tyranny) making his opinions on matters of freedom and individual liberty inherently wrong.

I don't understand why you think tyranny from people like Frank is wrong, but tyranny by people who have been dead for centuries by adhering to rules that old dead guys wrote. From my perspective, it's all the same thing, they're rules handed down that I have no power to alter but I must follow them anyway.

[Whatever]

tyranny by people who have been dead for centuries by adhering to rules that old dead guys wrote.

The Constitution means what any 5 Justices on the Supreme Court agree that it means. Some of them defer to the framers, others do not.

[Kaelik]

I am unconvinced the US military would actually go to war against its own citizens very easily. I'm sure the vast majority of grunts would follow their orders, but they don't get those orders direct from the president, and I imagine putting down a domestic revolution might sit ill with some of the officer corps.

I am also unconvinced the US military would go to war against the US populace.

But the US populace doesn't need to have guns in order overthrow by Bastille Day. In fact, the US populace having guns and shooting at the soldiers guarding the Bastille would increase the odds of the US military going to war against the populace.

Which is one more reason that "owning guns to overthrow the government" is fucking hilarious and wrong.

[Whipstitch]

What Kaelik said. I don't think the military is invincible or that the US is immune to armed revolution. I just don't think that the guns I own (and I actually own quite a few) actually matter compared to the other factors. The military is far better equipped and trained and thus I believe any chance for armed social upheaval to accomplish anything is contingent on the simple fact that what the military wants and what the general public wants is not always at cross-purposes.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Has there ever been a point in American history within its own borders where rioters/rebels/strikers/civilian targets were helped by being armed?

I'm going through a whole list of them in my head like the Whiskey Rebellion to the burning of Washington D.C. to Nat Turner's rebellions to Sherman's March to the Sea and I'm coming up blank. And this was well before the government had a supermonopoly on logistics and technology.

[Psychic Robot]

tyranny by people who have been dead for centuries by adhering to rules that old dead guys wrote. From my perspective, it's all the same thing, they're rules handed down that I have no power to alter but I must follow them anyway.

the founders were not interested in telling you how to think; they were interested in creating a functioning nation. furthermore, their minds were not hopelessly bent toward evil by marxist thought.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

tyranny by people who have been dead for centuries by adhering to rules that old dead guys wrote. From my perspective, it's all the same thing, they're rules handed down that I have no power to alter but I must follow them anyway.

the founders were not interested in telling you how to think; they were interested in creating a functioning nation. furthermore, their minds were not hopelessly bent toward evil by marxist thought.

thats only because you hate freedom. go cry more libertard.

[Username17]

Has there ever been a point in American history within its own borders where rioters/rebels/strikers/civilian targets were helped by being armed?

There have been a few times when the threat of being armed caused police crackdowns to become sufficiently drawn out that the issue at issue got pushed into the news cycle. Like the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. But as far as I can recall, merely claiming to have weaponry would have done just as well.

But that depends on being a minority group that is so repressed that they actually can't get their demands on the news without a media event. And of being so discounted by the media that they can't get a media event going by like having a charity art auction or some shit and can only draw reporters in with a standoff. Frankly, this isn't the 1970s anymore, and I don't think there are any groups left that can't get their demands on the news with non-violent action. Even people protesting bankers only took 19 days to get past a media blackout and 30 days to get taken "seriously" by talking heads on the news. That's a huge amount of effort, considering that the CEO of Morgan Stanley can get himself ten minutes of air time just by showing up to a news commentary show - but it's nothing like the media blackout that Blacks and Natives labored under in the 50s. Rosa Parks refused to vacate a seat in 1955, but she had been working for civil rights for twelve years before her protests actually got in the paper. That's like 144 times the censorship that the OWS crowd deals with today.

-Username17

[Gx1080]

@Frank Trollman

Traditional mainstream media is losing ground to the Internet, so they can't just do a "blockout". The information still goes through, despite what their Banksta masters want.