If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fairbanks Daily Newsminer)   The reality of how the modern US will treat your well-armed militia and any fantasies of an uprising   (newsminer.com) divider line 424
    More: Obvious, Fairbanks, foreign exchange reserves, magic, Alaska State Troopers, rebellions, classical conditions, treating, psychological tests  
•       •       •

25795 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 11:03 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



424 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 08:16:54 AM
A psychological exam ordered by Cox's new attorney, Peter Camiel of Seattle, after he was convicted showed Cox suffered from several paranoid disorders.
"I put a lot of people in fear by the things that I said," Cox told the court Tuesday. "Some of the crazy stuff that was coming out of my mouth, I see that, and I sounded horrible.
"I couldn't have sounded any worse if I tried," he said. "The more scared I got, the crazier the stuff. I wasn't thinking, I was panicking."


I think this guy has several alts here on Fark.
 
2013-01-09 08:19:34 AM
What, a common criminal with a big mouth bragging about committing federal felonies (that weren't true, btw)? Meh.

We aren't close to requiring a "Second Amendment Solution" yet. We're still on the first couple of boxes. As long as we have the first 3 in working order, we don't have to resort to the 4th.
 
2013-01-09 08:22:26 AM

dittybopper: (that weren't true, btw)?


Well, some may have been.

Still, I wonder how much of it was instigated by the government. It's pretty much well known that if you claim to be part of some militia organization, the FBI is going to actively attempt to infiltrate that group. They've been doing that since the 1990's.
 
2013-01-09 08:26:39 AM
Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL
 
2013-01-09 08:33:43 AM

Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL


I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?
 
2013-01-09 08:34:28 AM

Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL


That's not the paradigm now. it's just that some people haven't gotten the message.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 09:04:49 AM

dittybopper: dittybopper: (that weren't true, btw)?

Well, some may have been.

Still, I wonder how much of it was instigated by the government. It's pretty much well known that if you claim to be part of some militia organization, the FBI is going to actively attempt to infiltrate that group. They've been doing that since the 1990's.


Good.  Investigating terrorists is what they do.  I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 09:10:52 AM

dittybopper: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equipped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

That's not the paradigm now. it's just that some people haven't gotten the message.


That's pretty much the typical terrorist fantasy. These guys only associate with others like them and don't realize how few people share their ideas.

Not to mention the fact that they don't even have the balls to resist arrest, which tells you that they would piss their pants and cry like little girls if they ever had to face combat troops.
 
2013-01-09 09:15:25 AM

Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?


Apparently not really all that well, or we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we didn't use them to win in Iraq: We co-opted the tribal leadership there (ie., it was old fashioned politicking, not high tech).

Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

1.bp.blogspot.com

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are legitimate targets, and you are going to eventually make a mistake, and in a country with strong free speech protections, that mistake will be exceedingly costly. And it wouldn't necessarily be all that hard to encourage such mistakes by the use of conventional ruses.

Think hard about it: How many times have you heard about a drone being used against a wedding or other family gathering in Afghanistan? People in the US generally don't care that much because no one knows them, and the media can't get there to report on it. But imagine a drone strike on some teenagers partying in the woods, or a family camping, or some hikers. Imagine yourself looking at the images of a bombed out camper and the body of a kid lying there, covered in a sheet. Maybe his parents *WERE* planning something or actively fighting, but that kind of visceral image doesn't go over well in the United States.

So yeah, I can't imagine drone strikes in the US. It would be exceedingly counterproductive for any government to try it, it would confirm the paranoid suspicions of people like Alex Jones, giving them a mainstream audience and the ability to say "I *TOLD* you so!", and it would be tantamount to an admission that they already lost.

*In search mode, you can't focus in too closely. It's like looking through a soda straw if you use too much magnification, and at lower levels from a distance, the resolution is such that a deer, bear, or moose is going to be indistinguishable from a person. Is that group of blobs a squad of rebels, or some does bedded down?
 
2013-01-09 09:25:31 AM

Ennuipoet: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?


Magnets.
 
2013-01-09 09:26:55 AM

dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Apparently not really all that well, or we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we didn't use them to win in Iraq: We co-opted the tribal leadership there (ie., it was old fashioned politicking, not high tech).

Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are ...


I'd say that we've shown that we have no problem blowing up anything we think might be something we would want to blow up. That would include human-sized animals and random hikers. Most drones, however, are used to recon movements. We send in patrols to clean up those areas.

I think the whole dream some people have of fighting the government is pretty absurd.  For the most part, the population of this nation isn't anywhere near fired up or even capable of being fired up enough. The numbers of "resistance" types would be small and they would be characterized as terrorists. We have no problems sending in troops to shoot local terrorists. As long as elections still happen, TVs still work and internet porn is available, there will not be any revolution. Nobody will rise up, save small cells of crazy people (like today) and they will be squished out of existence rapidly.
 
2013-01-09 09:27:43 AM
Meh, if there was a major uprising, all the government would have to do is turn off the electricity, water, communications and have grocery suppliers stop all food deliveries.

Or, if they just wanted to be dicks, they'd roll the armor out. I'd imagine the first Rambo-wannabe that found out his high-powered .22 AR-15 didn't worked very well against an IFV would crap his intestines out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, there's also a good chance that the military could run into the same problems the Soviets did in Afghanistan with the Mujahideen. Guerrilla warfare would be the norm as most people would figure out real quick that you don't want to go toe to toe with the US military.
 
2013-01-09 09:34:37 AM
dittybopper, agreed that drone strike are pretty much useless against anything other than fixed targets or a decent sized group/convoy.
However, if a group is large enough and organized enough to be a threat to more that local law enforcement, then it will be able to be targeted by drone strikes.

While a group of 20-30 folks living in the woods would not be subject to drone strikes, it probably not be that difficult for the Army to rustle up a couple divisions and send then on a search and locate sweep with a pretty good chance of finding them.
 
2013-01-09 09:38:29 AM

dr_blasto: I think the whole dream some people have of fighting the government is pretty absurd. For the most part, the population of this nation isn't anywhere near fired up or even capable of being fired up enough. The numbers of "resistance" types would be small and they would be characterized as terrorists. We have no problems sending in troops to shoot local terrorists. As long as elections still happen, TVs still work and internet porn is available, there will not be any revolution. Nobody will rise up, save small cells of crazy people (like today) and they will be squished out of existence rapidly.


This.  Good grief this.  Frankly, the general population would care less about these small cells and when they have popped up no one cared when the government wiped them out.  The Derp Corp seems to forget they are a tiny minority and what they preach is actually against the law.  A few days of news coverage and then back to Honey Boo Boo.
 
2013-01-09 09:39:41 AM

dittybopper: How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?


Imagine the government turning off communications and suspending the Constitution. They could kill children by the hundreds and who's gonna know about it? Say the wrong thing and you can disappear. You also couldn't communicate or coordinate with your fellow rebels because they'd be jamming all electronics.

And if you think you're gonna run and hide in the woods...brilliant idea! Because millions of other people don't have that same idea. Once everyone in the major cities have all their food run out and their water shut off, they'll probably be fleeing for the same areas you are after their cities are burned to the ground. Yep, the woods are a really good place to hide. Good thing the military hasn't ever heard of defoliants, either.
 
2013-01-09 09:43:54 AM

vpb: dittybopper: dittybopper: (that weren't true, btw)?

Well, some may have been.

Still, I wonder how much of it was instigated by the government. It's pretty much well known that if you claim to be part of some militia organization, the FBI is going to actively attempt to infiltrate that group. They've been doing that since the 1990's.

Good.  Investigating terrorists is what they do.  I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.


They can instigate people into taking actions that are illegal, providing all the support and material means necessary, and cultivating them to do so without stepping over the technical legal definition of entrapment. Without the money, support, and most importantly the cultivation, nothing would have happened.

It's like making friends with the withdrawn kid at school, encouraging him to stand up to imaginary bullies, pumping up his self-worth and saying he has to fight back to teach them a lesson, then when he finally asks if you can get him a gun, you give him a starter pistol so no one gets hurt.

You haven't stopped anything that you haven't created yourself.

I don't have a problem with the FBI/ATF/DEA/whoever monitoring people like that, but when they are pretty much the sole monetary, material, and ideological support for the alleged "terrorists", like they have been in the past, I'm really not impressed that they made us any safer. They just sucked in some poor sap with a big mouth, who more than likely would have just left it at that if the government didn't actively intercede.

I think the reason why they do that is that they don't have infinite resources. They can't just sit there and watch malcontents who just mouth off occasionally about how they hate gun control or the Great Satan America indefinitely. There is an institutional pressure to make a case so that they can make an arrest, which they can then use to justify their jobs and budget expenditures to Congress.
 
2013-01-09 09:47:12 AM

vpb: I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.


FBI agents are really easy to spot.

Organize a group like anarchists. Have a big roundtable once you get a lot of membership. The bigger guy who says "Let's blow up (whatever)! I can get a bomb!" is the Fed. Pretty easy.
 
2013-01-09 09:49:19 AM
Good luck with the fantasy.

It is interesting to think of a bunch of folks, who have paid taxes, who have records, who people know in their own counties, might magically escape notice. Notice enough to set themselves up as a revolution against one of the strongest militaries in the world--especially given that the fastest growing groups on terrorist watch lists have been paramilitary "militias" and this was under GW's watch.

You want to see how "ineffective" your government is? Try lobbing a bunch of grenades at it and calling for others to do the same. All of your goodies cost money, need to be maintained, and yes, Virginia, your local law enforcement probably knows where you yahoos go to pop off rounds and play soldier, and you hurt folks, all amusement will disappear...
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 09:49:24 AM

dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.


Actually it works pretty well.  There is a reason you don't hear about the Taliban winning any battles.  The only reason we are still there is because there is no stable government there to had things over to.

But that's beside the point.  Successful rebellions like in Libya have popular support.

You don't.

There aren't enough of you to even involve the military, law enforcement will take care of you nuts.  You don't have the organization, the discipline, the equipment, the training or the dedication that the Taliban have.  Comparing "militias" to the Taliban is like comparing the Boy Scouts to the Army.

There have been individual survivalists who have fought it out with the police, but I can't think of a single militia group that has even had the balls to put up a fight when the police took them down.  Basically angry white men acting out violent fantasies.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 09:51:46 AM

Ennuipoet: dr_blasto: I think the whole dream some people have of fighting the government is pretty absurd. For the most part, the population of this nation isn't anywhere near fired up or even capable of being fired up enough. The numbers of "resistance" types would be small and they would be characterized as terrorists. We have no problems sending in troops to shoot local terrorists. As long as elections still happen, TVs still work and internet porn is available, there will not be any revolution. Nobody will rise up, save small cells of crazy people (like today) and they will be squished out of existence rapidly.

This.  Good grief this.  Frankly, the general population would care less about these small cells and when they have popped up no one cared when the government wiped them out.  The Derp Corp seems to forget they are a tiny minority and what they preach is actually against the law.  A few days of news coverage and then back to Honey Boo Boo.


Or they snap when they realize how insignificant and impotent they are and shoot up a school.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 09:54:37 AM

doglover: vpb: I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.

FBI agents are really easy to spot.

Organize a group like anarchists. Have a big roundtable once you get a lot of membership. The bigger guy who says "Let's blow up (whatever)! I can get a bomb!" is the Fed. Pretty easy.


You sound experianced with these things.
 
2013-01-09 09:55:24 AM

PacManDreaming: dittybopper: How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

Imagine the government turning off communications and suspending the Constitution. They could kill children by the hundreds and who's gonna know about it? Say the wrong thing and you can disappear. You also couldn't communicate or coordinate with your fellow rebels because they'd be jamming all electronics.


Google my user name. I know more about the subject of electronic warfare than you do. You can't shut down all communications. The US government doesn't have the resources (though they wish they did!).

Even if they tried, you can't jam local communications because it would require wideband jamming over a huge swath of frequencies

Also, they wouldn't jam them for practical reasons: It's better to listen. You can't simultaneously jam and DF. Communications that don't happen can't be analyzed for connections, etc.

Besides which, legally the government can't prevent the news media from reporting on such things. Any government that tried would be in violation of the Constitution, and thus illegitimate.

And if you think you're gonna run and hide in the woods...brilliant idea! Because millions of other people don't have that same idea. Once everyone in the major cities have all their food run out and their water shut off, they'll probably be fleeing for the same areas you are after their cities are burned to the ground. Yep, the woods are a really good place to hide. Good thing the military hasn't ever heard of defoliants, either.

1. I'm not talking about a mass exodus from the cities in some sort of post-apocalyptic scenario. I'm talking about small groups of people. The sort of groups that can form, perform some action, and in the face of pressure, simply evaporate.

2. The profligate use of defoliants did not help us in Vietnam: Even in the Winter, when nature defoliates itself, you still have the problem of the tree trunks themselves, not to mention terrain features, and a snow cave would be very good at diffusing your infrared signature. Properly sited, it might even be largely invisible.
 
2013-01-09 10:07:04 AM

vpb: Successful rebellions like in Libya have popular support.

You don't.


I'm not rebelling, nor would I in all but the most dire "loading people into cattle cars to camps" scenario: I've got a job, a family, and a house. Too much to lose.

No, you don't have to worry about me. This is just an intellectual exercise for me, kind of like the thread where I was talking about how Argentina could invade the Falklands: I'm not Argentinian, nor am I British, or even in the military anymore, just an interested observer.

The people you have to worry about are the ones who like shooting, have combat military experience, and are mostly unattached and/or don't have deep roots in any particular community, and who hold extreme ideological views*. Those are the ones you have to watch out for, from a practical standpoint, because those are the ones with a track record of actually *DOING* things.

Problem is, they tend to do stuff on their own, or with at most the help of one or two others, so finding them and stopping them before they do something is a real practical problem.

*Some might claim that I hold such views, I suppose, depending on their viewpoint, but really I don't consider them such: Many of the laws regarding firearms are quite legitimate, and I don't have a problem with, for instance, requiring a license to carry concealed in public or for hunting purposes. What I have a problem with are laws that make it as difficult and expensive as possible just to own, say, a handgun, in order to discourage their ownership, or in the banning of modern rifles or modern ammunition or ammunition feeding devices.
 
2013-01-09 10:12:18 AM

vpb: doglover: vpb: I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.

FBI agents are really easy to spot.

Organize a group like anarchists. Have a big roundtable once you get a lot of membership. The bigger guy who says "Let's blow up (whatever)! I can get a bomb!" is the Fed. Pretty easy.

You sound experianced with these things.


Don't you read the news?
 
2013-01-09 10:12:50 AM
Named in TFA:

Schaeffer Cox
Lonnie Vernon
Coleman Barney


Why do so many militia members, no matter what part of the country they're from, have weird, bygone names like this?

Every time I read an article about some militia that's been infiltrated, the names of their members sound like something out of Southern Gothic literature. Somebody really needs to make an American Militia Member Name Generator.
 
2013-01-09 10:14:47 AM

vpb: Or they snap when they realize how insignificant and impotent they are and shoot up a school.


Except they don't.
 
2013-01-09 10:20:14 AM

vpb: doglover: vpb: I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.

FBI agents are really easy to spot.

Organize a group like anarchists. Have a big roundtable once you get a lot of membership. The bigger guy who says "Let's blow up (whatever)! I can get a bomb!" is the Fed. Pretty easy.

You sound experianced with these things.


I grew up in Pittsburgh. My father "worked" in the steel mills part time in high school, but that time was a huge labor dispute that eventually killed the industry. The agent provocateurs were not so easy to spot in a steel mill because all the men were athletic of frame, but they were always the ones who insisted on illegal activity first. If someone went from "Let's make a picket line." to "Let's beat the fark outta them scabs." you knew it a fed.
 
2013-01-09 10:26:50 AM
Same with moonshinin', another Appalachian tradition right next to unionizing and banjo music.

You can always spot the feds because they don't ask about shine, they ask about "white liquor" the poor bastards.
 
2013-01-09 10:36:09 AM

vpb: Actually it works pretty well.  There is a reason you don't hear about the Taliban winning any battles.  The only reason we are still there is because there is no stable government there to had things over to.


It works well? So what would happen to me, as a westerner, if I were to wander too far out of the Green Zone in Kabul? Would the US assign a drone to watch over me? And how would that drone protect me, by dropping a bomb on the people who killed or kidnapped me when it's too late?

No.

I'm going to make a prediction: If we ever leave Afghanistan, within 5 years, or 10 at the most, any government that we set up will have fallen. The Taliban have relatively widespread support in large swaths of the country, and it's harder for us to co-opt the tribal leadership in Afghanistan than it was in Iraq because the tribal leadership in Iraq were honest crooks: They stayed bought.
 
2013-01-09 10:44:02 AM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
www.lilligren.com
 
2013-01-09 10:49:21 AM

vpb: I can't think of a single militia group that has even had the balls to put up a fight when the police took them down.


Maybe it's because the police don't try to go in guns blazing anymore.

FBI Critical Incident Response Group

Do you remember Ruby Ridge, or were you not born yet? Then almost at the same time Waco. The government farkED UP. THEY killed people, not the militia. Not the cult. The government did the dirty deeds. Thus it was that we the people realized there was some seriously farked up shiat going on and all the agencies had to do some housecleaning and re-organize their methods. Since then, we really haven't had any armed confrontations with militia groups that ended poorly because NEITHER SIDE wants that.

What violence in your soul are you projecting?
 
2013-01-09 10:50:06 AM
If you have to limit your movements, hide in snow caves, and stay away from others lest you look like a target, forest or not, you're fighting on someone else's terms. Unless you have popular support, you won't last long.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 10:52:40 AM

dittybopper: vpb: doglover: vpb: I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.

FBI agents are really easy to spot.

Organize a group like anarchists. Have a big roundtable once you get a lot of membership. The bigger guy who says "Let's blow up (whatever)! I can get a bomb!" is the Fed. Pretty easy.

You sound experianced with these things.

Don't you read the news?


Yes, but I can tell the difference between a fact and a claim made by a guy trying to save his ass.

Not being able to say "no" when you are offered the opportunity to commit a crime doesn't mean you were entraped.

When he came out in 2007 he tried to go straight, but money was tight

That doesn't sound too much like a innocent law abiding guy who was manipulated into a crime by the FBI, it sounds like he went out looking for a way to make money illegally, was offered a deal and took it.
 
2013-01-09 10:58:35 AM
That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...
 
2013-01-09 11:01:14 AM

dittybopper: Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.


Nice.

*internet high-five*
 
2013-01-09 11:04:20 AM

xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...


High cheekbones, girl's haircut.
 
2013-01-09 11:06:43 AM
An elf?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 11:07:23 AM

dittybopper: vpb: Actually it works pretty well.  There is a reason you don't hear about the Taliban winning any battles.  The only reason we are still there is because there is no stable government there to had things over to.

It works well? So what would happen to me, as a westerner, if I were to wander too far out of the Green Zone in Kabul? Would the US assign a drone to watch over me? And how would that drone protect me, by dropping a bomb on the people who killed or kidnapped me when it's too late?

No.

I'm going to make a prediction: If we ever leave Afghanistan, within 5 years, or 10 at the most, any government that we set up will have fallen. The Taliban have relatively widespread support in large swaths of the country, and it's harder for us to co-opt the tribal leadership in Afghanistan than it was in Iraq because the tribal leadership in Iraq were honest crooks: They stayed bought.


I suppose they could, but that isn't the point.  We have no trouble beating the taliban on the battle field, and they force us out that's what military power is.  The fact that Afghanistan has internal divisions and social problems has nothing to do with military technology, neither does the fact that we don't have the will to stay forever.

If there isn't enough popular support for large parts of the military to back the rebels, there wouldn't be enough for them to even hide out.  You can't blend in with the civilian population if they dial 911 to report you.

If there is, then militia wackos aren't going to matter.
 
2013-01-09 11:07:32 AM
I still wanna know where all these Tyranny-Fighters were during the Bush 43 administration....yeah, that's what I thought.
 
2013-01-09 11:08:16 AM
Guy with mental health disorder, and a big mouth equals a terrorist??? The article does not convince me he is a public risk. It does reinforce the 'mental illness==you're screwed' perception.
 
2013-01-09 11:09:10 AM

xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...


You're thinking this, 'cause I am too:

spunfull.files.wordpress.com

/"Robert?" or Roberta?
 
2013-01-09 11:09:40 AM

vpb: Ennuipoet: dr_blasto: I think the whole dream some people have of fighting the government is pretty absurd. For the most part, the population of this nation isn't anywhere near fired up or even capable of being fired up enough. The numbers of "resistance" types would be small and they would be characterized as terrorists. We have no problems sending in troops to shoot local terrorists. As long as elections still happen, TVs still work and internet porn is available, there will not be any revolution. Nobody will rise up, save small cells of crazy people (like today) and they will be squished out of existence rapidly.

This.  Good grief this.  Frankly, the general population would care less about these small cells and when they have popped up no one cared when the government wiped them out.  The Derp Corp seems to forget they are a tiny minority and what they preach is actually against the law.  A few days of news coverage and then back to Honey Boo Boo.

Or they snap when they realize how insignificant and impotent they are and shoot up a school.


Thus providing masturbation material for the teabaggers and gun nuts.
 
2013-01-09 11:10:17 AM
oh ok, take away my rights then
 
2013-01-09 11:10:32 AM
If the Government had Militias, this would never have happened.
 
2013-01-09 11:10:44 AM

dittybopper: Now, this is not too far from where I live:


Russia?
 
2013-01-09 11:11:08 AM
Sorry, but I have seen "Red Dawn" hundreds of times so I know about military insurrections.  Now, let's look beyond how it's a well-acted and well-written movie whose heartfelt emotions tug at the core of what it means to be a Real American.  What I want to talk about is Form 4473.  Red Dawn warned us about Form 4473.

t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-09 11:11:44 AM
FTA:
"Some of the crazy stuff that was coming out of my mouth, I see that, and I sounded horrible.

Over the next 26 years, they're be some crazy stuff coming IN your mouth.
 
2013-01-09 11:11:50 AM
Fringe militia groups.

Yep, this is what all gun owners think like.
 
2013-01-09 11:12:00 AM
So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.
 
2013-01-09 11:12:08 AM
All of this gun shiat is really getting on my nerves.

How about we skip the part where we argue about gun control, and just get right to the part where we do nothing?
 
2013-01-09 11:13:05 AM
That smugly grinning face is in the dictionary under douchebag.
 
2013-01-09 11:13:53 AM
Yeah... nobody is gonna be on board with trying to take over Alaska. Russia practically gave it away.
 
2013-01-09 11:14:05 AM
Ah this old one. The one where the American military military has overwhelming superiority and technology against any insurgency that could happen. Never mind Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq 2.0.

/plus you don't have to actually perform an insurgency, you know just pop the jackass who declares himself President for Life
//not that I support such actions or consider them the proper way to redress grievances, however to claim they are ineffective is deny facts
 
2013-01-09 11:14:30 AM

vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 196x257]
[www.lilligren.com image 447x331]


People tell me I have to join a militia to responsibly use my right to bear arms.
Then they get nitpicky because they think the militia I joined doesn't look like its up to the job.

/Most of the militia that make the news are just loud mouthed drinking clubs full of racists.
/On the other hand I've seen some scary looking guys that would make you want to double your local swat teams funding if you ran across them.
 
2013-01-09 11:14:47 AM

PacManDreaming: Meh, if there was a major uprising, all the government would have to do is turn off the electricity, water, communications and have grocery suppliers stop all food deliveries. ....



tax refund check wasn't delivered by the post office? What do you mean the bank won't cash it? Wait, walmart is out of stock on ammo anyway? Damn my brilliant plans for revolution have failed.

Should read more Les Miserables and less Atlas Shrugged.
 
2013-01-09 11:15:25 AM

Ennuipoet: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?


They forget all the "non-lethal" weapons to top it all off. All the pain generators alone (sonic, thermal, et al.) can even take opponent casualties out of the equation, this rendering the military superior in that respect.
 
2013-01-09 11:15:27 AM
So we crushed all resistance within Iraq and Afghanistan in the first couple of days and since then we've only been hanging about for the fun of it, right?
 
2013-01-09 11:15:39 AM
So we need to ban guns because internet tough guys.

/End gun violence
//promote domestic violence instead.
///Or we could just try and stop violence in general before it starts...
 
2013-01-09 11:15:39 AM
In any militia group, I'm betting at least 1/3rd report to the FBI.
 
2013-01-09 11:16:02 AM

Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months. They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.


Complete with collateral damage involving women and children.

That will surely pacify people.

Look how apeshiat they go when its a house full of Muslim women and children getting blown up via drone.........under a republican president.
 
2013-01-09 11:16:20 AM
Essential to a well armed regulated militia. Buy it by the case.

i86.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 11:16:50 AM

dittybopper:

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are ...


Well hikers are not going to be armed to the teeth, so it's pretty easy to pick them out from armed mob. Also, if you are living in the woods, you leave signs of living in the woods. Vegetation gets cleared. Shelters built. Fires burned. Trash builds up. And that Vegetation you are so proud of disappears in the winter.

But then again, it doesn't sound like you actually know a thing about tracking.
 
2013-01-09 11:16:58 AM

dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Apparently not really all that well, or we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we didn't use them to win in Iraq: We co-opted the tribal leadership there (ie., it was old fashioned politicking, not high tech).

Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are ...


Futile.... you are projecting logical fallacy. I have proof your theory will not work. 20 dead school children.

IF 20 dead 'white' kindergardeners can't change shiat in this country a couple of dead hikers or cub scouts will have ZERO sway on public opinions.
 
2013-01-09 11:17:01 AM
I posted this in another thread.

It will be an interesting day when the redneck gun nuts have to raise their arms against their redneck brothers and sisters that joined the army to make ends meet.
It won't be the negro president personally knocking on your door.


The nuts gut even nuttier.
 
2013-01-09 11:17:25 AM

fluffy2097: So we need to ban guns because internet tough guys.

/End gun violence
//promote domestic violence instead.
///Or we could just try and stop violence in general before it starts...


Militias don't kill people. People kill people.
 
2013-01-09 11:17:28 AM
FTA: Barney was sentenced last year to five years in prison on weapons charges.

www.awn.com

I always knew he was a shady character.
 
2013-01-09 11:17:59 AM
At the end of the trial in June, Judge Bryan said he wrote down observations about Cox, which included: paranoia, grandiosity, narcissism, egocentricity and pathological lying.

Then the judge attached the following image to his notes.

cdn.inquisitr.com
 
2013-01-09 11:17:59 AM

vpb: dittybopper: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equipped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

That's not the paradigm now. it's just that some people haven't gotten the message.

That's pretty much the typical terrorist fantasy. These guys only associate with others like them and don't realize how few people share their ideas.

Not to mention the fact that they don't even have the balls to resist arrest, which tells you that they would piss their pants and cry like little girls if they ever had to face combat troops.


They could try this:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-09 11:18:16 AM
So the words "well regulated" can't be ignored?
 
2013-01-09 11:18:43 AM
At the end of the trial in June, Bryan said he wrote down observations about Cox, which included: paranoia, grandiosity, narcissism, egocentricity and pathological lying.

Sounds like he should have been elected to the House of Representatives.
 
2013-01-09 11:19:25 AM

Charlie Freak: If you have to limit your movements, hide in snow caves, and stay away from others lest you look like a target, forest or not, you're fighting on someone else's terms. Unless you have popular support, you won't last long.


Our group is pretty good at not worrying about this kind of stuff since we should be able to "hide in plain sight" pretty well without being traced; we think we'll be pretty well off when Obama comes for us given that we know where our parents hide their credit cards.
 
2013-01-09 11:19:59 AM
A psychological exam ordered by Cox's new attorney, Peter Camiel of Seattle, after he was convicted showed Cox suffered from several paranoid disorders.

The primary disorder was being a Tea Party Member.
 
2013-01-09 11:20:10 AM

dittybopper:

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?


The US will react the same way as they do in those nifty middle eastern countries. Everyone is a target. That's what you get for living in a warzone.
 
2013-01-09 11:20:18 AM

Catsaregreen: Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


You mean the ones that sent armies against US citizens? Those founding fathers?
 
2013-01-09 11:20:21 AM

Catsaregreen: So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


growlersoftware.com
 
2013-01-09 11:22:16 AM

gadian: You mean the ones that sent armies against US citizens? Those founding fathers?


I don't believe you are a US citizen when you secede from the union.

/We are talking about the civil war right?
 
2013-01-09 11:22:21 AM

PacManDreaming: Meh, if there was a major uprising, all the government would have to do is turn off the electricity, water, communications and have grocery suppliers stop all food deliveries.


How long do you think the government would continue to operate after the people turn off the supply of tax money?

Wars are economic contests. The only reason we can continue losing a war in Afghanistan is that there are people like me back here paying for it.

When the government decides to put missiles on the drones it flies is US airspace, people will stop paying them.

The government's source of revenue will become a source of gunfire aimed in their direction. The government may not care much about the gunfire at first, but they will care about the loss of revenue.

Guerrilla units are relatively cheap. The US military is so bloated and inefficient that it couldn't operate if there were a single week of interruption in the collection of taxes.
 
2013-01-09 11:22:36 AM

ha-ha-guy: Ah this old one. The one where the American military military has overwhelming superiority and technology against any insurgency that could happen. Never mind Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq 2.0.

/plus you don't have to actually perform an insurgency, you know just pop the jackass who declares himself President for Life
//not that I support such actions or consider them the proper way to redress grievances, however to claim they are ineffective is deny facts


You know what all three of them had in common? A sugar daddy. The Vietnamese insurgency was funded by the North and supplied by the Soviets. Afghanistan had a steady supply of arms and money from Bin Laden and his network, as did Iraq 2.0

The French Resistance? Backed by the Allies.

Even the American Revolution relied on the French for arms, money, and it's Navy.

Logistics wins wars, not fervor.
 
2013-01-09 11:24:01 AM

hinten: I posted this in another thread.

It will be an interesting day when the redneck gun nuts have to raise their arms against their redneck brothers and sisters that joined the army to make ends meet.
It won't be the negro president personally knocking on your door.

The nuts gut even nuttier.


Only rednecks own guns. This is what people like this actually believe. And you make it extra classy by saying only rednecks join the military.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership- s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

Link

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2013-01-09 11:24:30 AM
It's not the noise makers the gov. has to worry about. Those guys are fools.
 
2013-01-09 11:24:42 AM
Wow. 26 years for basically mouthing off, but not hurting a fly.

Interesting.

Soviets were pretty good at that shiat:

"Psychiatry of the Brezhnev period was used as a tool to eliminate political opponents ("dissidents"), people who openly expressed their views that contradict officially declared dogmas.[13]:17 In case the person did not agree with the specific actions of people in leading positions and criticized them by using philosophic dogmas according to the writings by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, the term "philosophical intoxication" was widely used to diagnose mental disorders.[13]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Sov i et_Union
 
2013-01-09 11:24:57 AM
How long before other countries start waging a proxy war against the US government by giving 9k38s and DSHKs to the militias in that scenario?

the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that......
 
2013-01-09 11:25:19 AM

PacManDreaming: Imagine the government turning off communications and suspending the Constitution.


Suspending the Constitution is unconstitutional. Since the Constitution defines the structure of government, suspending it is also suspending the existence of the office of president and his position as command in chief and the legitimacy of the entire executive branch. Constitutionally, the president is allowed to suspend habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, and use of that power alone should be sufficient to maintain continuity of government without violating other rights.
 
2013-01-09 11:25:35 AM

mytdawg: At the end of the trial in June, Bryan said he wrote down observations about Cox, which included: paranoia, grandiosity, narcissism, egocentricity and pathological lying.

Sounds like he should have been elected to the House of Representatives.


That meager resume of social ills makes him better than Newt Gingrich was.
 
2013-01-09 11:25:39 AM
ITT a bunch of folks who don't understand the nature of guerrilla insurgencies.

If you are imagining a pitched battle between a ragtag militia and the US military, that will never happen.
 
2013-01-09 11:26:04 AM

fluffy2097: /We are talking about the civil war right?


Nope. Further back than that.
 
2013-01-09 11:26:42 AM

Charlie Freak: Unless you have popular


The trick is that every now and then, groups DO gather popular support. They you have a flippin vietnam or Afghanistan on your hands. And rolling in heavy on nutburgers does wonders for popular support. Waco was way back in the 90s, but it still looms large. It pissed ME off, and I'm nowhere close to tinfoil hat country.
 
2013-01-09 11:27:08 AM

grokca: Ennuipoet: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Magnets.


Ah, so that's it. I thought it was all ball bearings nowadays. I am clearly behind the times.
 
2013-01-09 11:28:13 AM

dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Apparently not really all that well, or we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we didn't use them to win in Iraq: We co-opted the tribal leadership there (ie., it was old fashioned politicking, not high tech).

Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are legitimate ta ...


Pffffffft.

Step 1: Set the woods on fire and smoke their dumb asses out.
Step 2: Sit back and pluck off your buddies as they run from the blaze
Step 3: Arrest the majority of them who see a few get picked off and remember that they're not soldiers, they're low-skilled workers who don't really want to kill anyone.
 
2013-01-09 11:28:47 AM

mark12A: Wow. 26 years for basically mouthing off, but not hurting a fly.


You can kill people and serve less time.

The government is extra-super-sensitive to people who do not respect their authoritay.

They'll probably put him in the deepest hole they have -- ADX Florence. That's where they put the ones that embarrass them.

Rule No. 1 of being in the Ruling Class: Maintain your position in the Ruling Class

Rule No. 2: Pretend to care about helping the people who aren't in the Ruling Class to the extent it helps serve the purposes of Rule No. 1.
 
2013-01-09 11:29:44 AM

aninconvenienterection: grokca: Ennuipoet: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Magnets.

Ah, so that's it. I thought it was all ball bearings nowadays. I am clearly behind the times.


Sounds like someone needs a refresher course.
 
2013-01-09 11:29:51 AM

topcon: hinten: I posted this in another thread.

It will be an interesting day when the redneck gun nuts have to raise their arms against their redneck brothers and sisters that joined the army to make ends meet.
It won't be the negro president personally knocking on your door.

The nuts gut even nuttier.

Only rednecks own guns. This is what people like this actually believe. And you make it extra classy by saying only rednecks join the military.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership- s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

Link

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 480x1091]


It will be the rednecks that stay behind to fight the "government" which are just their redneck brethren that joined the armed forces. In case of an uprising the rich and educated people will already have left the country, just see Cuba as an example.
 
2013-01-09 11:30:13 AM
I figure most "militia" members are people who either couldn't get into the military or washed out of the military.
 
2013-01-09 11:30:48 AM

xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...


His face looks like a CGI of a police sketch.  He doesn't seem real.
 
2013-01-09 11:31:27 AM

vpb: A psychological exam ordered by Cox's new attorney, Peter Camiel of Seattle, after he was convicted showed Cox suffered from several paranoid disorders.
"I put a lot of people in fear by the things that I said," Cox told the court Tuesday. "Some of the crazy stuff that was coming out of my mouth, I see that, and I sounded horrible.
"I couldn't have sounded any worse if I tried," he said. "The more scared I got, the crazier the stuff. I wasn't thinking, I was panicking."

I think this guy has several alts here on Fark.


Anti-authoritarians are commonly labeled as mentally ill or defective.
It makes them easier to control through legal means.

Cox, Schaeffer: An example to everyone who thinks the 2nd Amendment means what you think if means.
 
2013-01-09 11:31:53 AM
. The profligate use of defoliants did not help us in Vietnam: Even in the Winter, when nature defoliates itself, you still have the problem of the tree trunks themselves, not to mention terrain features, and a snow cave would be very good at diffusing your infrared signature. Properly sited, it might even be largely invisible.>

As far as I know, where there's a snow cave there's a power generator.
www.theforce.net

And rebellious snow bunnies!
i133.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 11:32:09 AM
paranoia, grandiosity, narcissism, egocentricity and pathological lying.


sooooo... republican, then? why didn't you just say 'republican'?
 
2013-01-09 11:32:15 AM

Phinn: PacManDreaming: Meh, if there was a major uprising, all the government would have to do is turn off the electricity, water, communications and have grocery suppliers stop all food deliveries.

How long do you think the government would continue to operate after the people turn off the supply of tax money?

Wars are economic contests. The only reason we can continue losing a war in Afghanistan is that there are people like me back here paying for it.

When the government decides to put missiles on the drones it flies is US airspace, people will stop paying them.

The government's source of revenue will become a source of gunfire aimed in their direction. The government may not care much about the gunfire at first, but they will care about the loss of revenue.

Guerrilla units are relatively cheap. The US military is so bloated and inefficient that it couldn't operate if there were a single week of interruption in the collection of taxes.


There is a difference between currency and resources. They don't need cash especially if they can print their own or simply take the resources they need.
 
2013-01-09 11:32:22 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: Step 1: Set the woods on fire and smoke their dumb asses out.


Because if there's one thing wildfires do it's stay in one place and not cause catastrophic environmental and collateral damage.
 
2013-01-09 11:33:10 AM
These weirdos talk a pretty tough game until the government actually shows up. Then they don't even fire a shot and cry at their trial.
 
2013-01-09 11:34:28 AM

doczoidberg: All of this gun shiat is really getting on my nerves.

How about we skip the part where we argue about gun control, and just get right to the part where we do nothing?


Why do you hate "the children"?
 
2013-01-09 11:34:34 AM

Xlr8urfark: And rebellious snow bunnies!


img3.etsystatic.com
 
2013-01-09 11:34:57 AM
Does this mean 1776 will not commence?
 
2013-01-09 11:35:45 AM

Nem Wan: Constitutionally, the president is allowed to suspend habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion


No, only Congress can. Ex parte Merryman.

Lincoln purported to do it anyway, then got biatch-slapped by Justice Taney, so Lincoln (the great respecter of liberty that he was) then promptly turned around and tried to get Taney arrested.
 
2013-01-09 11:35:50 AM

dittybopper: dittybopper: (that weren't true, btw)?

Well, some may have been.

Still, I wonder how much of it was instigated by the government. It's pretty much well known that if you claim to be part of some militia organization, the FBI is going to actively attempt to infiltrate that group. They've been doing that since the 1990's

1960's.
 
2013-01-09 11:38:11 AM

Phinn: PacManDreaming: Meh, if there was a major uprising, all the government would have to do is turn off the electricity, water, communications and have grocery suppliers stop all food deliveries.

How long do you think the government would continue to operate after the people turn off the supply of tax money?

Wars are economic contests. The only reason we can continue losing a war in Afghanistan is that there are people like me back here paying for it.

When the government decides to put missiles on the drones it flies is US airspace, people will stop paying them.

The government's source of revenue will become a source of gunfire aimed in their direction. The government may not care much about the gunfire at first, but they will care about the loss of revenue.

Guerrilla units are relatively cheap. The US military is so bloated and inefficient that it couldn't operate if there were a single week of interruption in the collection of taxes.


It's hard to picture an uprising popular enough that enough people join it that the government starves, but so few people support it that supporters of the cause can't win elections.

Even in a broken two-party system where money is speech.
 
2013-01-09 11:38:13 AM

Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL


It all depends on how big any one movement becomes. If enough people got pissed off enough and were united behind a charismatic enough leader, small factions within the military might take arms with the rebels. That would be legitimately terrifying. They would rationalize it by claiming that they only swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not the President, and this rebellion is in accord with the Constitution, etc. This would only happen under a Democratic administration, especially headed by a minority President. Oh, wait...

Actually, the likelihood of a real rebellion reaching that kind of critical mass in this country is very small as long as well all have food to eat and thousands of back episodes of TV shows for $8/month on Netflix. Syria is what things have to devolve to before people actually get desperate enough to fight their own governments en masse.
 
2013-01-09 11:38:31 AM

dr_blasto: dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Apparently not really all that well, or we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we didn't use them to win in Iraq: We co-opted the tribal leadership there (ie., it was old fashioned politicking, not high tech).

Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are ...


Your argument is the exact same thing people said 250 years ago, and the same thing that people have said before every revolution. They always start out looking like an impossible tasks. revolutionist start out being a joke, then they are arrested, then hung for treason, then slaughtered in the streets, but if the movement ideoligies are there, then it will develop.

Keep in mind I am not saying this is happening now or not, just that the argument that "the government will win, so you don't need guns, and you don't need to try" is idiotic, and those people need to pick up a real history book. Study the day by day, how the revolutionary war started. Study how the Russion revolution started. There are books that describe in detail the exact events of a very few key days.
 
2013-01-09 11:38:53 AM

Phinn: Lincoln (the great respecter of liberty that he was)


You guys, the president that freed the slaves hated liberty. Read it on the internet.
 
2013-01-09 11:40:53 AM
Show of hands, how many of you out there are furiously masturbating to the idea of our civilized world plunged into a Mad-Max grade hell hole?

Ok, that's what I thought.
 
2013-01-09 11:41:30 AM

zarberg: So the words "well regulated" can't be ignored?


I'm sure they have no problem pooping on a regular schedule.  I can't imagine MREs is not a high fiber diet.
 
2013-01-09 11:42:21 AM

Phinn: How long do you think the government would continue to operate after the people turn off the supply of tax money?

Wars are economic contests. The only reason we can continue losing a war in Afghanistan is that there are people like me back here paying for it.

When the government decides to put missiles on the drones it flies is US airspace, people will stop paying them.

The government's source of revenue will become a source of gunfire aimed in their direction. The government may not care much about the gunfire at first, but they will care about the loss of revenue.

Guerrilla units are relatively cheap. The US military is so bloated and inefficient that it couldn't operate if there were a single week of interruption in the collection of taxes.


You do know that the Gov prints your money right?
 
2013-01-09 11:42:51 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Show of hands, how many of you out there are furiously masturbating to the idea of our civilized world plunged into a Mad-Max grade hell hole?

Ok, that's what I thought.


I don;t think they are masturbating to that idea......killing all gun owners or wishing pancreatic cancer upon them, maybe.

Look at how gleeful people were in the FPS Russia guy thread.
Yet firearms owners are the ones who want to perpetrate violence upon others....wierd shiat that is.
 
2013-01-09 11:42:54 AM
A second american revolution would have to be a war of attrition. basically IEDs and assassinations. lots of 'terrorist' style actions. it would only succeed with a sizable majority(70-80%) of the population sympathizing with the goals of the resistance or, a decent sized majority(50-60%) and some defected military units.

since it wouldn't be geographically split, it wouldn't make sense to wage total war on the insurgents, as all you would do is make new enemy soliders by killing civilians, possibly ones who would otherwise be on the side of the government. And you destroy the infrastructure that your own country and military needs to function.

In this scenario the small arms don't really matter, you can conduct raids and assassinations in a guerrilla fashion with a 1903 springfield, a M1 garand, or an m16a4 with pretty equal efficiency.

you aren't going to win an engagement with an army division, so the solution is not to get into one.
 
2013-01-09 11:43:04 AM
FTFA: "I put myself here, with my own words," he said before pausing. "And I feel horrible about that."

Translation: "I'm sorry I got caught."
 
2013-01-09 11:43:25 AM

Evil Twin Skippy: Show of hands, how many of you out there are furiously masturbating to the idea of our civilized world plunged into a Mad-Max grade hell hole?

Ok, that's what I thought.


Wait...Bartertown or the small band of survivors living in a refinery?  Or maybe the roving bands of motorcycle gangs who like to drive over babies?
 
2013-01-09 11:43:47 AM
How is Afghanistan working out for you?
 
2013-01-09 11:44:24 AM
I find this thread extremely disturbing. It's pretty farking obvious after all the jubilant glee about state superiority from the limp wrists and bearded horn rimmed glasses wearing hipster freaks in here that they can't wait for the tiniest suspicion in order to justify the bloodshed of their non center left (or more radical) countrymen. Great Farking job, Lord of the Flies motherfarking swine.
 
2013-01-09 11:44:27 AM
Something something arrested development something something red dawn something something compensation something something real threat is apathy and sloth.
 
2013-01-09 11:44:51 AM

doglover: DROxINxTHExWIND: Step 1: Set the woods on fire and smoke their dumb asses out.

Because if there's one thing wildfires do it's stay in one place and not cause catastrophic environmental and collateral damage.


Wait, I thought we were talking about the government coming to kill us. In all of the movies that I've seen about it, the soldiers who are trying to impose a New World Order don't give a shiat about the environment.
But, I see now that he may have just been talking about what would happen if a small group decided to rebel.
 
2013-01-09 11:44:57 AM

Fubegra: FTFA: "I put myself here, with my own words," he said before pausing. "And I feel horrible about that."

Translation: "I'm sorry I got caught."


Everything happens for a reason. But sometimes that reason is that you are stupid and you make bad decisions.
 
2013-01-09 11:45:17 AM

people: How is Afghanistan working out for you?


oh, just like 'Nam, but with much less resistance from the public.
 
2013-01-09 11:45:38 AM

Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation. This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL


The Afganis kicked our asses...and before us, the Soviets. Thats quite a farking accomplishment, if you ask me.
 
2013-01-09 11:45:49 AM

Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months. They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.


And, besides, even if the army won't attack its citizens, that doesn't mean the police won't.
 
2013-01-09 11:46:08 AM
B-b-b-b-ut Imaginary possible Hitler!
 
2013-01-09 11:46:15 AM

MayoSlather: There is a difference between currency and resources. They don't need cash especially if they can print their own or simply take the resources they need.


The Confederacy tried to print its way through a war. The burst of printing makes things look good for a few days or weeks, then inflation takes over.

Besides, invading governments and militaries cannot run an economy. They can steal stuff, but that only lasts for so long. Taking resources by military invasion is not a long-term economic solution.

The US government can't even afford Medicare. It cannot afford a domestic war, largely because it would be waged against the people they need to pay for its wars.
 
2013-01-09 11:46:15 AM

SuperT: A second american revolution would have to be a war of attrition. basically IEDs and assassinations. lots of 'terrorist' style actions. it would only succeed with a sizable majority(70-80%) of the population sympathizing with the goals of the resistance or, a decent sized majority(50-60%) and some defected military units.

since it wouldn't be geographically split, it wouldn't make sense to wage total war on the insurgents, as all you would do is make new enemy soliders by killing civilians, possibly ones who would otherwise be on the side of the government. And you destroy the infrastructure that your own country and military needs to function.

In this scenario the small arms don't really matter, you can conduct raids and assassinations in a guerrilla fashion with a 1903 springfield, a M1 garand, or an m16a4 with pretty equal efficiency.

you aren't going to win an engagement with an army division, so the solution is not to get into one.


Plus it's pretty easy to pick out the guys wearing BDUs with american flag patches...not so easy to pick out which guy going to work in dickies is a guerilla.
 
2013-01-09 11:46:43 AM

Phinn: They'll probably put him in the deepest hole they have -- ADX Florence. That's where they put the ones that embarrass them.


Yeah, this dude totally embarrassed them.

Before he was sentenced, Cox broke down several times, grabbing tissues and fighting back tears.

"I put myself here, with my own words," he said before pausing. "And I feel horrible about that."
 
2013-01-09 11:47:10 AM

Stinkyy: I find this thread extremely disturbing. It's pretty farking obvious after all the jubilant glee about state superiority from the limp wrists and bearded horn rimmed glasses wearing hipster freaks in here that they can't wait for the tiniest suspicion in order to justify the bloodshed of their non center left (or more radical) countrymen. Great Farking job, Lord of the Flies motherfarking swine.


Off with your head!
 
2013-01-09 11:48:04 AM
The idea that evolution needs to be violent is a homo erectus meme.

Want to shut it all down?
Strike.
Just stop buying everything.

Gandhi got it right.

Rifles? Even T.E. Lawrence knew it was stupid to go against conventional forces with conventional tactics. Remember who he taught this to? The Arabs.
Doh!

/The 2nd Amendment does not mean what most of you think it means.
 
2013-01-09 11:49:47 AM

vudukungfu: people: How is Afghanistan working out for you?

oh, just like 'Nam, but with much less resistance from the public.


Look.  You know nothing.  We are there...with a mission to...well...you know...help.  I guess.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:20 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You guys, the president that freed the slaves hated liberty. Read it on the internet.


He didn't free any slaves. He proclaimed (wholly ineffectually) to free the slaves in the territories they did not control, but not in the border states they did control.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:43 AM

Catsaregreen: So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


Are you saying that all the militia nuts in the country combined would be a match for a handful of drone strikes? You have every right to believe what you want and I have every right to point out how delusional you are.

I can understand wanting to keep your guns. Heck, I have friends and family with guns and I like to go out to the desert with them and shoot cans when I'm invited. But, I don't kid myself into thinking that privately owned fire arms are the only thing keeping the gubment from pushing me around.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:53 AM

dittybopper: They can instigate people into taking actions that are illegal, providing all the support and material means necessary, and cultivating them to do so without stepping over the technical legal definition of entrapment. Without the money, support, and most importantly the cultivation, nothing would have happened.


The government has been doing this for years to keep people afraid of the TERRORISTS
 
2013-01-09 11:51:19 AM
If this guy had had access to mental healthcare before his crazy got him arrested, he might be a happy, productive person for the next 26 years instead of a number in a cell.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:34 AM

Ennuipoet: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?


You'd think Americans would have a bit better appreciation for asymetrical warfare and insurgencies after what we've seen since 2001, but nope.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:08 AM
No 'well-armed' militia on the planet is capable of mounting a rebellion against the US government if the government just used APCs and A-10 Warthogs. Literally 40 year old technically, the lowest possible escalation of force available over boots on the ground. If the army doesn't turn, then any rebellion is doomed. If it does, then armed rebellion isn't needed. More than that, however, I cannot imagine any series of events that leads the United States to such cartoonish evil that armed rebellion would be required.

Regardless, the main point stands. If the army doesn't break it's oath, one must either assume the government has stayed true to it's oath to the army and the people. Anything less is an outright and utter insult to those service men and women. Planning for anything else is an insult, even. Why do you hate our troops?
 
2013-01-09 11:53:19 AM

Catsaregreen: So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


Perhaps, but you kind of did it to yourselves when you insisted we have the largest and most powerful military in the history of the world and gave them virtually unlimited funds to become as such. Kind of made your bed with that one conservatives.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:36 AM

Giltric: Plus it's pretty easy to pick out the guys wearing BDUs with american flag patches...not so easy to pick out which guy going to work in dickies is a guerilla.


/Yes, and this is why the US Army's green beret capstone training exercise, Robin Sage, involves exactly that kind of dynamic and cast of characters.
//Nobody would know who were the good old boys and who were the anti-insurgency specialists -- and there are a shiatload of them when you step outside the south asian foreign language realms and into "let's take out these redneck bubbas" arena.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:43 AM

doglover: vpb: I can't think of a single militia group that has even had the balls to put up a fight when the police took them down.

Maybe it's because the police don't try to go in guns blazing anymore.

FBI Critical Incident Response Group

Do you remember Ruby Ridge, or were you not born yet? Then almost at the same time Waco. The government farkED UP. THEY killed people, not the militia. Not the cult. The government did the dirty deeds. Thus it was that we the people realized there was some seriously farked up shiat going on and all the agencies had to do some housecleaning and re-organize their methods. Since then, we really haven't had any armed confrontations with militia groups that ended poorly because NEITHER SIDE wants that.

What violence in your soul are you projecting?


some of the folks here who have outlined scenarios where the feds slaughter militiamen forget that the soldiers being asked to do so have a conscience, and there are political repercussions to shooting American civilians.
 
2013-01-09 11:54:21 AM

Catsaregreen: Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their velvet-lined, jewel-encrusted graves.

 
2013-01-09 11:54:25 AM

lakmep: You do know that the Gov prints your money right?


Government control over printing of money only matters when you agree to follow that government. Anyone can print money.

What matters in wars is control of real assets. Waging a war against domestic citizens would be an instant economic disaster for the US government.
 
2013-01-09 11:54:26 AM

Catsaregreen: So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


That's pretty much I got out of the first 50 posts.
 
2013-01-09 11:55:56 AM

birchman: Catsaregreen: So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Perhaps, but you kind of did it to yourselves when you insisted we have the largest and most powerful military in the history of the world and gave them virtually unlimited funds to become as such. Kind of made your bed with that one conservatives.


Haw-haw!
Or should I say, Hee-Haw!

/The US military is the most ultimately self-destructive jobs program in the history of the planet.
 
2013-01-09 11:58:19 AM
Cripes, a lot of the people here must ride the short bus. Sorry, that's insulting the developmentally disabled.

If you read specific, non biased accounts of most of the so-called "militias", you'll find that they share a lot in common with religious fundamentalist groups and political parties... qualities like self identification with the group as a basis for self worth, a distorted view of the world providing a fertile environment for their cause, and delusions of grandeur regarding their eventual goals.

That said, in a a real "uprising", firearms as currently owned by private citizens in the US would serve only one real function except for certain specialized models... that function being to shoot a uniformed soldier and take his weapons.

The fantasy of a group of citizens armed with weapons currently legal for private ownership being anything more than a speed bump to a professional army on the battlefield is just that, a fantasy. However, anyone who's studied history knows that that's a really dumb way to run an uprising. We Americans actually pioneered guerilla warfare during our own revolutionary war.

As the US government found out in Vietnam, it's hard to fight an enemy that can hide in plain sight. If the government ever chose to fight its own people, it would actually lose fairly quickly unless the rebels were idiots like this guy. That's because aside from convincing soldiers to fire on their own neighbors (or families) they would be fighting veterans FROM THEIR OWN ARMED FORCES who were discharged from service.

These veterans would know all the tactics, procedures, and behavior of the military (and possibly some of the actual soldiers). Also, they'd be fighting a massive 5th column from within their own organizations and infiltrators from the general population who "join up" after things start off. There would probably be enough sympathizers still in the federal army and enough infiltrators that any large (several thousand minimum) group of rebels attacked by the govt. would rapidly acquire military grade weapons. There are arsenals spread all over after all, and in the event of an uprising more weapons would be shipped in.

Aside from actual shooting, there would be huge casualties from resistance fighters. Imagine every time a soldier stopped at McDonald's there was a chance they'd get something toxic but slow acting in their burger, or whenever they stopped for gas on the road someone stuck a grenade in their truck's fuel tank.

A popular uprising in the US would be a nightmare, but it wouldn't happen at all like this lunatic thinks it would, nor most of the people commenting here (seriously, you guys sound like you're talking about a football game or something).

Which is why I'm not too concerned about a ban on "assault weapons" happening in the near future, other than the fact that it's a waste of time and pulls effort away from fixing the real problem. I'm sure the most effective weapons for me to use in case of uprising will still be available... a 12 gauge pump for short range work and a quality bolt action with a good scope for sniping.
If I'm ever concerned I'll be targeted by a drone, I'll make sure to wear camouflage... something from LL Bean or Land's end should do... while I stroll down main street next to the army base, performing reconnaissance for the next strike and looking darn good while doing it.
 
2013-01-09 11:58:38 AM
A psychological exam ordered by Cox's new attorney, Peter Camiel of Seattle, after he was convicted showed Cox suffered from several paranoid disorders.

You don't say.
 
2013-01-09 11:59:08 AM
I find it amusing that the same political party that wants to own weapons in case they need to take on the government have made sure that same military they would have to fight would be the largest in the world by 10 fold..

I guess they like challenges....
 
2013-01-09 12:00:06 PM

AccuJack: Aside from actual shooting, there would be huge casualties from resistance fighters. Imagine every time a soldier stopped at McDonald's there was a chance they'd get something toxic but slow acting in their burger


That's already happening.
 
2013-01-09 12:01:59 PM

I_C_Weener: zarberg: So the words "well regulated" can't be ignored?

I'm sure they have no problem pooping on a regular schedule.  I can't imagine MREs is not a high fiber diet.


Depends on which part you eat. The crackers have a bit of fiber in them, and the gum has a mild laxative effect. Avoid those, and you can be stopped up for days.
 
2013-01-09 12:02:09 PM

HotWingConspiracy: You guys, the president that freed the slaves hated liberty. Read it on the internet.


He only freed the slaves in the areas that rebelled. Maryland and Delaware were free to keep their slaves a little while longer.
 
2013-01-09 12:02:16 PM

Pincy: A psychological exam ordered by Cox's new attorney, Peter Camiel of Seattle, after he was convicted showed Cox suffered from several paranoid disorders.

You don't say.


His defense is trying to play the crazy card.
 
2013-01-09 12:03:24 PM

Phinn: lakmep: You do know that the Gov prints your money right?

Government control over printing of money only matters when you agree to follow that government. Anyone can print money.

What matters in wars is control of real assets. Waging a war against domestic citizens would be an instant economic disaster for the US government.


Especially because, thanks to checks and ballances, you can pull officials out of office and even throw them in jail.

The Republicans have twice tried to do just that to Democratic presidents for nothing. The Dems tried once, but Nixon was as guilty as he was yellow and ran away. Again for nothing much, albeit illegal.

The President who waged a war against American citizens? You can call him Super Mario because he's gonna be "in Peach"ed. Get it? In Peach. Impeach. Ha ha, shut up it's funny.
 
2013-01-09 12:04:32 PM

vpb: dittybopper: dittybopper: (that weren't true, btw)?

Well, some may have been.

Still, I wonder how much of it was instigated by the government. It's pretty much well known that if you claim to be part of some militia organization, the FBI is going to actively attempt to infiltrate that group. They've been doing that since the 1990's.

Good.  Investigating terrorists is what they do.  I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.


You don't live in the NYC area, I take it?

"Hi guys! I'm new to this mosque! I sure hate me some infidels! Who wants to buy some explosives?"
 
2013-01-09 12:05:16 PM
If the Apaches and drones start blowing shiat up, and the entire infrastructure is shut down, and it becomes apparent that the little pop-gun Rambo squads have no hope of winning a conventional "war", what do you think they'll do?

My guess is start taking the rest of us hostage and resorting to "human shield" tactics. So it's time to arm ourselves...against the militias.
 
2013-01-09 12:06:04 PM

dr_blasto: dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Apparently not really all that well, or we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we didn't use them to win in Iraq: We co-opted the tribal leadership there (ie., it was old fashioned politicking, not high tech).

Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are ...


One thing that always makes me curious is why, if someone brings up the fact the 2nd amendment is there to protect against a tyrannical government, do people jump all over them about having revolution fantasies? Is there an unbelievably exceedingly stupidly small chance my the time my Nieces are old that maaaaaaybe a revolution might possibly be necessary? Perhaps. Is that why someone like me brings it up when "Blah blah blah you don't need XXX for hunting so they should be banned"? Nope. I don't even pretend I need to be armed to fight the government, but it is EXACTLY why it was written.

I have no issues with you if you hate the Second Amendment and want it repealed either. There is a process for amending the constitution and it is there for a reason. What annoys me is when people decide to ignore the piece of paper this country was founded upon because they don't like certain parts. Live by it or change the damn thing. Don't pretend the 2nd is about hunting because you don't like semi-automatic weapons. Those are unrelated.
It's no different with the 1st Amendment. I despise the Westboro Baptist Church and everything they stand for, but banning them from saying what they want to say flies directly in the face of WHY the 1st amendment is there. It isn't there to protect speech you agree with, but speech you disagree with. Same thing, 2 amendments.
 
2013-01-09 12:06:10 PM
Stories like these are just liberal fantasies of seeing their political opponents killed. You can see the actual glee in these comments and in the article. As history has shown us, leftists want nothing more then to see those that don't agree with their politics killed.
 
2013-01-09 12:06:37 PM
Does anyone remember what the old, pre-CAC military ID cards look like?  Around '94 I was at the guard shack on an Air Force base, waiting for VIPs to arrive so I could escort them.  The guard (civilian DoD rent-a-cop) showed me a stack of ID cards he'd confiscated.  On first glance they looked just like a military ID, hologram on the laminate and all.  When you looked real close, though, what looked like the DoD seal said, in tiny letters "Militia of the State of Georgia" or some such nonsense.  Why these assclowns felt the need to try to get on base, I don't know.  It's not like they could access any classified information or munitions storage areas or even get on the flightline.  To shop at clothing sales, the BX or the commissary doesn't seem worth it either.  I guess they were just trying to see if they could pull it off.

FWIW they were all old, fat, white, rednecky looking guys.
 
2013-01-09 12:07:40 PM

Phinn: Government control over printing of money only matters when you agree to follow that government. Anyone can print money.

What matters in wars is control of real assets. Waging a war against domestic citizens would be an instant economic disaster for the US government.


It would be, but a small militia group isnt going to get too far and lot of resources for war are being control by the govenment.
 
2013-01-09 12:10:13 PM

Ennuipoet: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?


Like insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
2013-01-09 12:12:34 PM

DROxINxTHExWIND: dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Apparently not really all that well, or we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we didn't use them to win in Iraq: We co-opted the tribal leadership there (ie., it was old fashioned politicking, not high tech).

Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are ...



I love the notion that in 2013, the world's greatest military hasn't figured out how to fight in the woods.

Think about that.
 
2013-01-09 12:14:15 PM
i512.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 12:15:40 PM

xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...


BarkingUnicorn: xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...

His face looks like a CGI of a police sketch. He doesn't seem real.

 
2013-01-09 12:16:19 PM
Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.

You think a 3% increase in taxes on the rich is gonna get people riled up enough to start an armed revolt? Confiscation of a small class of firearms? Gay marriage?

Even if it were possible to fight the government, and it's most assuredly not, a life of comfortable servitude is better than dying. Even the most worse off people in this country have it better than a guerrilla fighter. Just stop engaging the idiots who think any of this is possible.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:58 PM

Stinkyy: I find this thread extremely disturbing. It's pretty farking obvious after all the jubilant glee about state superiority from the limp wrists and bearded horn rimmed glasses wearing hipster freaks in here that they can't wait for the tiniest suspicion in order to justify the bloodshed of their non center left (or more radical) countrymen. Great Farking job, Lord of the Flies motherfarking swine.


Don't forget them using doublethink to pretend they aren't doing what they accuse their opponents of.
 
2013-01-09 12:17:05 PM

xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...


BarkingUnicorn: xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...

His face looks like a CGI of a police sketch. He doesn't seem real.


That's it exactly. He sets off the 'Uncanny Valley' response.
 
2013-01-09 12:17:05 PM
Just as a minor data point: When you have members of two different branches of government standing around the proverbial water cooler and discussing exchanging rounds with each other in an entirely rational manner, the idea that generated said conversation is FUBAR.
 
2013-01-09 12:17:13 PM

lordaction: Stories like these are just liberal fantasies of seeing their political opponents killed. You can see the actual glee in these comments and in the article. As history has shown us, leftists want nothing more then to see those that don't agree with their politics killed.


Aspergers, eh?
 
2013-01-09 12:17:25 PM

lordaction: Stories like these are just liberal fantasies of seeing their political opponents killed. You can see the actual glee in these comments and in the article. As history has shown us, leftists want nothing more then to see those that don't agree with their politics killed.


UH...Oh wait. I get it. Its like this:

crooksandliars.com

Or this:
3.bp.blogspot.com

Sorry to get in the way. Carry on, then.
 
2013-01-09 12:17:55 PM

lakmep: It would be, but a small militia group isnt going to get too far and lot of resources for war are being control by the govenment.


Yes, of course. That's why the only viable strategy for the US government is to squelch these kinds of penny-ante rebellions before they get any bigger. A broad-based rebellion combined with an interruption in tax revenue would be a disaster.
 
2013-01-09 12:19:37 PM

jaybeezey: doczoidberg: All of this gun shiat is really getting on my nerves.

How about we skip the part where we argue about gun control, and just get right to the part where we do nothing?

Why do you hate "the children"?


Hell, a member of Congress got shot in the head and nothing changed.
 
2013-01-09 12:20:49 PM

Queensowntalia: xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...

BarkingUnicorn: xanadian: That is one weird-looking dude. Can't put my finger on why I'm thinking that. And it has nothing to do with the orange jumpsuit clashing with his complexion...

His face looks like a CGI of a police sketch. He doesn't seem real.


Ugh, stupid preview not working.

I meant to say that's it exactly - he sets off the uncanny valley response.
 
2013-01-09 12:23:35 PM

doglover: DROxINxTHExWIND: Step 1: Set the woods on fire and smoke their dumb asses out.

Because if there's one thing wildfires do it's stay in one place and not cause catastrophic environmental and collateral damage.


Yeah, sure. The most technologically advanced military in history is going to be thwarted by....trees.

Unless those trees are Ents that shoot missiles from their dicks, game over.
 
2013-01-09 12:23:42 PM
Total Gun Control and Gun Confiscation

For an advance look, see how well that's working out in Afghanistan. With an entire Army, Air Force, drone network and space based surveillance network bearing down on the problem.

Yeah.

/non-gun owners threaten gun owners
//get me the popcorn
 
2013-01-09 12:24:53 PM

Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.


Actually, it did. It didn't end well.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:57 PM

doglover: DROxINxTHExWIND: Step 1: Set the woods on fire and smoke their dumb asses out.

Because if there's one thing wildfires do it's stay in one place and not cause catastrophic environmental and collateral damage.


I was going to ask how well setting fires in Vietnam went, and why they hadn't done it in afghanistan and Iraq.


/of course the secodn will probably have peopl with no clue abotut he geography there posting pictures of desserts.
 
2013-01-09 12:25:06 PM

doczoidberg: How about we skip the part where we argue about gun control, and just get right to the part where we do nothing?


if that's all you've got, than yeah let's do nothing.

I love that the people who bring only one solution to the table are the ones biatching the most about nothing getting done. Your solutions are usually poorly thought out, easily evaded by criminals, severely overreaching against innocent people, rooted in a lack of information about current laws, completely ineffective, or ALL of the above.

Maybe if you brought something more to the table than just more gun control, people would receive you better.

I'm going to bring nothing but sugar packets to the dinner table, then biatch and moan about how nobody wants to eat anything or say things like "how about we skip setting the table and just get to the part where we don't eat?"
 
2013-01-09 12:25:36 PM
Nice rug.
 
2013-01-09 12:26:24 PM

inglixthemad: Ennuipoet: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

They forget all the "non-lethal" weapons to top it all off. All the pain generators alone (sonic, thermal, et al.) can even take opponent casualties out of the equation, this rendering the military superior in that respect.


I'll let you in on a little secret. The word "casualties" includes people who are burned by the radiation from your pain machines.
 
2013-01-09 12:27:08 PM
What if there's an anti-government insurgency and everyone involved on both sides are complete incompetent fark-ups?
 
2013-01-09 12:28:54 PM
American citizens are soft. There is a reason why Vietnam and Afghanistan fought off the west. Their life is a battle field. They can exist with meager supplies because they have been doing it for generations. They can march for miles because they have never been in a car.
 
2013-01-09 12:29:36 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.

Actually, it did. It didn't end well.


Which mass armed revolts are you referring too? My understanding is outside of a few slave revolts and John Brown, there wasn't much going on. Black Panthers don't really count anymore than saying the hillbilly militias are engaging in mass revolt. The civil war? Cause that's a whole other thing.
 
2013-01-09 12:29:39 PM

Farkage: dr_blasto: dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

Apparently not really all that well, or we wouldn't still be in Afghanistan, and we didn't use them to win in Iraq: We co-opted the tribal leadership there (ie., it was old fashioned politicking, not high tech).

Or, to put it another way: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy things remotely is insignificant next to the power of ideology.

/I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Consider places like Afghanistan and Iraq, though: Mostly, they are desert-like areas, some flat, some mountainous, but generally with a very low amount of vegetation.

Now, this is not too far from where I live:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x480]

How easy do you think a drone is going to have finding a small group of people in that? What if they disperse? How are the drones going to distinguish the infrared signatures of human-sized animals from humans?* How are you going to distinguish them from normal hikers? What will happen the first time you wipe out a bunch of innocent people hiking with a bomb or missile from an MQ-9 Reaper because they were mistaken for legitimate targets? What if it was a group of Cub Scouts? What if so-called "militias" take to dressing like hikers, hiding their guns in their packs or other normal hiking equipment except for when they are being actively used? How will you know who the target is?

No, I don't think the use of drones would be a game changer in the way you think it would be. In my opinion, that would actually work against the government. You start dropping bombs or missiles in the United States, even on what are ...

One thing that always makes me curious is why, if someone brings up the fact the 2nd amendment is there to protect against a tyrannical government, do people jump all over them about having revolution fantasies? Is there an unbelievably exceedingly stupidly small chance my the time my Nieces are old that maaaaaaybe a revolution might possibly be necessary? Perhaps. Is that why someone like me brings it up when "Blah blah blah you don't need XXX for hunting so they should be banned"? Nope. I don't even pretend I need to be armed to fight the government, but it is EXACTLY why it was written.

I have no issues with you if you hate the Second Amendment and want it repealed either. There is a process for amending the constitution and it is there for a reason. What annoys me is when people decide to ignore the piece of paper this country was founded upon because they don't like certain parts. Live by it or change the damn thing. Don't pretend the 2nd is about hunting because you don't like semi-automatic weapons. Those are unrelated.
It's no different with the 1st Amendment. I despise the Westboro Baptist Church and everything they stand for, but banning them from saying what they want to say flies directly in the face of WHY the 1st amendment is there. It isn't there to protect speech you agree with, but speech you disagree with. Same thing, 2 amendments.


I own semi-automatic modern sporting rifles of the exact type people are talking about. I have no issues with the 2nd amendment.

I believe these revolution fantasies are patently absurd. That's why I posted what I did. It isn't about the guns themsves.
 
2013-01-09 12:32:02 PM

doglover: vpb: I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.

FBI agents are really easy to spot.

Organize a group like anarchists. Have a big roundtable once you get a lot of membership. The bigger guy who says "Let's blow up (whatever)! I can get a bomb!" is the Fed. Pretty easy.


Whut?
 
2013-01-09 12:32:21 PM
If these nutters wetdreams really came true, this is how the modern US would treat their well-armed militia.

dawncompk.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-09 12:32:47 PM
All of y'all are making one bad assumption: That it'll be the US military enforcing said law. That ain't the case....it'll most likely be the local cops. How many dead cops is this administration willing to spend?

It's not a pretty picture.
 
2013-01-09 12:33:11 PM
Well, as long as we're playing pretend, and pretending that the gov't won't care about non-combatant casualties (and also pretending that as soon as the gov't stops caring about it, they won't have all of NATO on their ass), the gov't still has this:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Which looks like this when in a group:

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

That's the MLRS. It's what I played with while I was in the military. It's capable of taking out square kilometers at a time; killing without damaging infrastructure. The smaller rockets can fire up to 26 miles, and we were accurate to within a meter. The larger rockets can be fired up to nearly 200 miles. And apparently (at least according to wiki) they've been upgraded to using guided rounds since I left the army, so they're even more accurate. And that's just one type of unit of artillery the gov't has at their disposal.

/What's the point of being accurate within a meter when you take out a square kilometer at a time?
//Because we can.
///Shoot, move, and communicate; boom boom!

Also, if you think communications can be easily shut down, well, Iran tried to do the same thing back in 2009, and you know how communications got out to the rest of the world? Twitter. Yup, twitter. Twitter has geopolitical effects (this can also be shown by the use of twitter in the Israel-Palastine conflict last month). So unless the US has the support of its foreign allies when it starts firing upon its own population en masse, it just might not succeed. Remember, this is a pretend scenario where enough people cause an uprising that the US gov't wants to disregard the constitution and start killing off people in the area indiscriminately.
 
2013-01-09 12:34:23 PM
Guerilla warfare, some mutiny and a shutdown of major services would run the country into a pretty bad place. Leadership would deteriorate as noone wants to stick around for bad times.

Personally I would never want it. What I want is people to calm down, remember the constitution and get cracking on real mental health solutions other than pills and back pats.

Spiraling debt, workforce in shambles, wars, civil rights, etc are all more pressing matters than some range queen black rifles.
 
2013-01-09 12:34:41 PM
FTA: Before he was sentenced, Cox broke down several times, grabbing tissues and fighting back tears. "I put myself here, with my own words," he said before pausing. "And I feel horrible about that."

F1984: 'Are you guilty?' said Winston.
'Of course I'm guilty!' cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. 'You don't think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you?' His frog-like face grew calmer, and even took on a slightly sanctimonious expression.
 
2013-01-09 12:36:11 PM

Clemkadidlefark: For an advance look, see how well that's working out in Afghanistan. With an entire Army, Air Force, drone network and space based surveillance network bearing down on the problem.


If these militias were living in Afghanistan they'd surrender for cable, AC and a box of Twinkies.
 
2013-01-09 12:36:14 PM
Having thought on the matter quite a bit and discussions with ex high ranking service member friends the scenario with the best chance of success in at least starting a revolution is where a protest movement that is somewhat non-violent gains enough members then becomes organized and switches to a violent agenda on focused targets. In order to maintain any long term resistance several military installations would need to be targeted in the opening actions focusing primarily on Air Force targets since their bases would have a lower level of armed resistance.
 
2013-01-09 12:37:12 PM

inglixthemad: They forget all the "non-lethal" weapons to top it all off. All the pain generators alone (sonic, thermal, et al.) can even take opponent casualties out of the equation, this rendering the military superior in that respect.


In the 1960's the collective horror at the authoritarian violence against unarmed citizens at Kent state and the Democratic convention woke the nation up and made activists out of everyday citizens.
Now, opposition will be routinely dispersed with these less-than-lethal means and folks will shrug and go on with whatever they were doing because "no one was hurt".

But unlike the distant barbaric past, our modern authorities will always be correct and just from now on, so it's all good.
 
2013-01-09 12:40:21 PM

Profedius: Having thought on the matter quite a bit and discussions with ex high ranking service member friends the scenario with the best chance of success in at least starting a revolution is where a protest movement that is somewhat non-violent gains enough members then becomes organized and switches to a violent agenda on focused targets. In order to maintain any long term resistance several military installations would need to be targeted in the opening actions focusing primarily on Air Force targets since their bases would have a lower level of armed resistance.


Your friends Army or Navy?
 
2013-01-09 12:40:27 PM

Zeno-25: Ennuipoet: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Farking 21st Century technology, how does it work?

You'd think Americans would have a bit better appreciation for asymetrical warfare and insurgencies after what we've seen since 2001, but nope.


There's so much wrong with the idea that this would ever work. Lets just start with distance.

In America you're not projecting your power into some god forsaken hell hole that hasn't had a semblance of working government in 100 years. Most people are going to finger your group as trouble and call the cops when they see you unless something VERY crazy has happened. Even if they DON'T the shear amount of power we can exercise from the nation's combined airports and military bases would be absolutely farking STAGGERING compared to what you can do with 1 carrier. You could have 10,000 drones in the air over the US in a year if you really felt like it, we use fewer than 1000 of them in Afghanistan.

Wanna control a major city? Well fortunately you have a shiatload of helicopters and airfields and you've ALSO got the facilities to build as many more as you want right here without shipping them anywhere. No worries about refueling, our whole country is developed and actually has roads.

Frankly it also isn't like we're a conflict zone somewhere way out there. There aren't big stockpiles of semtex, REAL machine guns, and RPGs just lying all over the place in the continental US. You'd have to build your own AA shiat from scratch, and we all know how effective those goofy home-brewed Palestinian rockets are. That's what you're really looking at in an armed resistance against the US kind of situation. You're looking at Palestine.
 
2013-01-09 12:40:44 PM
I don't know what's scarier: People with fantasies of armed militia launching a revolution against the government or people with fantasies of the armed forces slaughtering such a militia.

People need to just chill out for fark's sake. This country needs legalized pot in a big way.
 
2013-01-09 12:40:45 PM
A lot of you folks sure aren't very imaginative.

/I guess that's a good thing
 
2013-01-09 12:42:47 PM
I find it amazing that everyone knows they are smarter, better equipped and better able to handle the situation if the bottom drops out of the world than everyone else. The movies are all true!

Good luck with your post-apocalyptic fantasies!
 
2013-01-09 12:42:50 PM

Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL


You don't have to fight the US military. You just have to get the people at the top.

/Also, Rome was the biggest empire of all time at one point.
 
2013-01-09 12:42:55 PM
I still can't get past the idea that the "Government" is going to -- someday soon -- enact martial law and start forcing its citizens into camps or re-education facilities, or whatever these people believe.

I've been around for over 40 years and I've never given a thought to the idea that our government, which can barely balance a budget, is going to suddenly decide that what's best for a democratic republic is to suddenly change to some sort of police state.

If someone can convince me that this is likely, we can then move on to the notion that a few thousand people in each state, with stockpiles of small arms, is somehow going to stand up to our military, which is funded by more than half of our budget, and includes nuclear weapons, jets, tanks, phase-plasma rifles, sharp sticks...
 
2013-01-09 12:43:53 PM

letrole: FTA: Before he was sentenced, Cox broke down several times, grabbing tissues and fighting back tears. "I put myself here, with my own words," he said before pausing. "And I feel horrible about that."

F1984: 'Are you guilty?' said Winston.
'Of course I'm guilty!' cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. 'You don't think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you?' His frog-like face grew calmer, and even took on a slightly sanctimonious expression.


Quoting a book written 60+ years ago about the way things were going to be 28 years ago. Yep, you hit the nail on the head.
 
2013-01-09 12:44:53 PM

Sofa King Smart: paranoia, grandiosity, narcissism, egocentricity and pathological lying.


sooooo... republican Obama, then? why didn't you just say 'republican' Obama?


That's more like it.
 
2013-01-09 12:45:47 PM
Here's another tactic you Real Americans keep forgetting..

"Yes, hello, 9-1-1? My asshole neighbor is definitely one of these militia nuts.. Yea, the address is..."

/be nice to your neighbors.
/all the camo in the world won't help when you piss off the guy next door who wants no part of your homoerotic rambo fantasy,.
 
2013-01-09 12:46:32 PM

NightOwl2255: Quoting a book written 60+ years ago about the way things were going to be 28 years ago. Yep, you hit the nail on the head.



Pssst... hey dudes-don't tell this guy about Confucious, Sun Tsu, or Aristotle.
 
2013-01-09 12:47:18 PM

lostcat: I still can't get past the idea that the "Government" is going to -- someday soon -- enact martial law and start forcing its citizens into camps or re-education facilities, or whatever these people believe.

I've been around for over 40 years and I've never given a thought to the idea that our government, which can barely balance a budget, is going to suddenly decide that what's best for a democratic republic is to suddenly change to some sort of police state.


It reminds me of the rapture idiots. The government is gonna come for you. Right now...wait...now....right.....now. Soon though. They've been coming for you all my life, any day now I'm sure.

Seems that all of our 'betters' have it pretty good. Think they're really gonna overturn the apple cart? Yeah, steal more and more incrementally, but straight up go fascist? Not a chance.
 
2013-01-09 12:47:54 PM

Champion of the Sun: LowbrowDeluxe: Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.

Actually, it did. It didn't end well.

Which mass armed revolts are you referring too? My understanding is outside of a few slave revolts and John Brown, there wasn't much going on. Black Panthers don't really count anymore than saying the hillbilly militias are engaging in mass revolt. The civil war? Cause that's a whole other thing.


Actually, hillbillies did engage in a mass revolt less than a hundred years ago. About 20,000 took up arms in response to the brazen murders by anti-union thugs but were bombed into submission by the American military. They were able to unionize eventually, piggybacking on the successful movement of their betters to the north, those same people who supplied the mercenaries a generation before. Unfortunately, public opinion didn't change, They still epitomize everything that's wrong with the lower class.
 
2013-01-09 12:47:58 PM

Profedius: Having thought on the matter quite a bit and discussions with ex high ranking service member friends the scenario with the best chance of success in at least starting a revolution is where a protest movement that is somewhat non-violent gains enough members then becomes organized and switches to a violent agenda on focused targets. In order to maintain any long term resistance several military installations would need to be targeted in the opening actions focusing primarily on Air Force targets since their bases would have a lower level of armed resistance.


The only ones allowed to carry firearms on ANY CONUS military base are the military police, from what I understand - I'm sure there are exceptions. So in a suprise attack, very few on base would be armed (see Fort Hood shooter).  Is this assumption based on the fact that the USAF has no infantry-types?  I still can't see an Air Force base being overtaken by an angry mob of militia-men.  I think you are underestimating what they'd be up against, trying to overtake ANY military facility for that matter.
 
2013-01-09 12:48:49 PM

Bill the unknowing: I find it amazing that everyone knows they are smarter, better equipped and better able to handle the situation if the bottom drops out of the world than everyone else. The movies are all true!

Good luck with your post-apocalyptic fantasies!


Hey, I have last season's Doomsday Preppers and the first two seasons of The Walking Dead on DVD, I'm good to go! Bring on the zombies.
 
2013-01-09 12:50:08 PM

wellreadneck: Champion of the Sun: LowbrowDeluxe: Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.

Actually, it did. It didn't end well.

Which mass armed revolts are you referring too? My understanding is outside of a few slave revolts and John Brown, there wasn't much going on. Black Panthers don't really count anymore than saying the hillbilly militias are engaging in mass revolt. The civil war? Cause that's a whole other thing.

Actually, hillbillies did engage in a mass revolt less than a hundred years ago. About 20,000 took up arms in response to the brazen murders by anti-union thugs but were bombed into submission by the American military. They were able to unionize eventually, piggybacking on the successful movement of their betters to the north, those same people who supplied the mercenaries a generation before. Unfortunately, public opinion didn't change, They still epitomize everything that's wrong with the lower class.


You're talking about the battle of Blair mountain, right?
 
2013-01-09 12:50:30 PM

havocmike: Here's another tactic you Real Americans keep forgetting..

"Yes, hello, 9-1-1? My asshole neighbor is definitely one of these militia nuts.. Yea, the address is..."

/be nice to your neighbors.
/all the camo in the world won't help when you piss off the guy next door who wants no part of your homoerotic rambo fantasy,.


Win. I would like to see some of them militia moobs oiled up like Sly's pecs.
 
2013-01-09 12:51:19 PM

MorePeasPlease: NightOwl2255: Quoting a book written 60+ years ago about the way things were going to be 28 years ago. Yep, you hit the nail on the head.


Pssst... hey dudes-don't tell this guy about Confucious, Sun Tsu, or Aristotle.


Pssst, you forgot Nostradamus.
 
2013-01-09 12:52:06 PM
In case you thought you could use your Ar-15s against the red coats, this is what the UK and the rest of NATO will bring to help the legitimate elected government of our close ally the USA put down the redneck uprising of 2018 ....

www.military-today.com

www.globalnewspointer.net

www.enemyforces.net

static.guim.co.uk
 
2013-01-09 12:52:19 PM

lostcat: If someone can convince me that this is likely, we can then move on to the notion that a few thousand people in each state, with stockpiles of small arms, is somehow going to stand up to our military, which is funded by more than half of our budget, and includes nuclear weapons, jets, tanks, phase-plasma rifles, sharp sticks...


fubegra.net
 
2013-01-09 12:52:48 PM

havocmike: Here's another tactic you Real Americans keep forgetting..

"Yes, hello, 9-1-1? My asshole neighbor havocmike is definitely one of these militia nuts.. Yea, the address is..."

"WTF-I'm not in a mili-aarrgh ... someone help me-POLICE STATE!"



/jk we all love 'ya
 
2013-01-09 12:52:52 PM

pedrop357: HotWingConspiracy: You guys, the president that freed the slaves hated liberty. Read it on the internet.

He only freed the slaves in the areas that rebelled. Maryland and Delaware were free to keep their slaves a little while longer.


So you're saying he freed the slaves.
 
2013-01-09 12:53:24 PM

Stinkyy: I find this thread extremely disturbing. It's pretty farking obvious after all the jubilant glee about state superiority from the limp wrists and bearded horn rimmed glasses wearing hipster freaks in here that they can't wait for the tiniest suspicion in order to justify the bloodshed of their non center left (or more radical) countrymen. Great Farking job, Lord of the Flies motherfarking swine.


So you identify with this group? Very interesting you traitorous piece of shiat.
 
2013-01-09 12:54:06 PM
Ennuipoet SmartestFunniest 2013-01-09 08:33:43 AM


Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation. This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months. They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.


Too bad you dont know the first thing about RPA operations
 
2013-01-09 12:55:56 PM
What they're failing to take into account is faith. These patriots who are preparing to fight a tyrannical, atheist, secular-humanist government that bows to the homosexuals, the abortionists, the libertines, and the communists are driven to do so not by some business interest or criminal affiliation. No, they're driven by a love of Freedom and that Freedom is given unto us by God. Not through some holistic, universalist feel-good Santa Claus or ancient moon god either. But by the One True God. The God of Abraham, Issac, and Joseph. The "I Am". And these patriots found Him through His Savior, Jesus Christ. But those names are all forbidden in the state house. They're punch lines swear-words, ideals to be mocked at the gay freedom day parade.

THERE'S an oxymoron: Gay Freedom. They might feel free to be gay, but by adopting that lifestyle and the vile sodomy that accompanies it, they take on Satan's yoke of homo-slavery. They'll carry it to their graves, too, and to the Lake of Fire, lest they repent.

Meanwhile, God's Faithful have done as the Master instructed, "sell your cloak. Buy a sword", and his disciples showed him, Look, here are two swords and He said, 'It is enough.'" Luke 22:36.

People argue on and on but I'll tell you this much, the wisdom of the learned is like the babbling of fools. It's plain as day. Jesus's words were the inspiration for our Christian Founding Fathers (yes, they were. George Washington was a Vestryman at The Falls Church Episcopal in his time). They knew. They knew that an ordinary man didn't need cannon and ship and cavalry and mortar and trenches. Yes, the army of that day DID have far more than just a smooth-bore musket. They had rockets, even! But did the 2nd Amendment advocate all of that military hardware? No, a simple rifle. As Jesus said, "It is enough."

And again, He will come in Glory. What the tyrant government forgets is the "force multiplier" that exists in Christ. For not only will He protect His flock, but those believers who are serving in the US Armed Forces will be swept up, not in judgement, but in rapture, drawn to the bosom of the Father, because they will be spared the torments and fire of tribulation. So count on this: (1) Fewer troops than are currently in your ranks; (2) honest, God-fearing men and women will rise up on wings like eagles, running and not growing weary, walking and not fainting; and (3) Hellfire and Brimstone that will make your bombs, napalms, predator drones, hellfire drones, tanks, and missiles seem as children's toys to be swept away by the mother before she sets the table for the feast.
 
2013-01-09 12:56:49 PM

mgshamster: wellreadneck: Champion of the Sun: LowbrowDeluxe: Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.

Actually, it did. It didn't end well.

Which mass armed revolts are you referring too? My understanding is outside of a few slave revolts and John Brown, there wasn't much going on. Black Panthers don't really count anymore than saying the hillbilly militias are engaging in mass revolt. The civil war? Cause that's a whole other thing.

Actually, hillbillies did engage in a mass revolt less than a hundred years ago. About 20,000 took up arms in response to the brazen murders by anti-union thugs but were bombed into submission by the American military. They were able to unionize eventually, piggybacking on the successful movement of their betters to the north, those same people who supplied the mercenaries a generation before. Unfortunately, public opinion didn't change, They still epitomize everything that's wrong with the lower class.

You're talking about the battle of Blair mountain, right?


It's the reason "redneck" is an insult today.
 
2013-01-09 12:57:57 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: What they're failing to take into account is faith. These patriots who are preparing to fight a tyrannical, atheist, secular-humanist government that bows to the homosexuals, the abortionists, the libertines, and the communists are driven to do so not by some business interest or criminal affiliation. No, they're driven by a love of Freedom and that Freedom is given unto us by God. Not through some holistic, universalist feel-good Santa Claus or ancient moon god either. But by the One True God. The God of Abraham, Issac, and Joseph. The "I Am". And these patriots found Him through His Savior, Jesus Christ. But those names are all forbidden in the state house. They're punch lines swear-words, ideals to be mocked at the gay freedom day parade.

THERE'S an oxymoron: Gay Freedom. They might feel free to be gay, but by adopting that lifestyle and the vile sodomy that accompanies it, they take on Satan's yoke of homo-slavery. They'll carry it to their graves, too, and to the Lake of Fire, lest they repent.

Meanwhile, God's Faithful have done as the Master instructed, "sell your cloak. Buy a sword", and his disciples showed him, Look, here are two swords and He said, 'It is enough.'" Luke 22:36.

People argue on and on but I'll tell you this much, the wisdom of the learned is like the babbling of fools. It's plain as day. Jesus's words were the inspiration for our Christian Founding Fathers (yes, they were. George Washington was a Vestryman at The Falls Church Episcopal in his time). They knew. They knew that an ordinary man didn't need cannon and ship and cavalry and mortar and trenches. Yes, the army of that day DID have far more than just a smooth-bore musket. They had rockets, even! But did the 2nd Amendment advocate all of that military hardware? No, a simple rifle. As Jesus said, "It is enough."

And again, He will come in Glory. What the tyrant government forgets is the "force multiplier" that exists in Christ. For not only will He protect His flock, but those beli ...


You're trying way too hard. 1/10
 
2013-01-09 12:58:12 PM

theMagni: Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.
Step 2: ROFL

You don't have to fight the US military. You just have to get the people at the top.

/Also, Rome was the biggest empire of all time at one point.



I hope you're a troll. Because you just essentially said that militias should be training to assassinate the President and top officials. And, then you compared 2013 warfare with sword-wielding imperialist over-extension from 2,000 years ago.

Again, please be a troll. Please.
 
2013-01-09 12:58:44 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: What they're failing to take into account is faith. These patriots who are preparing to fight a tyrannical, atheist, secular-humanist government that bows to the homosexuals, the abortionists, the libertines, and the communists are driven to do so not by some business interest or criminal affiliation. No, they're driven by a love of Freedom and that Freedom is given unto us by God. Not through some holistic, universalist feel-good Santa Claus or ancient moon god either. But by the One True God. The God of Abraham, Issac, and Joseph. The "I Am". And these patriots found Him through His Savior, Jesus Christ. But those names are all forbidden in the state house. They're punch lines swear-words, ideals to be mocked at the gay freedom day parade.

THERE'S an oxymoron: Gay Freedom. They might feel free to be gay, but by adopting that lifestyle and the vile sodomy that accompanies it, they take on Satan's yoke of homo-slavery. They'll carry it to their graves, too, and to the Lake of Fire, lest they repent.

Meanwhile, God's Faithful have done as the Master instructed, "sell your cloak. Buy a sword", and his disciples showed him, Look, here are two swords and He said, 'It is enough.'" Luke 22:36.

People argue on and on but I'll tell you this much, the wisdom of the learned is like the babbling of fools. It's plain as day. Jesus's words were the inspiration for our Christian Founding Fathers (yes, they were. George Washington was a Vestryman at The Falls Church Episcopal in his time). They knew. They knew that an ordinary man didn't need cannon and ship and cavalry and mortar and trenches. Yes, the army of that day DID have far more than just a smooth-bore musket. They had rockets, even! But did the 2nd Amendment advocate all of that military hardware? No, a simple rifle. As Jesus said, "It is enough."

And again, He will come in Glory. What the tyrant government forgets is the "force multiplier" that exists in Christ. For not only will He protect His flock, but those beli ...


Why does God allow a classroom of kids to be shot up and killed?
 
2013-01-09 12:58:49 PM

Candy Colored Clown: You're trying way too hard. 1/10


Say, are you the one they call, "The Sandman"?


Sure, I didn't expect any takers, I just like ranting in that voice sometimes.
 
2013-01-09 12:59:14 PM

lostcat: I still can't get past the idea that the "Government" is going to -- someday soon -- enact martial law and start forcing its citizens into camps or re-education facilities, or whatever these people believe.

I've been around for over 40 years and I've never given a thought to the idea that our government, which can barely balance a budget, is going to suddenly decide that what's best for a democratic republic is to suddenly change to some sort of police state.

If someone can convince me that this is likely, we can then move on to the notion that a few thousand people in each state, with stockpiles of small arms, is somehow going to stand up to our military, which is funded by more than half of our budget, and includes nuclear weapons, jets, tanks, phase-plasma rifles, sharp sticks...


Don't forget what happened on Ruby Ridge where the US Goverment arbitrarily suspended Due Process rights. This little fiacso showed us that you really don't have to overthrow the government to enact change, but at the same time, it did take the ammo box to make it happen.

I'll argue that freedom was a winner in the end, but it was a heavy cost.
 
2013-01-09 12:59:28 PM

zarberg: Why does God allow a classroom of kids to be shot up and killed?


Because He wanted their angelic voices for His choir.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 01:00:11 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: What they're failing to take into account is faith. These patriots who are preparing to fight a tyrannical, atheist, secular-humanist government that bows to the homosexuals, the abortionists, the libertines, and the communists are driven to do so not by some business interest or criminal affiliation. No, they're driven by a love of Freedom and that Freedom is given unto us by God. Not through some holistic, universalist feel-good Santa Claus or ancient moon god either. But by the One True God. The God of Abraham, Issac, and Joseph. The "I Am". And these patriots found Him through His Savior, Jesus Christ. But those names are all forbidden in the state house. They're punch lines swear-words, ideals to be mocked at the gay freedom day parade.

THERE'S an oxymoron: Gay Freedom. They might feel free to be gay, but by adopting that lifestyle and the vile sodomy that accompanies it, they take on Satan's yoke of homo-slavery. They'll carry it to their graves, too, and to the Lake of Fire, lest they repent.

Meanwhile, God's Faithful have done as the Master instructed, "sell your cloak. Buy a sword", and his disciples showed him, Look, here are two swords and He said, 'It is enough.'" Luke 22:36.

People argue on and on but I'll tell you this much, the wisdom of the learned is like the babbling of fools. It's plain as day. Jesus's words were the inspiration for our Christian Founding Fathers (yes, they were. George Washington was a Vestryman at The Falls Church Episcopal in his time). They knew. They knew that an ordinary man didn't need cannon and ship and cavalry and mortar and trenches. Yes, the army of that day DID have far more than just a smooth-bore musket. They had rockets, even! But did the 2nd Amendment advocate all of that military hardware? No, a simple rifle. As Jesus said, "It is enough."

And again, He will come in Glory. What the tyrant government forgets is the "force multiplier" that exists in Christ. For not only will He protect His flock, but those beli ...


HOLY FARK. I am christian, but YOU have gone full retard.
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-09 01:00:35 PM
vpb SmartestFunniest 2013-01-09 09:49:24 AM


dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months. They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Actually it works pretty well. There is a reason you don't hear about the Taliban winning any battles. The only reason we are still there is because there is no stable government there to had things over to.

But that's beside the point. Successful rebellions like in Libya have popular support.

You don't.

There aren't enough of you to even involve the military, law enforcement will take care of you nuts. You don't have the organization, the discipline, the equipment, the training or the dedication that the Taliban have. Comparing "militias" to the Taliban is like comparing the Boy Scouts to the Army.

There have been individual survivalists who have fought it out with the police, but I can't think of a single militia group that has even had the balls to put up a fight when the police took them down. Basically angry white men acting out violent fantasies.


Bahahaha, you dont know they Taliban do you? They are farking idiots on an epic scale. They are so farking dumb it makes it difficult to beat them. Their idea of "winning" a fight includes getting off a shot then running away where they report to their boss that that killed 3 Americans. When you have that kind of success it's easy to maintain moral and continue the fight. The reason we can't win is because we refuse to do what's necessary to crush their will to fight
 
2013-01-09 01:01:44 PM

Phinn: Nem Wan: Constitutionally, the president is allowed to suspend habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion

No, only Congress can. Ex parte Merryman.

Lincoln purported to do it anyway, then got biatch-slapped by Justice Taney, so Lincoln (the great respecter of liberty that he was) then promptly turned around and tried to get Taney arrested.


Taney was a traitor.
 
2013-01-09 01:02:25 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: What they're failing to take into account is faith. These patriots who are preparing to fight a tyrannical, atheist, secular-humanist government that bows to the homosexuals, the abortionists, the libertines, and the communists are driven to do so not by some business interest or criminal affiliation. No, they're driven by a love of Freedom and that Freedom is given unto us by God. Not through some holistic, universalist feel-good Santa Claus or ancient moon god either. But by the One True God. The God of Abraham, Issac, and Joseph. The "I Am". And these patriots found Him through His Savior, Jesus Christ. But those names are all forbidden in the state house. They're punch lines swear-words, ideals to be mocked at the gay freedom day parade.

THERE'S an oxymoron: Gay Freedom. They might feel free to be gay, but by adopting that lifestyle and the vile sodomy that accompanies it, they take on Satan's yoke of homo-slavery. They'll carry it to their graves, too, and to the Lake of Fire, lest they repent.

Meanwhile, God's Faithful have done as the Master instructed, "sell your cloak. Buy a sword", and his disciples showed him, Look, here are two swords and He said, 'It is enough.'" Luke 22:36.

People argue on and on but I'll tell you this much, the wisdom of the learned is like the babbling of fools. It's plain as day. Jesus's words were the inspiration for our Christian Founding Fathers (yes, they were. George Washington was a Vestryman at The Falls Church Episcopal in his time). They knew. They knew that an ordinary man didn't need cannon and ship and cavalry and mortar and trenches. Yes, the army of that day DID have far more than just a smooth-bore musket. They had rockets, even! But did the 2nd Amendment advocate all of that military hardware? No, a simple rifle. As Jesus said, "It is enough."

And again, He will come in Glory. What the tyrant government forgets is the "force multiplier" that exists in Christ. For not only will He protect His flock, but those beli ...


Beautiful.
 
2013-01-09 01:02:51 PM
ParaHandy - NATO could not help the US beat a bunch of opium farmers with a second grade education in Afganistan. Not quite worried about the belgian contigency nless they drink all the local beer up....
 
2013-01-09 01:03:11 PM

Gdalescrboz: vpb SmartestFunniest 2013-01-09 09:49:24 AM


dittybopper: Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months. They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.

Actually it works pretty well. There is a reason you don't hear about the Taliban winning any battles. The only reason we are still there is because there is no stable government there to had things over to.

But that's beside the point. Successful rebellions like in Libya have popular support.

You don't.

There aren't enough of you to even involve the military, law enforcement will take care of you nuts. You don't have the organization, the discipline, the equipment, the training or the dedication that the Taliban have. Comparing "militias" to the Taliban is like comparing the Boy Scouts to the Army.

There have been individual survivalists who have fought it out with the police, but I can't think of a single militia group that has even had the balls to put up a fight when the police took them down. Basically angry white men acting out violent fantasies.

Bahahaha, you dont know they Taliban do you? They are farking idiots on an epic scale. They are so farking dumb it makes it difficult to beat them. Their idea of "winning" a fight includes getting off a shot then running away where they report to their boss that that killed 3 Americans. When you have that kind of success it's easy to maintain moral and continue the fight. The reason we can't win is because we refuse to do what's necessary to crush their will to fight


BOMB THEM WTH BACON!
 
2013-01-09 01:04:04 PM

bim1154: It's not the noise makers the gov. has to worry about. Those guys are fools.


So much this.

Don't worry about those brandishing scary looking intermediate powered rifles painted black. If I was going to piss people off en masse, those would be the least of my concerns. Now a quiet, determined man with a deer rifle? You would be much better served worrying about that guy every time you grandstand in public.
 
2013-01-09 01:04:59 PM

Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.

You think a 3% increase in taxes on the rich is gonna get people riled up enough to start an armed revolt? Confiscation of a small class of firearms? Gay marriage?

Even if it were possible to fight the government, and it's most assuredly not, a life of comfortable servitude is better than dying. Even the most worse off people in this country have it better than a guerrilla fighter. Just stop engaging the idiots who think any of this is possible.


This was covered in the Star Trek pilot I believe.
 
2013-01-09 01:05:01 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: They might feel free to be gay, but by adopting that lifestyle and the vile sodomy that accompanies it, they take on Satan's yoke of homo-slavery. They'll carry it to their graves, too, and to the Lake of Fire, lest they repent....


Lighten up, Francis.
 
2013-01-09 01:05:06 PM

Phinn: HotWingConspiracy: You guys, the president that freed the slaves hated liberty. Read it on the internet.

He didn't free any slaves. He proclaimed (wholly ineffectually) to free the slaves in the territories they did not control, but not in the border states they did control.


He did free the slaves in the Federal District, which was the only territory over which the federal government had direct control. It also freed all the slaves in the Confederacy, but within American lines.
 
2013-01-09 01:05:56 PM

Champion of the Sun: LowbrowDeluxe: Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.

Actually, it did. It didn't end well.

Which mass armed revolts are you referring too? My understanding is outside of a few slave revolts and John Brown, there wasn't much going on. Black Panthers don't really count anymore than saying the hillbilly militias are engaging in mass revolt. The civil war? Cause that's a whole other thing.


After listening to Dan carlin's hardcore history podcast where he discusses Spartacus' slave rebellion, I tried to imagine slave rebellions on a grand scale like the southerners were terrified of
 
2013-01-09 01:06:11 PM

lostcat:
I've been around for over 40 years and I've never given a thought to the idea that our government, which can barely balance a budget, is going to suddenly decide that what's best for a democratic republic is to suddenly change to some sort of police state.


You don't have to be a "militia" idiot to see that "some sort of police state" is exactly what the US is becoming.

Let me tell you this story about a nation where a man was sentenced to 26 years in prison just from words, where they imprison more of their people than any other, where they spend more on their killing machines than they do on anything else.

The 1st was written with this exact type of speech in mind, for better or worse.
 
2013-01-09 01:07:40 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: the "force multiplier" that exists in Christ.


Funniest part. Good job.
 
2013-01-09 01:07:57 PM
I still can't get past the idea that the "Government" is going to -- someday soon -- enact martial law and start forcing its citizens into camps or re-education facilities, or whatever these people believe.

Yeah, well, I lived the dream baby! In 1972 when Marcos took over the Philippines. I woke up that morning, and the streets were DEAD. Not a sound. The traffic din - gone. Turned on the TV and radio - nothing. No stations broadcasting. I walked down to the local food store - jammed with people, hoarding.

Up the street from our house, I got an excellent civics lesson for a 15 year old American boy - I watched from behind a tree as soldiers in a jeep drove up to a house and dragged a guy out to the jeep, wife and kids screaming, not a goddammed thing they could do about it. Never did find out if he made it back.

The sky is blue in the Philippines, just like here. The people there love, hate, cry, laugh, scheme, trade, goof off, just like us. One day their democracy just went away.

THERE IS NOTHING MAGICAL ABOUT AMERICA. WE ARE NOT IMMUNE.

What happened there can easily happen here. Elections can be canceled, guns can be rounded up, you and your neighbors can be dragged off (like the Japanese in WWII), None of that is impossible. You really need to think about how to defend yourself from that.

Hint: having "strong convictions and opinions" will be useless when the busybodies decide it's time to control you.
 
2013-01-09 01:08:34 PM

topcon: Only rednecks own guns. This is what people like this actually believe. And you make it extra classy by saying only rednecks join the military.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership- s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/
Link


But I thought all libs were pussies because we didn't own guns, couldn't possibly understand the allure and the power of them, and were too scared of guns to have one in our pussified homes?

It seems that there's a bunch of people who own guns are also just fine with having more restrictions put on them. Oh dear. That just doesn't fit the dialogue the NRA is looking for.
 
2013-01-09 01:10:51 PM

sinschild:

Don't worry about those brandishing scary looking intermediate powered rifles painted black. If I was going to piss people off en masse, those would be the least of my concerns. Now a quiet, determined man with a deer rifle? You would be much better served worrying about that guy every time you grandstand in public.


These work pretty well, too:
i135.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 01:11:40 PM

lostcat: I still can't get past the idea that the "Government" is going to -- someday soon -- enact martial law and start forcing its citizens into camps or re-education facilities, or whatever these people believe.

I've been around for over 40 years and I've never given a thought to the idea that our government, which can barely balance a budget, is going to suddenly decide that what's best for a democratic republic is to suddenly change to some sort of police state.

If someone can convince me that this is likely, we can then move on to the notion that a few thousand people in each state, with stockpiles of small arms, is somehow going to stand up to our military, which is funded by more than half of our budget, and includes nuclear weapons, jets, tanks, phase-plasma rifles, sharp sticks...


That certainly is the irrational crazy, but the more likely scenario would be a slow "takeover". It wouldn't a grand master plan by a group of evil geniuses attempting to be Big Brother, but instead a lot of someone's that place self-interest over that of their constituents that have a hard-on for power slowly taking larger bites of the pie. You ask how could it "get" to that point, that is really easy to happen, especially in a scenario where the economy reaches a critical point. Take a look what is happening over in Europe. Financially, they are closer to this than we are here.

This would not be an all out declaration of war against the government. The support "for" the government at this point would be critically low. Instead, it would be more likely a situation of almost total anarchy. When your governing body loses the faith and respect of the people and your economy goes down the shiatter, you end up with a nation of disarray and unable to maintain order. This would not be this silly fantasy of a bunch of rednecks that go crazy after the government tries to take their guns forcefully as the average Fark Liberal with a monocle sits back and watches.
 
2013-01-09 01:11:59 PM

cryinoutloud: topcon: Only rednecks own guns. This is what people like this actually believe. And you make it extra classy by saying only rednecks join the military.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership- s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/
Link

But I thought all libs were pussies because we didn't own guns, couldn't possibly understand the allure and the power of them, and were too scared of guns to have one in our pussified homes?

It seems that there's a bunch of people who own guns are also just fine with having more restrictions put on them. Oh dear. That just doesn't fit the dialogue the NRA is looking for.


fine with more restrictions? Sure....background checks, more commuications between NICS and mental health services.....

Fine with registration databases, confiscation, bannings, extra taxes on those items, magazine restrictions.....no.
 
2013-01-09 01:12:14 PM
Gah.

Biden now saying Obama can act alone, bypass Congress to enact gun control.

Like a goddamn nightmare.
 
2013-01-09 01:12:22 PM
This guy sounds like the typical militia type: A weak minded coward who feels that camouflage and guns make him powerful. When confronted by a trained, professional warrior, would shiat himself and throw down his gun while begging for mercy.
 
2013-01-09 01:14:00 PM

Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.


How would they have done that?

In 1860, there were 200,000 free blacks in the North out of 28 million people. There were another 200,000 free blacks in the South. And although free blacks did better in the North, they still had very curtailed civil rights, and towards the end, were not considered people in the eyes of the law (thanks Taney).

In many regions, it was illegal to teach a black, let alone arm them. There was a reason John Brown terrified the South and Europe so much -- there was a very real chance he could start an insurrection and create another Haiti. Blacks never rose up in the prebellum US only through a huge population disadvantage and massive efforts to prevent them from arming themselves on the part of Southern whites.
 
2013-01-09 01:15:07 PM

Thunderpipes: Gah.

Biden now saying Obama can act alone, bypass Congress to enact gun control.

Like a goddamn nightmare.


Yes...by executive order a "constitutional scholar" can take away civil rights.

We should all feel safer....especially since all our other rights are just a EO away from disappearing.
 
2013-01-09 01:15:08 PM

Thunderpipes: Like a goddamn nightmare.


Go to sleep little one, when you wake, it will all be over.
 
2013-01-09 01:17:40 PM

IRQ12: lostcat:
I've been around for over 40 years and I've never given a thought to the idea that our government, which can barely balance a budget, is going to suddenly decide that what's best for a democratic republic is to suddenly change to some sort of police state.


You don't have to be a "militia" idiot to see that "some sort of police state" is exactly what the US is becoming.

Let me tell you this story about a nation where a man was sentenced to 26 years in prison just from words, where they imprison more of their people than any other, where they spend more on their killing machines than they do on anything else.

The 1st was written with this exact type of speech in mind, for better or worse.


Again, show me how the "police state" that this country is becoming has affected ME in any way.

I don't see it.

Then again, I don't stockpile guns and conspire to assasignate public officials. And I don't sit around writing to online message boards about how the US is becoming a police state and we need to organize a militia.

I think peoples' fears materialize in different ways. I see a downward spiral in the economy, money moving to Asia, the dollar losing its value against other currencies, the slow drain of intellectual power to other countries due to immigration policies. I worry about the future for my daughter if she stays in the US and choses US citizenship.

Others see jack-booted thugs enforcing laws that impinge on their freedoms. I don't see that at all. It doesn't reflect my day-to-day life in any way whatsoever.
 
2013-01-09 01:17:49 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: What they're failing to take into account is faith. These patriots who are preparing to fight a tyrannical, atheist, secular-humanist government that bows to the homosexuals, the abortionists, the libertines, and the communists are driven to do so not by some business interest or criminal affiliation. No, they're driven by a love of Freedom and that Freedom is given unto us by God. Not through some holistic, universalist feel-good Santa Claus or ancient moon god either. But by the One True God. The God of Abraham, Issac, and Joseph. The "I Am". And these patriots found Him through His Savior, Jesus Christ. But those names are all forbidden in the state house. They're punch lines swear-words, ideals to be mocked at the gay freedom day parade.

THERE'S an oxymoron: Gay Freedom. They might feel free to be gay, but by adopting that lifestyle and the vile sodomy that accompanies it, they take on Satan's yoke of homo-slavery. They'll carry it to their graves, too, and to the Lake of Fire, lest they repent.

Meanwhile, God's Faithful have done as the Master instructed, "sell your cloak. Buy a sword", and his disciples showed him, Look, here are two swords and He said, 'It is enough.'" Luke 22:36.

People argue on and on but I'll tell you this much, the wisdom of the learned is like the babbling of fools. It's plain as day. Jesus's words were the inspiration for our Christian Founding Fathers (yes, they were. George Washington was a Vestryman at The Falls Church Episcopal in his time). They knew. They knew that an ordinary man didn't need cannon and ship and cavalry and mortar and trenches. Yes, the army of that day DID have far more than just a smooth-bore musket. They had rockets, even! But did the 2nd Amendment advocate all of that military hardware? No, a simple rifle. As Jesus said, "It is enough."

And again, He will come in Glory. What the tyrant government forgets is the "force multiplier" that exists in Christ. For not only will He protect His flock, but those beli ...


hey you got your Free Republic in my Fark!
 
2013-01-09 01:18:58 PM

AngryJailhouseFistfark: Satan's yoke of homo-slavery


You should be writing Chick tracts. This stuff is GOLD.
 
2013-01-09 01:19:45 PM

mark12A: I still can't get past the idea that the "Government" is going to -- someday soon -- enact martial law and start forcing its citizens into camps or re-education facilities, or whatever these people believe.

Yeah, well, I lived the dream baby! In 1972 when Marcos took over the Philippines. I woke up that morning, and the streets were DEAD. Not a sound. The traffic din - gone. Turned on the TV and radio - nothing. No stations broadcasting. I walked down to the local food store - jammed with people, hoarding.

Up the street from our house, I got an excellent civics lesson for a 15 year old American boy - I watched from behind a tree as soldiers in a jeep drove up to a house and dragged a guy out to the jeep, wife and kids screaming, not a goddammed thing they could do about it. Never did find out if he made it back.

The sky is blue in the Philippines, just like here. The people there love, hate, cry, laugh, scheme, trade, goof off, just like us. One day their democracy just went away.

THERE IS NOTHING MAGICAL ABOUT AMERICA. WE ARE NOT IMMUNE.

What happened there can easily happen here. Elections can be canceled, guns can be rounded up, you and your neighbors can be dragged off (like the Japanese in WWII), None of that is impossible. You really need to think about how to defend yourself from that.

Hint: having "strong convictions and opinions" will be useless when the busybodies decide it's time to control you.



Ok, so why would the US Military go along with essentially a dictatorship and martial law? You're assuming that some individual like Marcos is going to take control of the entire country, and somehow pay off ALL the industries in America to go along with him, by convincing them that an oppressed populace with little to export is good for business?

And if the military, all of business, and the entire governemnt did ally to impose martial law, how do you think militias are going to stop them?

You don't see how your argument makes no sense? There is no "magic" in play, just socioeconomic factors that are are completely different from your anecdote of 40 years ago.
 
2013-01-09 01:19:50 PM

IRQ12: lostcat:
I've been around for over 40 years and I've never given a thought to the idea that our government, which can barely balance a budget, is going to suddenly decide that what's best for a democratic republic is to suddenly change to some sort of police state.


You don't have to be a "militia" idiot to see that "some sort of police state" is exactly what the US is becoming.

Let me tell you this story about a nation where a man was sentenced to 26 years in prison just from words, where they imprison more of their people than any other, where they spend more on their killing machines than they do on anything else.

The 1st was written with this exact type of speech in mind, for better or worse.


Are you a tard or did you not read the article? If you want to talk about the US being a police state in regards to free speech zones, I'll have the discussion with you. But conspiracy to commit murder because of paranoid delusions isn't, and never was protected speech. Our founders did conspire to kill government agents, but you know, those agents actually were violating rights.
 
2013-01-09 01:21:02 PM

Phinn: MayoSlather: There is a difference between currency and resources. They don't need cash especially if they can print their own or simply take the resources they need.

The Confederacy tried to print its way through a war. The burst of printing makes things look good for a few days or weeks, then inflation takes over.

Besides, invading governments and militaries cannot run an economy. They can steal stuff, but that only lasts for so long. Taking resources by military invasion is not a long-term economic solution.

The US government can't even afford Medicare. It cannot afford a domestic war, largely because it would be waged against the people they need to pay for its wars.


Inflation only would occur if there is a lack of resources e.g. everyone has a thousand dollars but there is only one loaf of bread. Cost of the loaf of bread is now infinity. In your example the Confederacy was resource poor and lacked supply hence rampant inflation occurred. Our government has tremendous resources in reserve and a government gone off the rails with a considerable military could muscle any resources they needed similar to what Nazis did in WWII, which they managed to sustain for quite some time until they actually started to lose the war.

As for us not being able to afford Medicare...Economically speaking we easily have the resources to pay for Medicare and healthcare for all, and much much more but the sticking point is the structure of our economy. The government could simply create the money, which they are basically doing anyways through debt only now we pay interest too with the issuing of bonds.
 
2013-01-09 01:21:02 PM

havocmike: Here's another tactic you Real Americans keep forgetting..

"Yes, hello, 9-1-1? My asshole neighbor is definitely one of these militia nuts.. Yea, the address is..."


Both the NKVD and the Gestapo found that mechanism performed surprisingly poorly, precisely because it was so often a neighbor trying to proxy an interpersonal dispute. They found they wasted more time on made-up bullshiat than it generated in actual leads, and they had to start threatening people for false reports.

The solution is basically to just spam it. Sling blame at everyone. You'll lose the real rebels in the sea of noise.
 
2013-01-09 01:21:56 PM
Yep, the gubmint is too big. Hand over everything pointy, lie down and take it up the rear.

Nice plan.

The article was entertaining to say the least.
I think Iraq and afghanistan pretty much sum up our military's ability to fight in insurgent war...let alone a "civil" one at that.
The military is not populated with hundreds of thousands of super soldiers, 99% of them are just like you and me. Many are there simply becasue they had nowhere else to go.

The government is not "evil", it's just big and blind. it just needs to be constantly reminded why it exists.
When the government starts thinking it's job is to regulate and legislate every facet of our lives, someone has to push back.
It's inevitable that our system will eventually destroy itself, we are on an unsustainable path, any moron can see that, but our "system" is so big and complex that it has taken on a life of its own beyond the consciousness of the individuals that comprise it.
We've got a few more generations left, but It's only a matter of time.
When food and fuel become our limiting factor some little third world country will most likely set off a nuke and most of the planet will be turned into a parking lot.
Aside from that happening, we'll most likely just continue to devolve following the path of Rome until we either simply collapse under our own weight while lawmakers bicker and fight, or China and the Koreas invade us for our arable land and natural resources.

So, if that happens, at least we won't have any scary black guns to defend ourselves with.. So that's nice.
 
2013-01-09 01:22:04 PM

Catsaregreen: So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


So be more like the founding fathers and beg the French to save your arses? Got it.
 
2013-01-09 01:24:07 PM
it's entirely possible that a good number of these nutjobs are already in our military.. that could cause.. complications.
 
2013-01-09 01:24:08 PM

This text is now purple: Champion of the Sun: Black people were treated horribly for the entire history of this country, still are to some degree. That treatment never even came close to stating mass armed resistance. Because even the terrible treatment they were subject to was better than fighting and dying during an armed revolt.

How would they have done that?

In 1860, there were 200,000 free blacks in the North out of 28 million people. There were another 200,000 free blacks in the South. And although free blacks did better in the North, they still had very curtailed civil rights, and towards the end, were not considered people in the eyes of the law (thanks Taney).

In many regions, it was illegal to teach a black, let alone arm them. There was a reason John Brown terrified the South and Europe so much -- there was a very real chance he could start an insurrection and create another Haiti. Blacks never rose up in the prebellum US only through a huge population disadvantage and massive efforts to prevent them from arming themselves on the part of Southern whites.


Difficult but not impossible, and in the intervening century and a half there weren't any armed revolts by black Americans. Because it actually is better to live on your knees than die on your feet.
 
2013-01-09 01:24:27 PM

lostcat: Then again, I don't stockpile guns and conspire to assasignate public officials. And I don't sit around writing to online message boards about how the US is becoming a police state and we need to organize a militia.


Neither did Randy Weaver (other than maybe stockpile a few guns). In any case, that did not stop the federal Government from taking away his Due Process rights.
 
2013-01-09 01:26:17 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Total Gun Control and Gun Confiscation

For an advance look, see how well that's working out in Afghanistan. With an entire Army, Air Force, drone network and space based surveillance network bearing down on the problem.

Yeah.

/non-gun owners threaten gun owners
//get me the popcorn


Who is proposing that?
 
2013-01-09 01:27:18 PM

NightOwl2255: MorePeasPlease: NightOwl2255: Quoting a book written 60+ years ago about the way things were going to be 28 years ago. Yep, you hit the nail on the head.


Pssst... hey dudes-don't tell this guy about Confucious, Sun Tsu, or Aristotle.

Pssst, you forgot Nostradamus.


Also forgot Jack Handy.
 
2013-01-09 01:27:31 PM

Fano: After listening to Dan carlin's hardcore history podcast where he discusses Spartacus' slave rebellion, I tried to imagine slave rebellions on a grand scale like the southerners were terrified of


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
 
2013-01-09 01:28:32 PM
Are the people talking about armed revolt and distrust for the government the same ones that side with the police over some beaten-down/shot minority or "hippy" 99.9% of the time?
 
2013-01-09 01:28:50 PM
I certainly don't believe that our current government is so horrible that a revolution is in order.

However, I also believe that an entire nation can be persuaded to allow its government to do horrible things by not being prepared to tell said government "enough".

Anyone who thinks our elected leaders would never do anything horrible enough to warrant an uprising is fooling themselves.
 
2013-01-09 01:30:32 PM

limeyfellow: So be more like the founding fathers and beg the French to save your arses? Got it.


If we were too proud to beg the French, we'd eventually have been the German-speaking colonies, so we'll accept your thanks in advance (in English).

/ich scherze I keed, I keed
 
2013-01-09 01:31:08 PM

Pair-o-Dice: Also forgot Jack Handy.


To my shame.
 
2013-01-09 01:31:21 PM

AccuJack: Cripes, a lot of the people here must ride the short bus. Sorry, that's insulting the developmentally disabled.

If you read specific, non biased accounts of most of the so-called "militias", you'll find that they share a lot in common with religious fundamentalist groups and political parties... qualities like self identification with the group as a basis for self worth, a distorted view of the world providing a fertile environment for their cause, and delusions of grandeur regarding their eventual goals.

That said, in a a real "uprising", firearms as currently owned by private citizens in the US would serve only one real function except for certain specialized models... that function being to shoot a uniformed soldier and take his weapons.

The fantasy of a group of citizens armed with weapons currently legal for private ownership being anything more than a speed bump to a professional army on the battlefield is just that, a fantasy. However, anyone who's studied history knows that that's a really dumb way to run an uprising. We Americans actually pioneered guerilla warfare during our own revolutionary war.

As the US government found out in Vietnam, it's hard to fight an enemy that can hide in plain sight. If the government ever chose to fight its own people, it would actually lose fairly quickly unless the rebels were idiots like this guy. That's because aside from convincing soldiers to fire on their own neighbors (or families) they would be fighting veterans FROM THEIR OWN ARMED FORCES who were discharged from service.

These veterans would know all the tactics, procedures, and behavior of the military (and possibly some of the actual soldiers). Also, they'd be fighting a massive 5th column from within their own organizations and infiltrators from the general population who "join up" after things start off. There would probably be enough sympathizers still in the federal army and enough infiltrators that any large (several thousand minimum) group of rebels at ...


This is the best and most realistic description I have seen regarding any future revolution.

It won't be militia group vs. military on the battlefield.

"let's go stand in formation and wait for the cruise missile to take us out"

It would be more of an individual type rebellion. Like you said, go to work during the day and do everything possible to disrupt government forces when the opportunity rises.


And I don't foresee it happening in our lifetimes. All we have to do is make sure the tools are available for future Americans, if the time should come that they need them, the same way that our forefathers have done for us.
 
2013-01-09 01:34:11 PM

lordjupiter: Are the people talking about armed revolt and distrust for the government the same ones that side with the police over some beaten-down/shot minority or "hippy" 99.9% of the time?


Since the police are typically a county or city entitiy making these decisions you are comparing apples and oranges here. The ATF is not typically taking down hippies and beat down minorities. They typically spend their time arming Mexican Drug Gangs, burning down fundies compounds with them inside or shooting white seperatist families.
 
2013-01-09 01:35:38 PM
Ennuipoet: "They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens"

It's amusing how they argue that they need 100 round magazines to keep the government in check. But when pressed, they claim the actual army would never fire on Americans.
So what are the 100 round magazines *for* if you'd never have to fight the military? Couldn't you resist the government with nothing more than your presence, if Americans wouldn't willingly stomp Americans?

Also: Yes, insurgencies can wage asymmetrical war on a superior opponent. But they don't *win*. They draw enough blood that the superior opponent loses interest and leaves. But how does that work when it's a *rebellion*? There's no "giving up and going home" when the fight's in your own back yard.

Asymmetric revolution in practice shakes out as 1.) the resistance wins by goading the government into hurting enough innocents that the army itself flips (Egypt, Tunisia). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You just need enough armaments to cause incidents that demand retaliation. 2.) the resistance wins because they were aided directly by another State actor who has an interest in seeing the government destroyed/embarrassed (Libya, Syria, etc). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You will be given anything you could conceivably use effectively. 3.) the resistance loses because they were stamped out before the Army hit their own personal limit as to how ruthless they were willing to be (Iran, Bahrain) and sympathizer support was insufficient.

In no scenario does it really matter what weapons you start with. You just need the opportunity to initiate your first few incidents to demonstrate to the government that you're worthy of retaliation and/or to demonstrate to sympathizers that you're worthy of the miniscule cost of some smuggled military gear. Your first few incidents will almost certainly involve the capture of non-trivial quantities of military gear *anyway* if you're going to have any hope of winning.

I mean, even the RED DAWN masturbatory fantasy starts from bows, hunting rifles and (iirc) the odd pistol, escalating through equipment *capture* to personal firearm parity with the occupying force. They didn't need a 100 round magazine at step 1. How big of a pussy are you, if even in your own paranoid fantasies you're powerless without one?
 
2013-01-09 01:36:09 PM
www.jmu.edu
This is how you handle a revolutionary.
 
2013-01-09 01:36:59 PM
I can't tell if this thread is hilarious or farking disturbing.

Seems like a lot of True Patriots™ up in here ready to stand up to the mean ol' government!

*snicker*
 
2013-01-09 01:38:19 PM
It always amuses me when, for whatever political squabble, states and folks decide to drop out of the Union. Like, this last election.

The government will not allow that. Basically, you have an option: love it or leave it and by leave it, I mean move to another country. Create enough fuss and the government will send in troops.

Alaska at one time had this whole big deal going, generated mainly by one man, who was a representative of the state, to pull out of the Union. He managed to get a whole bunch of folks riled up and determined to become an independent nation.

He neglected to inform them that if it happened, all forms of US assistance would cease. That means all government sponsored programs and protections. Even shipments of goods would stop for a time as Alaska would then have international borders, which require different permissions for US goods to cross into.

The same with any exports they have.
If the US didn't send in troops, it could cut all US based power lines into any state dropping out along with sealing off any highways, blocking air traffic, terminating government based Social Security, disability, grants, social programs and tax advantages or incentives.

After all, the US does not extend it's social programs to foreign nations.

Plus, it could make things real problematic for the banks within the state. They'd have to develop their own acceptable currency. Federal banks would probably be closed.

In short, it would create a glorified mess for the people, who probably expected to just go on doing as they had been doing. Not to mention that the US could make it problematic for international commerce by forbidding foreign air craft to fly over US territory.

That guy in Alaska? Someone eventually just shot him. The independence movement sort of lost steam.
For a state to pull out of the US means more trouble than anyone actually considers, even without the military going in. Especially in this day and age.

If a militant group gets too frisky, I suspect they'd find their compounds can't take an assault by tanks, aircraft, the new missiles and drones without having to send in major ground troops.

It's one thing to play soldier. It's a whole new game to face down a seasoned combat brigade.

Besides, once retirement checks, welfare, social security benefits, farming subsidies, fuel subsidies, assorted Federal programs and grants stop, the general public would suddenly change it's collective mind.
 
2013-01-09 01:38:49 PM

LeafyGreens: Seems like a lot of True Patriots™ up in here ready to stand up to the mean ol' government!


If we are going to play the dichotomy game; seems to be quite a few that would also roll over and go quietly as our freedoms are stripped away from us.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:02 PM
There is never going to be a full-scale armed insurrection in this country.

Our system of governance is not perfect, but it is self correcting. When things get bad enough we eventually manage to gather up enough voters, fix the worst offenses and continue to move forward.

We don't need armed fighters for the cause because all we ever really need are voters. Or to put it a different way, get an afghani truly pissed at his government he picks up a gun or a bomb. Get an American truly pissed at his government, he gets his lawyer, his congressman, his senator, and as many other people as they can involved. It's a fundamental aspect of our culture. Despite appearances to the contrary, the vast majority of us simply no longer solve our problems with violence.

A free society is a noisy society, and the U.S. is as noisy as it comes. We look like we are at each others throats, that the center cannot possibly hold. But in the 21st century when the chips are down and shiat gets real, there is only one America. Try and keep that in mind when the pundit-monkeys are flinging poo everywhere.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:09 PM

Overfiend: Anyone who thinks our elected leaders would never do anything horrible enough to warrant an uprising is fooling themselves.


Sure they could, but, if they got elected, that surely means that whatever horrible things they're doing have significant popular support.

That's where I find these scenarios implausible - a government with enough popular support to get elected, but enough popular opposition that armed resistance has any chance of success.

Maybe if there's outright theft of elections (though their decentralized nature in the US means you'd have to co-opt a LOT of people), or suspension of elections (can't see that sort of thing happening without lots of popular support, e.g. lots of people want President Palin to dissolve Congress).
 
2013-01-09 01:39:24 PM

lordjupiter: Are the people talking about armed revolt and distrust for the government the same ones that side with the police over some beaten-down/shot minority or "hippy" 99.9% of the time?


Or are the ones masturbating over the idea of state violence against its citizens the same ones who screamed to the heavens about how the powers of government had gone too far against its citizens during the Bush "occupation" of the White house?

Try looking behind you, this disconnected hypocrisy is everywhere you choose to look.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:35 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: dittybopper:

And that Vegetation you are so proud of disappears in the winter.


They're pine trees dude
 
2013-01-09 01:40:14 PM
I'm not convinced Schaeffer was actually a threat to anybody. He was a lower-class paranoid redneck that didn't know better than to share his internal monologue with others. That's all. Wiki. "Unregistered weapons" are everywhere in Alaska.

The entire hype of the case came from the "241" plan that was discussed exactly twice, and I'd be willing to bet the subject was brought up by the Fed for at least one of the two.

Why is he going to jail instead of an institution? If his mental status really is a risk to the general public, shouldn't he be getting treatment instead of punishment? Does putting him behind bars serve as an effective deterrent for others interested in forming militias?
 
2013-01-09 01:40:17 PM
I ♥ all of the references to the military might of the US here at home... you know... where very few soldiers are armed and those that are on armed guard duty typically only have a few live rounds in their magazine. It takes us months to outfit soldiers and deploy them to the two wars we are currently fighting, you know, those wars where quite a bit of our materiel is concentrated.

The weapons we DO have on our shores are kept in armories on bases. Bases are fairly open. The word "Fort" doesn't mean walls, moats, barbed wire, etc. anymore. It simply means that the DoD owns the land and the buildings there. If the shiat were to really actually hit the fan, do you honestly think that the US based forces could react in time to prevent determined armed militias from entering an un-guarded fort, breaking into the armory, and absconding with shoulder-fired guided missiles and anti-tank weapons? Then, when you've got enough of a following, what's to prevent you from taking tanks and other heavy weapons?

An actual armed uprising in the US wouldn't be some fudds with squirrel shooters, it'd be a well-armed blood bath for all involved regardless of the US military's level of technology. Syrian rebels didn't start out with full-auto weapons for all, but once they took a few armories, they started making great strides. Same went for the Libyans and most of the Serb-Croat war.

To bury your head in the sand and say "but predator drones!" is to fail at strategy by leaps and bounds.
 
2013-01-09 01:40:19 PM

Catsaregreen: So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


Yes, sweetie, the military is going to attack their families, so are the police, everyone in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines are all ready to leap into action and herd everyone into camps.

/You are just SO CUTE!
 
2013-01-09 01:40:39 PM
Anybody remember the "29 Palms Survey"?
 
2013-01-09 01:41:19 PM

LeafyGreens: I can't tell if this thread is hilarious or farking disturbing.

Seems like a lot of True Patriots™ up in here ready to stand up to the mean ol' government!

*snicker*


The hoverround commandos are coming!
 
2013-01-09 01:42:06 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: That's where I find these scenarios implausible - a government with enough popular support to get elected, but enough popular opposition that armed resistance has any chance of success.


That is where the tyranny of the majority rears its ugly head and why we have a judical system. The 'Four Boxes' covers this with the Jury Box being next to the last line of defense.
 
2013-01-09 01:43:16 PM

tallen702: I ♥ all of the references to the military might of the US here at home... you know... where very few soldiers are armed and those that are on armed guard duty typically only have a few live rounds in their magazine. It takes us months to outfit soldiers and deploy them to the two wars we are currently fighting, you know, those wars where quite a bit of our materiel is concentrated.

The weapons we DO have on our shores are kept in armories on bases. Bases are fairly open. The word "Fort" doesn't mean walls, moats, barbed wire, etc. anymore. It simply means that the DoD owns the land and the buildings there. If the shiat were to really actually hit the fan, do you honestly think that the US based forces could react in time to prevent determined armed militias from entering an un-guarded fort, breaking into the armory, and absconding with shoulder-fired guided missiles and anti-tank weapons? Then, when you've got enough of a following, what's to prevent you from taking tanks and other heavy weapons?

An actual armed uprising in the US wouldn't be some fudds with squirrel shooters, it'd be a well-armed blood bath for all involved regardless of the US military's level of technology. Syrian rebels didn't start out with full-auto weapons for all, but once they took a few armories, they started making great strides. Same went for the Libyans and most of the Serb-Croat war.

To bury your head in the sand and say "but predator drones!" is to fail at strategy by leaps and bounds.


Man, they must have missed you when you resigned your commission, because you know EXACTLY what you're talking about.
 
2013-01-09 01:43:40 PM
HeadLever: "The ATF is not typically taking down hippies and beat down minorities. They typically spend their time arming Mexican Drug Gangs, burning down fundies compounds with them inside or shooting white seperatist families."

So you're saying that white/rural folk like the local authorities because they beat up ethnic/liberal folk. And ethnic/liberal folk like the feds because they beat up on white/rural folk.
Which is why the ethnic/liberal folk are paranoid about the cops, and white/rural folk are paranoid about the feds?

... that's actually not the worst basis for understanding our world.
Ya know, if you don't want/bother to dip into 'why' and 'when' and 'how often' those things happen.

/ statistically, rural white people are a few thousand more Wacos and Ruby Ridges away from risk parity
// and the white/rural folk that are 'at risk' are all wack-jobs whereas the ethnic/liberal folk that are 'at risk' are basically all of them, excepting liberals that look appreciably white/rural at a glance
 
2013-01-09 01:44:04 PM

Champion of the Sun: In 1860, there were 200,000 free blacks in the North out of 28 million people. There were another 200,000 free blacks in the South. And although free blacks did better in the North, they still had very curtailed civil rights, and towards the end, were not considered people in the eyes of the law (thanks Taney).

In many regions, it was illegal to teach a black, let alone arm them. There was a reason John Brown terrified the South and Europe so much -- there was a very real chance he could start an insurrection and create another Haiti. Blacks never rose up in the prebellum US only through a huge population disadvantage and massive efforts to prevent them from arming themselves on the part of Southern whites.

Difficult but not impossible, and in the intervening century and a half there weren't any armed revolts by black Americans. Because it actually is better to live on your knees than die on your feet.


Define "revolt"? There was certainly armed resistance by blacks against repression throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
 
2013-01-09 01:44:36 PM
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com
SAM HARREL

Cox, Schaeffer

Sam Harrel
 
2013-01-09 01:45:26 PM

ghare: Catsaregreen: So what you Fark pussies are saying is, "Hand over your guns now, because there's no way you can fight the government. If they want to take away your freedoms, they can and there's nothing you can do about it"?

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Yes, sweetie, the military is going to attack their families, so are the police, everyone in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines are all ready to leap into action and herd everyone into camps.

/You are just SO CUTE!


That is step number 155, we are on step number 7, give liberals more time.
 
2013-01-09 01:47:21 PM

ringersol: Asymmetric revolution in practice shakes out as 1.) the resistance wins by goading the government into hurting enough innocents that the army itself flips (Egypt, Tunisia). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You just need enough armaments to cause incidents that demand retaliation. 2.) the resistance wins because they were aided directly by another State actor who has an interest in seeing the government destroyed/embarrassed (Libya, Syria, etc). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You will be given anything you could conceivably use effectively. 3.) the resistance loses because they were stamped out before the Army hit their own personal limit as to how ruthless they were willing to be (Iran, Bahrain) and sympathizer support was insufficient.

In no scenario does it really matter what weapons you start with.


The existence of option 3 proves it matters what weapons you start with. A sufficiently armed group can survive long enough turn option 3 into option 1 or 2.

The Americans did so well in the Revolutionary War because they were sufficiently prepared at the start to win the battle for Boston, which put the British on their heels for the rest of the war.
 
2013-01-09 01:48:37 PM

ringersol: So you're saying that white/rural folk like the local authorities because they beat up ethnic/liberal folk. And ethnic/liberal folk like the feds because they beat up on white/rural folk.


Nope, just pointing out the logical disconnect in your argument.
 
2013-01-09 01:49:58 PM

HeadLever: LeafyGreens: Seems like a lot of True Patriots™ up in here ready to stand up to the mean ol' government!

If we are going to play the dichotomy game; seems to be quite a few that would also roll over and go quietly as our freedoms are stripped away from us.


Your freedom to what is being stripped away from you?
 
2013-01-09 01:50:46 PM

This text is now purple: ringersol: Asymmetric revolution in practice shakes out as 1.) the resistance wins by goading the government into hurting enough innocents that the army itself flips (Egypt, Tunisia). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You just need enough armaments to cause incidents that demand retaliation. 2.) the resistance wins because they were aided directly by another State actor who has an interest in seeing the government destroyed/embarrassed (Libya, Syria, etc). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You will be given anything you could conceivably use effectively. 3.) the resistance loses because they were stamped out before the Army hit their own personal limit as to how ruthless they were willing to be (Iran, Bahrain) and sympathizer support was insufficient.

In no scenario does it really matter what weapons you start with.

The existence of option 3 proves it matters what weapons you start with. A sufficiently armed group can survive long enough turn option 3 into option 1 or 2.

The Americans did so well in the Revolutionary War because they were sufficiently prepared at the start to win the battle for Boston, which put the British on their heels for the rest of the war.


What?
 
2013-01-09 01:50:47 PM

This text is now purple: Define "revolt"? There was certainly armed resistance by blacks against repression throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.


How about in the sense that the other 288 comments in this thread mean revolt. Organized resistance to government. Revolt and resistance are different words with different meanings.
 
2013-01-09 01:52:39 PM

tallen702: The weapons we DO have on our shores are kept in armories on bases. Bases are fairly open. The word "Fort" doesn't mean walls, moats, barbed wire, etc. anymore. It simply means that the DoD owns the land and the buildings there


I haven't been to one military facility post 9/11 (and I've been to perhaps 10 since then -  USAF, USAR and USMC) that is not fenced and conducting 100% ID checks at the gate.  If you think anyone can prance up to the munitions storage area/armory, you are sadly mistaken.  National Guard Armories may not be fenced but again, it's not like the arms are stored in a garden shed from Home Depot with a bicycle padlock on them.
 
2013-01-09 01:52:49 PM

Thunderpipes: This text is now purple: ringersol: Asymmetric revolution in practice shakes out as 1.) the resistance wins by goading the government into hurting enough innocents that the army itself flips (Egypt, Tunisia). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You just need enough armaments to cause incidents that demand retaliation. 2.) the resistance wins because they were aided directly by another State actor who has an interest in seeing the government destroyed/embarrassed (Libya, Syria, etc). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You will be given anything you could conceivably use effectively. 3.) the resistance loses because they were stamped out before the Army hit their own personal limit as to how ruthless they were willing to be (Iran, Bahrain) and sympathizer support was insufficient.

In no scenario does it really matter what weapons you start with.

The existence of option 3 proves it matters what weapons you start with. A sufficiently armed group can survive long enough turn option 3 into option 1 or 2.

The Americans did so well in the Revolutionary War because they were sufficiently prepared at the start to win the battle for Boston, which put the British on their heels for the rest of the war.

What?


I think he's saying that if the resistance is armed well enough, they can avoid getting stamped out long enough to gain the support of another state or goad their own government into performing atrocious actions (which would result in recruiting more people for the resistance).
 
2013-01-09 01:55:25 PM

Champion of the Sun: This text is now purple: Define "revolt"? There was certainly armed resistance by blacks against repression throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

How about in the sense that the other 288 comments in this thread mean revolt. Organized resistance to government. Revolt and resistance are different words with different meanings.


Revolt at what level?

Because from 1865-1965, the federal government was in general sympathetic to black civil rights, it was the local-state levels that were the problem.

But local-state revolts wouldn't involve the Army, which is what we're discussing.
 
2013-01-09 01:58:34 PM

HeadLever: lordjupiter: Are the people talking about armed revolt and distrust for the government the same ones that side with the police over some beaten-down/shot minority or "hippy" 99.9% of the time?

Since the police are typically a county or city entitiy making these decisions you are comparing apples and oranges here. The ATF is not typically taking down hippies and beat down minorities. They typically spend their time arming Mexican Drug Gangs, burning down fundies compounds with them inside or shooting white seperatist families.


Was that supposed to make sense?
 
2013-01-09 01:59:32 PM

MorePeasPlease: lordjupiter: Are the people talking about armed revolt and distrust for the government the same ones that side with the police over some beaten-down/shot minority or "hippy" 99.9% of the time?

Or are the ones masturbating over the idea of state violence against its citizens the same ones who screamed to the heavens about how the powers of government had gone too far against its citizens during the Bush "occupation" of the White house?

Try looking behind you, this disconnected hypocrisy is everywhere you choose to look.



What are you talking about? Is the mind-control satellite acting up again?
 
2013-01-09 02:00:43 PM

Rik01: Besides, once retirement checks, welfare, social security benefits, farming subsidies, fuel subsidies, assorted Federal programs and grants stop, the general public would suddenly change it's collective mind.


at least you're honest about the intent of those things.
 
2013-01-09 02:00:43 PM

Sofa King Smart: paranoia, grandiosity, narcissism, egocentricity and pathological lying.


sooooo... republican, then? why didn't you just say 'republican'?


That sounds more....presidential.

/majority of mental patients are left leaning.
//of course that is a troll....why do you ask?
 
2013-01-09 02:00:44 PM

lordjupiter: HeadLever: lordjupiter: Are the people talking about armed revolt and distrust for the government the same ones that side with the police over some beaten-down/shot minority or "hippy" 99.9% of the time?

Since the police are typically a county or city entitiy making these decisions you are comparing apples and oranges here. The ATF is not typically taking down hippies and beat down minorities. They typically spend their time arming Mexican Drug Gangs, burning down fundies compounds with them inside or shooting white seperatist families.

Was that supposed to make sense?


It sort of does.

He's arguing that the local police and the federal ATF have different scopes, goals, and targets. They are often contradictory to each other. Therefore, just because you support the police, you don't necessarily also support the ATF. And vice-versa.
 
2013-01-09 02:01:07 PM

mgshamster: Thunderpipes: This text is now purple: ringersol: Asymmetric revolution in practice shakes out as 1.) the resistance wins by goading the government into hurting enough innocents that the army itself flips (Egypt, Tunisia). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You just need enough armaments to cause incidents that demand retaliation. 2.) the resistance wins because they were aided directly by another State actor who has an interest in seeing the government destroyed/embarrassed (Libya, Syria, etc). In which case you don't need 100 round magazines yourself. You will be given anything you could conceivably use effectively. 3.) the resistance loses because they were stamped out before the Army hit their own personal limit as to how ruthless they were willing to be (Iran, Bahrain) and sympathizer support was insufficient.

In no scenario does it really matter what weapons you start with.

The existence of option 3 proves it matters what weapons you start with. A sufficiently armed group can survive long enough turn option 3 into option 1 or 2.

The Americans did so well in the Revolutionary War because they were sufficiently prepared at the start to win the battle for Boston, which put the British on their heels for the rest of the war.

What?

I think he's saying that if the resistance is armed well enough, they can avoid getting stamped out long enough to gain the support of another state or goad their own government into performing atrocious actions (which would result in recruiting more people for the resistance).


Oh, was wondering what the Battle of Boston was, and how we kept the British on their heels all that time. My understanding of the war was quite different.
 
2013-01-09 02:01:15 PM

LeafyGreens: HeadLever: LeafyGreens: Seems like a lot of True Patriots™ up in here ready to stand up to the mean ol' government!

If we are going to play the dichotomy game; seems to be quite a few that would also roll over and go quietly as our freedoms are stripped away from us.

Your freedom to what is being stripped away from you?


Due Process seems to be having a hard time from sliding down the slippery slope lately. Appears that gun rights may be headed that direction as well.
 
2013-01-09 02:01:48 PM

This text is now purple: Because from 1865-1965, the federal government was in general sympathetic to black civil rights, it was the local-state levels that were the problem.


Listen, you're a tard. If you want to keep changing the discussion every time I reply to you, I'm done. This statement is bullshiat to anyone that has ever read a book. Read the headline at the top of the page. Read all the replies. You're discussing something, but local, state, and federal response has been talked about in this thread, a lot actually. And the federal government was sympathetic up until the civil rights act? You're a diseased goat anus. MLK marched on Washington to thank them for all the sympathy?
 
2013-01-09 02:02:48 PM
You'd think people would remember that little conflict from the 1860s. That seemed to me to be the best shot at beating off those mean ol' Federales.
 
2013-01-09 02:04:03 PM
29 years for being a lunatic, a liar and a loudmouth?
 
2013-01-09 02:04:20 PM

freetomato: tallen702: The weapons we DO have on our shores are kept in armories on bases. Bases are fairly open. The word "Fort" doesn't mean walls, moats, barbed wire, etc. anymore. It simply means that the DoD owns the land and the buildings there

I haven't been to one military facility post 9/11 (and I've been to perhaps 10 since then -  USAF, USAR and USMC) that is not fenced and conducting 100% ID checks at the gate.  If you think anyone can prance up to the munitions storage area/armory, you are sadly mistaken.  National Guard Armories may not be fenced but again, it's not like the arms are stored in a garden shed from Home Depot with a bicycle padlock on them.


Read part one about how few people on base are armed or ready to be armed, then read part two about the low level of security at base. In a situation of armed uprising, I seriously doubt anyone raiding a base to secure weaponry is going to try to just slip past the guards.

Also, bolt/wire cutters will take care of your fence, you know, if you do want to be a bit more covert about it.

As for the Nat'l Guard, it may not be a shed with a padlock, but it's not much better...
 
2013-01-09 02:05:07 PM

Candy Colored Clown: Stinkyy: I find this thread extremely disturbing. It's pretty farking obvious after all the jubilant glee about state superiority from the limp wrists and bearded horn rimmed glasses wearing hipster freaks in here that they can't wait for the tiniest suspicion in order to justify the bloodshed of their non center left (or more radical) countrymen. Great Farking job, Lord of the Flies motherfarking swine.

So you identify with this group? Very interesting you traitorous piece of shiat.


"LOL"
 
2013-01-09 02:05:17 PM

This text is now purple: He's arguing that the local police and the federal ATF have different scopes, goals, and targets.


Exactly, the feds don't concern themselves with the jaywalking hippy or the black guy that breaks the speed limit. Now if said Hippy was a member of the ELF or if the black guy was running guns to Mexico and creating competition for the ATF, then watch out!
 
2013-01-09 02:05:57 PM
I wish these guys, LaPierre, Alex Jones and the other anti-reg absolutists would just start where they always end up:

"We need these things to shoot American soldiers and police officers."
 
2013-01-09 02:07:33 PM

This text is now purple: lordjupiter: HeadLever: lordjupiter: Are the people talking about armed revolt and distrust for the government the same ones that side with the police over some beaten-down/shot minority or "hippy" 99.9% of the time?

Since the police are typically a county or city entitiy making these decisions you are comparing apples and oranges here. The ATF is not typically taking down hippies and beat down minorities. They typically spend their time arming Mexican Drug Gangs, burning down fundies compounds with them inside or shooting white seperatist families.

Was that supposed to make sense?

It sort of does.

He's arguing that the local police and the federal ATF have different scopes, goals, and targets. They are often contradictory to each other. Therefore, just because you support the police, you don't necessarily also support the ATF. And vice-versa.


Except that's not what I see. I see a general, selective acceptance of authority, depending on whether or not they like the target. It's not just the ATF or the Feds. Otherwise, these militia and paranoid types wouldn't also end up harassing or assaulting local cops or officials.

The same cranks that distrust the ATF or FBI distrust City Hall, and the State House, depending on who's in power. But they will be quick to side with police when someone goes "suicide by cop".
 
2013-01-09 02:07:47 PM

Thunderpipes: The existence of option 3 proves it matters what weapons you start with. A sufficiently armed group can survive long enough turn option 3 into option 1 or 2.

The Americans did so well in the Revolutionary War because they were sufficiently prepared at the start to win the battle for Boston, which put the British on their heels for the rest of the war.

What?

I think he's saying that if the resistance is armed well enough, they can avoid getting stamped out long enough to gain the support of another state or goad their own government into performing atrocious actions (which would result in recruiting more people for the resistance).

Oh, was wondering what the Battle of Boston was, and how we kept the British on their heels all that time. My understanding of the war was quite different.


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

This battle occurred before the Declaration of Independence, and was a rebel militia victory over British regular army. This is one of those reasons the people want 100-round magazines.
 
2013-01-09 02:09:07 PM

Nadie_AZ: You'd think people would remember that little conflict from the 1860s. That seemed to me to be the best shot at beating off those mean ol' Federales.


So...."scoreboard"?
 
2013-01-09 02:09:16 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "We need these things to shoot American soldiers and police officers."


If they become tyrants, thugs, etc. then I agree.
 
2013-01-09 02:09:55 PM
Losing my 2nd amendment granted to me in the Bill of Rights scares me less than liberals who are not only OK with it, but seem to want it to happen, and are to farking naive to understand the consequences. That level of stupidity in the US scares me, I have a hard time understanding how we fell so far
 
2013-01-09 02:11:00 PM
You guys don't get it. The right to bear arms in regards to the militia the founding fathers obviously meant the National Guard which was created 150 years after the Constitution was written. As far as arms, they founders meant it only applied to muskets - just like freedom of speech and press only applies to things printed with a printed press and written with a quill pen. Following the the same liberal logic, the right to private property and residences only applies to log cabins. I can't believe how stupid conservatives are for not realizing the Constitution is about granting rights to citizens and not solely about restricting the federal government. It is as if they don't have a 3rd grade reading comprehension level.
 
2013-01-09 02:11:29 PM

Rik01: Alaska at one time had this whole big deal going, generated mainly by one man, who was a representative of the state, to pull out of the Union. He managed to get a whole bunch of folks riled up and determined to become an independent nation.

He neglected to inform them that if it happened, all forms of US assistance would cease. That means all government sponsored programs and protections. Even shipments of goods would stop for a time as Alaska would then have international borders, which require different permissions for US goods to cross into.


We've got the same problem here in Hawaii. There's a whole lot of "Haoles (how we say 'honkeys' over here) stole our land! Hawaiian nation! Imua!" idiots around here...

A few years ago, some of them went for the GRAND PRIZE of idiocy, by whipping up "Hawaiian Nation!" license plates, and declaring that as a sovereign nation, they were not held to pay County road taxes.

Yes. License plates. You know, for their cars. Think about that one for a minute, I'll wait.
/it may have something to do with the fact that the ancestors they were so proud of never even learned how to forge metal, much less make cars
 
2013-01-09 02:13:16 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: AngryJailhouseFistfark: Satan's yoke of homo-slavery

You should be writing Chick tracts. This stuff is GOLD.


Thankee. Where do you think I learned it?
 
2013-01-09 02:14:19 PM

carterjw: PacManDreaming: Meh, if there was a major uprising, all the government would have to do is turn off the electricity, water, communications and have grocery suppliers stop all food deliveries. ....

tax refund check wasn't delivered by the post office? What do you mean the bank won't cash it? Wait, walmart is out of stock on ammo anyway? Damn my brilliant plans for revolution have failed.

Should read more Les Miserables and less Atlas Shrugged.


While the June revolutionaries did find a few ways around that whole logistical support from communal infrastructure thing, they were also crushed. Just a thought.

But they should absolutely read Les Miserables, it's a damn good book. Trouble is, it has you sympathizing with the poor and outcast over the privileged classes, and teaching you that law and order is an entirely different thing than justice, which aren't messages most republicans these days would really be receptive to. It's also a big book with lots of funny words, and you know how the right wing in this country is about those.
 
2013-01-09 02:19:03 PM

lordaction: You guys don't get it. The right to bear arms in regards to the militia the founding fathers obviously meant the National Guard which was created 150 years after the Constitution was written. As far as arms, they founders meant it only applied to muskets - just like freedom of speech and press only applies to things printed with a printed press and written with a quill pen. Following the the same liberal logic, the right to private property and residences only applies to log cabins. I can't believe how stupid conservatives are for not realizing the Constitution is about granting rights to citizens and not solely about restricting the federal government. It is as if they don't have a 3rd grade reading comprehension level.


Not only that, but the 2nd amendment to the constitution that says that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed does' not limit the government and/or prevent them from denying people the ability to possess firearms.
Rather, it and Article I Section 8 of the constitution are meant to keep one state's militia from disarming another state's militia, and allows Congress to do what it wants to the militia, including depriving its members of all arms.

Pretty strange to give Congress nearly absolute power to disarm the state militias as well as the individual people whether they were acting in a militia capacity or not. Seems to fly in the face of the entire history of the 2nd amendment and Section 8 of the COTUS.
 
2013-01-09 02:19:10 PM

lordjupiter: The same cranks that distrust the ATF or FBI distrust City Hall, and the State House, depending on who's in power.


boiling the issue down to vauge generalities is not correct for all. Some orgainizations hate all goverment and are more of an anarchy-related group. Some have very specific issues and can be Right or Left (religious, racial, environmental, animals, socialist,etc).

Depending upon where the general police (state level and lower) fits within thier issue driven ideology, they may support or oppose their actions
 
2013-01-09 02:19:23 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I wish these guys, LaPierre, Alex Jones and the other anti-reg absolutists would just start where they always end up:

"We need these things to shoot American soldiers and police officers."


Why do you wish the obvious to be stated?

Why do cops carry guns? To shoot citizens if they have to.
 
2013-01-09 02:20:09 PM

tallen702: freetomato: tallen702: The weapons we DO have on our shores are kept in armories on bases. Bases are fairly open. The word "Fort" doesn't mean walls, moats, barbed wire, etc. anymore. It simply means that the DoD owns the land and the buildings there

I haven't been to one military facility post 9/11 (and I've been to perhaps 10 since then -  USAF, USAR and USMC) that is not fenced and conducting 100% ID checks at the gate.  If you think anyone can prance up to the munitions storage area/armory, you are sadly mistaken.  National Guard Armories may not be fenced but again, it's not like the arms are stored in a garden shed from Home Depot with a bicycle padlock on them.

Read part one about how few people on base are armed or ready to be armed, then read part two about the low level of security at base. In a situation of armed uprising, I seriously doubt anyone raiding a base to secure weaponry is going to try to just slip past the guards.

Also, bolt/wire cutters will take care of your fence, you know, if you do want to be a bit more covert about it.

As for the Nat'l Guard, it may not be a shed with a padlock, but it's not much better...


Richard Marcinko?  I didn't know you were a farker!
 
2013-01-09 02:22:44 PM

Giltric: How long before other countries start waging a proxy war against the US government by giving 9k38s and DSHKs to the militias in that scenario?

the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that......


Hey, if there is any foreign crackpot country (I'm looking at you, Best Korea) that wants to give me a PPSH-41 and a STG-44, I will totaly use it to wage war on the infidels and not just add it to my collection and shoot it on weekends and stuff.
 
2013-01-09 02:25:10 PM

tallen702: An actual armed uprising in the US wouldn't be some fudds with squirrel shooters


Yeah, it'll be fudds armed with, er, something else. And it will last 20 minutes, tops.
 
2013-01-09 02:28:08 PM

Gdalescrboz: Losing my 2nd amendment granted to me in the Bill of Rights scares me less than liberals who are not only OK with it, but seem to want it to happen, and are to farking naive to understand the consequences. That level of stupidity in the US scares me, I have a hard time understanding how we fell so far


Because living on ones knees is something many people find attractive, so long as their masters aren't too abusive.

/Problem is if you do it for too long, you forget what not being abused feels like.
 
2013-01-09 02:29:37 PM

freetomato: Does anyone remember what the old, pre-CAC military ID cards look like?  Around '94 I was at the guard shack on an Air Force base, waiting for VIPs to arrive so I could escort them.  The guard (civilian DoD rent-a-cop) showed me a stack of ID cards he'd confiscated.  On first glance they looked just like a military ID, hologram on the laminate and all.  When you looked real close, though, what looked like the DoD seal said, in tiny letters "Militia of the State of Georgia" or some such nonsense.  Why these assclowns felt the need to try to get on base, I don't know.  It's not like they could access any classified information or munitions storage areas or even get on the flightline.  To shop at clothing sales, the BX or the commissary doesn't seem worth it either.  I guess they were just trying to see if they could pull it off.

FWIW they were all old, fat, white, rednecky looking guys.


I remember that. Just joining the Army at the time and was stationed at Gordon. They had little flyers up everywhere.
 
2013-01-09 02:31:40 PM
And all Cox did was talk mean about people?
 
2013-01-09 02:32:06 PM

lostcat: .....
Again, show me how the "police state" that this country is becoming has affected ME in any way.

I don't see it.
...
Others see jack-booted thugs enforcing laws that impinge on their freedoms. I don't see that at all. It doesn't reflect my day-to-day life in any way whatsoever.


...says the person right before a swat team kicks down the door and shoots the dogs because of some ambiguous drug tip.

This doesn't really affect ME either but I can see how ridiculous a 26year prison term for conspiring is.

By the way, if you pay taxes or live in this country the "some sort of police state" is definitely affecting you. That 26 year prison sentence isn't free, neither is the TSA molestation. Don't fly? Don't worry they got you covered, "transportation" is a pretty vague term!
 
2013-01-09 02:34:55 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: And all Cox did was talk mean about people?


Yep, me and my friends are gonna get together and plan the murder of you and your family. The cops shouldn't get involved until we actually murder you.
 
2013-01-09 02:35:37 PM

Super_pope: You're looking at Palestine.


Uh, no.
You're looking at a lot of roads blocked by felled tree and overlapping fields of fire and lots of ice picks and steak knives in the ears of unsuspecting loyalists.
 
2013-01-09 02:37:52 PM

Champion of the Sun: ... Our founders did conspire to kill government agents, but you know, those agents actually were violating rights.


You call me a tard then say that? If our founders had lost, but ya know, they would be considered and recorded as nothing more than this nut.

I'm not drawing comparisons just stating that the 1st doesn't require a consensus or popular opinion.

I am curious if there has ever been a case of these militia idiots ever enacting any of their plans outside of hoard shiat and talk a lot.
 
2013-01-09 02:38:29 PM

Maturin: [www.jmu.edu image 396x300]
This is how you handle a revolutionary.

www.jmu.edu
Yellow Pants is all "Come at me, Bro!"

He's straight up honey badger. He don't give a fark.
 
2013-01-09 02:39:15 PM

Champion of the Sun: HotIgneous Intruder: And all Cox did was talk mean about people?

Yep, me and my friends are gonna get together and plan the murder of you and your family. The cops shouldn't get involved until we actually murder you.


Play all the fantasy/video games you want.
But come after me or my family and you'll be incredibly sorry.

/How about a good banning from fark for threatening me?
//Would that be a good place to start?
 
2013-01-09 02:40:22 PM
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com

so.much.fail.

Whar first, second amendments, whar?
 
2013-01-09 02:41:16 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: And all Cox did was talk mean about people?


short answer, no. long answer noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
2013-01-09 02:42:09 PM
If things ever got so bad that the government was rounding up folks, I'd go out to animal shelters and adopt as many cats as I could bring into my house.
Then, if they knocked on my door I'd open it and cats would begin pouring out the door, and they'd say "whoa-this guy's got so many cats!"
That would be just enough of a distraction for me to sneak up into my attic and feed the younger and sicker cats that I brought back from the shelters.
 
2013-01-09 02:42:23 PM

IRQ12: Champion of the Sun: ... Our founders did conspire to kill government agents, but you know, those agents actually were violating rights.

You call me a tard then say that? If our founders had lost, but ya know, they would be considered and recorded as nothing more than this nut.

I'm not drawing comparisons just stating that the 1st doesn't require a consensus or popular opinion.

I am curious if there has ever been a case of these militia idiots ever enacting any of their plans outside of hoard shiat and talk a lot.


Jesus you're a tard. Do you wear a helmet? That baby killer McVeigh totally slip your mind? The causes of the revolution were actual, verifiable injustices. By this guys' own admission he had nothing to go on besides paranoid delusions.
 
2013-01-09 02:43:11 PM

dallylamma: jaybeezey: doczoidberg: All of this gun shiat is really getting on my nerves.

How about we skip the part where we argue about gun control, and just get right to the part where we do nothing?

Why do you hate "the children"?

Hell, a member of Congress got shot in the head and nothing changed.


Well, to be fair, "the children" are a far more likable class of people than "Congress"...
 
2013-01-09 02:44:00 PM

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "We need these things to shoot American soldiers and police officers."

If they become tyrants, thugs, etc. then I agree.


internut scholar: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: I wish these guys, LaPierre, Alex Jones and the other anti-reg absolutists would just start where they always end up:

"We need these things to shoot American soldiers and police officers."

Why do you wish the obvious to be stated?


Simple honesty?

Some of you eventually get around to it(when pressed) in Fark threads but at the water cooler or when local news shows up to cover Gun Appreciation Day you're all, "Hunting! Defense! Sport!" then something vague about the Constitution.

It's the Spring Surpise of the debate.
 
2013-01-09 02:44:17 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Champion of the Sun: HotIgneous Intruder: And all Cox did was talk mean about people?

Yep, me and my friends are gonna get together and plan the murder of you and your family. The cops shouldn't get involved until we actually murder you.

Play all the fantasy/video games you want.
But come after me or my family and you'll be incredibly sorry.

/How about a good banning from fark for threatening me?
//Would that be a good place to start?


So you think the mods are too dumb to understand sarcasm and context? Wait, don't answer that
 
2013-01-09 02:44:19 PM
www.jmu.edu

Maturin: This is how you handle a revolutionary.


We don't all have glowing mithril shirts like that guy.
 
2013-01-09 02:44:40 PM

lordaction: You guys don't get it. The right to bear arms in regards to the militia the founding fathers obviously meant the National Guard which was created 150 years after the Constitution was written. As far as arms, they founders meant it only applied to muskets - just like freedom of speech and press only applies to things printed with a printed press and written with a quill pen. Following the the same liberal logic, the right to private property and residences only applies to log cabins. I can't believe how stupid conservatives are for not realizing the Constitution is about granting rights to citizens and not solely about restricting the federal government. It is as if they don't have a 3rd grade reading comprehension level.


Definitely Aspergers.
With Tourettes tossed in for yuks.
 
2013-01-09 02:48:48 PM

freetomato: Richard Marcinko


I admit, I lol'ed. Funny enough, my wife's next door neighbor in Fayettenam was the head of Delta when she was growing up. Her dad tells a good story of someone attempting to rob the house. Talk about the worst random decision ever!

But I digress.

You've been on base, and from your previous comments, you also know how lightly armed the whole base is. Sure, they're on higher alert than they were during, say, the Vietnam era, but not by much.

I remember my father telling me a story of being on duty out at Riley during the wintertime guarding some warehouse or another. It was frigid, the river had frozen over, and the coyotes on the other side decided it was high time to see what was available to eat on the side of the river where my dad and a couple of others were serving duty. Short of it was, they each had exactly 1 round in their rifle it resulted in some dead coyotes and a very, very angry NCO when they returned their weapons empty. He was a little less angry when they showed him the dead 'yotes they tossed in the dumpster, but still pissed off about the paperwork.

Regardless, we're talking about large, sprawling complexes with less than desirable security measures when it comes to the threat of force. Just compare the security at Fort Mead with the security at the NSA right next door. One has a fence and 100% ID checks, the other also has a fence and 100% ID checks and a dedicated security force monitoring all kinds of security surveillance (IR detection, seismic detection, etc) and big black SUVs with lots-o-guns inside at every entrance.

Like I said, if you're going to try to pass off a fake ID or just drive onto base, you're going to be SOL, but a forced entry would stand a chance given the lack of reaction by the MPs and the fact that the military no longer gives everyone a weapon.

I'm not saying that some little militia group is going to do this during peace time, but if there were an insurrection, it's not like the rebels wouldn't have the ability to get access if determined enough. The whole point of the argument was that all the guys saying "lol Drones rawk!" have no real idea of how rebellions get weapons. They cache whatever they can get their hands on prior to the outbreak, and then take the weapons of the regime the fight against as they hit bases and depots/dumps. Air superiority is an awesome game changer, so are shoulder-fired guided missiles.
 
2013-01-09 02:50:39 PM

MorePeasPlease: If things ever got so bad that the government was rounding up folks, I'd go out to animal shelters and adopt as many cats as I could bring into my house.
Then, if they knocked on my door I'd open it and cats would begin pouring out the door, and they'd say "whoa-this guy's got so many cats!"
That would be just enough of a distraction for me to sneak up into my attic and feed the younger and sicker cats that I brought back from the shelters.


Your random comment made me laugh.
 
2013-01-09 02:51:03 PM

Champion of the Sun: IRQ12: Champion of the Sun: ... Our founders did conspire to kill government agents, but you know, those agents actually were violating rights.

You call me a tard then say that? If our founders had lost, but ya know, they would be considered and recorded as nothing more than this nut.

I'm not drawing comparisons just stating that the 1st doesn't require a consensus or popular opinion.

I am curious if there has ever been a case of these militia idiots ever enacting any of their plans outside of hoard shiat and talk a lot.

Jesus you're a tard. Do you wear a helmet? That baby killer McVeigh totally slip your mind? The causes of the revolution were actual, verifiable injustices. By this guys' own admission he had nothing to go on besides paranoid delusions.


Nuh uh, you're a tard!
 
2013-01-09 02:53:36 PM

the money is in the banana stand: lostcat: I still can't get past the idea that the "Government" is going to -- someday soon -- enact martial law and start forcing its citizens into camps or re-education facilities, or whatever these people believe.

I've been around for over 40 years and I've never given a thought to the idea that our government, which can barely balance a budget, is going to suddenly decide that what's best for a democratic republic is to suddenly change to some sort of police state.

If someone can convince me that this is likely, we can then move on to the notion that a few thousand people in each state, with stockpiles of small arms, is somehow going to stand up to our military, which is funded by more than half of our budget, and includes nuclear weapons, jets, tanks, phase-plasma rifles, sharp sticks...

That certainly is the irrational crazy, but the more likely scenario would be a slow "takeover". It wouldn't a grand master plan by a group of evil geniuses attempting to be Big Brother, but instead a lot of someone's that place self-interest over that of their constituents that have a hard-on for power slowly taking larger bites of the pie. You ask how could it "get" to that point, that is really easy to happen, especially in a scenario where the economy reaches a critical point. Take a look what is happening over in Europe. Financially, they are closer to this than we are here.

This would not be an all out declaration of war against the government. The support "for" the government at this point would be critically low. Instead, it would be more likely a situation of almost total anarchy. When your governing body loses the faith and respect of the people and your economy goes down the shiatter, you end up with a nation of disarray and unable to maintain order. This would not be this silly fantasy of a bunch of rednecks that go crazy after the government tries to take their guns forcefully as the average Fark Liberal with a monocle sits back and watches.


I think it might have already happened. During WWII the idea that everything would work smoother if everyone worked together probably started the idea. It's hard to fight a war with two parties fighting. It worked great for that war. Then it became a non-issue for a few decades, but was still there; how to keep the people focused on a common goal, yet make them feel they have a choice. The "situation of almost total anarchy" came along with the assassination of the Kennedy's. It's at that point the two parties were unified for the most part. We've had a generation under this so far.

It's hard to explain with just a few paragraphs and nobody reads this crap anyway, but the easiest way to see the forest through the trees is to research for an hour or so. Open up about four windows. In each fill with search term results; US Presidents list, Keynesian economics, shock doctrine, and have a window full of financial charts of the US for the past 60 years. Refer back and forth and a few light bulbs should go off.

Question it from the standpoint it can't be true. Why did Carter, with a genius IQ, lose public support when he bucked the system. Why did Perot suddenly drop out of the race, when he had plenty of money to buy his way in. Why did neither Obama or Romney campaign on changing the basic economics model, (they campaigned on different plans that closely followed the same Keynesian model).

Your ideas are solid, the timing is just off by about a generation or two and you've been conditioned to think a certain way. Think about this: after the bombing of Pearl harbor what would the public have thought about the TSA and other government control issues we just take as normal today?
Good luck to you - I'm old enough not to have to worry much longer.
 
2013-01-09 02:54:30 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: Show of hands, how many of you out there are furiously masturbating


You want to see some sperm-soaked hands? Whatever floats your boat, man.
 
2013-01-09 02:56:21 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Simple honesty?

Some of you eventually get around to it(when pressed) in Fark threads but at the water cooler or when local news shows up to cover Gun Appreciation Day you're all, "Hunting! Defense! Sport!" then something vague about the Constitution.

It's the Spring Surpise of the debate.


In that case, will you admit that the police need their firearms to shoot citizens?
 
2013-01-09 02:59:41 PM

Mike_LowELL: Step 1: Perform military exercises out in the woods, preparing to take on a fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year fighting force with fully-trained, well-equpped soldiers that will not only has absolute air superiority with tactics synchronized through satellite and computer communication, but will eventually be able to employ robots which take human casualties out of the equation.  This way, if the government comes after your freedoms, you'll be ready to take them on.


That would be the fully-trained, trillion-dollar-a-year, fighting yada yada yada which failed utterly in Iraq and is currently failing utterly in Afghanistan, would it? Because if angry brown men in sandals can hand the US military (and, of course, the British military) a great bit can of whup-ass, angry white men in tea party t-shirts ought to be able to do the same.
 
2013-01-09 03:02:39 PM
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com
Schaeffer Cox
Shave-yer-Cox?


/sorry, been on reddit
 
2013-01-09 03:02:44 PM

Ennuipoet: I've been trying to explain this to various retarded conservative friends over the past few months.  They seem to labor under the delusion the Army would never attack it's citizens and I have to explain again that "The Army" doesn't have to do shiat, just a couple of guys in a trailer with link to the Predators.


Leaving aside the failure drones to pacify Afghanistan, it's not the willingness of the army to attack terrorists which is in doubt, but the willingness of the army to inflict huge civilian casualties while doing so. The British army failed in Northern Ireland because it wasn't - thank goodness - prepared to engage in the mass slaughter which would have been required to deal with the terrorists.
 
2013-01-09 03:04:10 PM

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Simple honesty?

Some of you eventually get around to it(when pressed) in Fark threads but at the water cooler or when local news shows up to cover Gun Appreciation Day you're all, "Hunting! Defense! Sport!" then something vague about the Constitution.

It's the Spring Surpise of the debate.

In that case, will you admit that the police need their firearms to shoot citizens?


Of course.
 
2013-01-09 03:04:48 PM
Why do people think that we lost militarily in Afghanistan?

Stop thinking that, it's not true. Their lack of a functioning governement has nothing to do with how Western forces acted/operated there, and has everything to do with internal culture/politics.
 
2013-01-09 03:07:52 PM

vpb: There is a reason you don't hear about the Taliban winning any battles.


Which is that guerilla armies of resistance do not, by and large, fight battles. That's the big boys' game. The less formal organisations plants IEDs, carry out assassinations, burn down villages, that sort of thing. Expecting them to play by formal rules is like expecting anyone who attacks the UK to take a break for tea every afternoon (See: Asterix and the Britains)
 
2013-01-09 03:13:21 PM

Evil Twin Skippy: Afghanistan had a steady supply of arms and money from Bin Laden and his network the US.


Unrewrote that for you.
 
2013-01-09 03:14:36 PM
Just because these nut jobs call themselves a militia does not make them one, else I really would be The Supreme Ruler of the Known Universe.
 
2013-01-09 03:16:00 PM

Catsaregreen: Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves.


Considering that they are more than likely just dust would they not be blowing over in their graves?
 
2013-01-09 03:17:44 PM

Madbassist1: The Afganis kicked our asses...and before us, the Soviets. Thats quite a farking accomplishment, if you ask me.


and well before that, the might of the British Empire. Kicking foreign invaders' sorry arses is the national sport in Afghanistan. If they ever find themselves short of foreign invaders, they fight themselves just to keep in practice.
 
2013-01-09 03:22:59 PM

Secret Master of All Flatulence: All of y'all are making one bad assumption: That it'll be the US military enforcing said law. That ain't the case....it'll most likely be the local cops. How many dead cops is this administration willing to spend?


Police would pose no resistance whatsoever to an organized uprising. They'd be too busy telephoning their union reps and filling out forms for extra "hazardous duty" pay.

The US government is a paper tiger. It'd fold inside of 2 weeks. All that would be left of the USA would be a few strips of Rust Belt territory and a quarter of what was once called "Washington, D.C."
 
2013-01-09 03:24:12 PM

Artisan Sandwich: Why do people think that we lost militarily in Afghanistan?


How about "because your troops keep getting killed there, your enemy controls much of the country and the unscrupulous corrupt bastard you are maintaining in some simulacrum of tenuous power has the life expectancy of a mayfly when you leave?" Will that do for a start?
 
2013-01-09 03:31:16 PM

Phinn: Secret Master of All Flatulence: All of y'all are making one bad assumption: That it'll be the US military enforcing said law. That ain't the case....it'll most likely be the local cops. How many dead cops is this administration willing to spend?

Police would pose no resistance whatsoever to an organized uprising. They'd be too busy telephoning their union reps and filling out forms for extra "hazardous duty" pay.

The US government is a paper tiger. It'd fold inside of 2 weeks. All that would be left of the USA would be a few strips of Rust Belt territory and a quarter of what was once called "Washington, D.C."


At least where I live, police wouldn't be a problem at all. There's maybe a dozen or more and they can all be easily swayed to come to a the revolt with a few donuts. Seriously... I think we have the dumbest farking law enforcement in the U.S.

So are my farking neighbors. My fantasy, in case of an uprising would be to immediately take out the men, take all their food goods and enslave their wives and daughters. At least one of the wives is pretty hot, the daughters... well I'd have to wait a few years before entering them in my breeding program to start a new world order. I don't want to be accused of diddling underage girls.
 
2013-01-09 03:31:23 PM
Yeah, guerrilla warfare never works.
 
2013-01-09 03:39:52 PM

orbister: Artisan Sandwich: Why do people think that we lost militarily in Afghanistan?

How about "because your troops keep getting killed there, your enemy controls much of the country and the unscrupulous corrupt bastard you are maintaining in some simulacrum of tenuous power has the life expectancy of a mayfly when you leave?" Will that do for a start?


Did you read what I wrote?
 
2013-01-09 03:43:02 PM

PacManDreaming: Or, if they just wanted to be dicks, they'd roll the armor out. I'd imagine the first Rambo-wannabe that found out his high-powered .22 AR-15 didn't worked very well against an IFV would crap his intestines out.


They would be rolling those tanks over a lot of houses belonging to people who had no connection to the militia you were after. They can get away with that in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it would lead to trouble in the US.
 
2013-01-09 03:48:02 PM

doglover: vpb: I don't know how they could "instigate" someone into organizing a terrorist organization.

FBI agents are really easy to spot.

Organize a group like anarchists. Have a big roundtable once you get a lot of membership. The bigger guy who says "Let's blow up (whatever)! I can get a bomb!" is the Fed. Pretty easy.


I think I read an article that basically said this. They were talking about a group that was protesting some law, and a Fed came in and was being an asshole.

I have to say that, if I were in that sort of group and had any authority whatsoever, my response to that would be to give them a framed award for being Most Obvious Fed Ever, give an official warning about following nonviolence rules, and then go on with the meeting like nothing had happened.
 
2013-01-09 03:57:41 PM

tallen702: I ♥ all of the references to the military might of the US here at home... you know... where very few soldiers are armed and those that are on armed guard duty typically only have a few live rounds in their magazine. It takes us months to outfit soldiers and deploy them to the two wars we are currently fighting, you know, those wars where quite a bit of our materiel is concentrated.

The weapons we DO have on our shores are kept in armories on bases. Bases are fairly open. The word "Fort" doesn't mean walls, moats, barbed wire, etc. anymore. It simply means that the DoD owns the land and the buildings there. If the shiat were to really actually hit the fan, do you honestly think that the US based forces could react in time to prevent determined armed militias from entering an un-guarded fort, breaking into the armory, and absconding with shoulder-fired guided missiles and anti-tank weapons? Then, when you've got enough of a following, what's to prevent you from taking tanks and other heavy weapons?

An actual armed uprising in the US wouldn't be some fudds with squirrel shooters, it'd be a well-armed blood bath for all involved regardless of the US military's level of technology. Syrian rebels didn't start out with full-auto weapons for all, but once they took a few armories, they started making great strides. Same went for the Libyans and most of the Serb-Croat war.

To bury your head in the sand and say "but predator drones!" is to fail at strategy by leaps and bounds.


Help me understand again...Why would these people be taking up arms against the government?

Someone really needs to help me understand what's happened to the US government that has made it the enemy of democracy.
 
2013-01-09 03:58:40 PM
GORDON: Yeah, guerrilla warfare never works.

I think the reason for all the attention is because they do work.

The one thing a leader fears, more than losing an election or not getting his bribe on time, is the idea of his subjects going all "Cordis Die" on him. No one wants to be the man on top when the proletariat storm the gates, intent on combining their bayonet collection with a new found fetish for sodomizing wealthy old men.

Hence the detailed infiltration and lengthy prison sentence.
Its not that this guy had a chance in hell of starting anything, but the state is certainly afraid of people getting ideas.
 
2013-01-09 04:02:43 PM
The only Americans in the past century and a half to take up arms and confront Govt were the Black Panthers.

The Right in this country does not have the balls to take on the Govt, though they could. Authority worshippers don't tend to revolt, although they do show up as volunteers to help load the trains. Not gonna happen, you can't go to war on a hoverround and as soon as it started, they would shut down Fox News and then they wouldn't know what to think anymore and they would go home.
 
2013-01-09 04:04:14 PM

pedrop357: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Simple honesty?

Some of you eventually get around to it(when pressed) in Fark threads but at the water cooler or when local news shows up to cover Gun Appreciation Day you're all, "Hunting! Defense! Sport!" then something vague about the Constitution.

It's the Spring Surpise of the debate.

In that case, will you admit that the police need their firearms to shoot citizens?


Specifically, scary minorities
 
2013-01-09 04:07:52 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Profedius: Having thought on the matter quite a bit and discussions with ex high ranking service member friends the scenario with the best chance of success in at least starting a revolution is where a protest movement that is somewhat non-violent gains enough members then becomes organized and switches to a violent agenda on focused targets. In order to maintain any long term resistance several military installations would need to be targeted in the opening actions focusing primarily on Air Force targets since their bases would have a lower level of armed resistance.

Your friends Army or Navy?


Both and the Air Force don't have any friends in the Marines. Nothing against the Air Force it is just an area the civilians can not currently compete with any real success once the assets are airborne, however on the ground they are combat ineffective and lightly guarded. The Navy's response is limited to long range missiles and carrier based aircraft which are not as numerous nor as easily reachable as the Air Force's. One would also have the advantage of time since naval assets would take time to return to the continental USA. The army and the National Guard are the biggest threats to any armed uprising since they have the benefit of more anti-personal weapons and in the case of the National Guard it has the advantage of being spread out making it hard to target.
 
2013-01-09 04:14:15 PM

Profedius: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Profedius: Having thought on the matter quite a bit and discussions with ex high ranking service member friends the scenario with the best chance of success in at least starting a revolution is where a protest movement that is somewhat non-violent gains enough members then becomes organized and switches to a violent agenda on focused targets. In order to maintain any long term resistance several military installations would need to be targeted in the opening actions focusing primarily on Air Force targets since their bases would have a lower level of armed resistance.

Your friends Army or Navy?

Both and the Air Force don't have any friends in the Marines. Nothing against the Air Force it is just an area the civilians can not currently compete with any real success once the assets are airborne, however on the ground they are combat ineffective and lightly guarded. The Navy's response is limited to long range missiles and carrier based aircraft which are not as numerous nor as easily reachable as the Air Force's. One would also have the advantage of time since naval assets would take time to return to the continental USA. The army and the National Guard are the biggest threats to any armed uprising since they have the benefit of more anti-personal weapons and in the case of the National Guard it has the advantage of being spread out making it hard to target.


Profedius: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Profedius: Having thought on the matter quite a bit and discussions with ex high ranking service member friends the scenario with the best chance of success in at least starting a revolution is where a protest movement that is somewhat non-violent gains enough members then becomes organized and switches to a violent agenda on focused targets. In order to maintain any long term resistance several military installations would need to be targeted in the opening actions focusing primarily on Air Force targets since their bases would have a lower level of armed resistance.

Your friends Army or Navy?

Both and the Air Force don't have any friends in the Marines. Nothing against the Air Force it is just an area the civilians can not currently compete with any real success once the assets are airborne, however on the ground they are combat ineffective and lightly guarded. The Navy's response is limited to long range missiles and carrier based aircraft which are not as numerous nor as easily reachable as the Air Force's. One would also have the advantage of time since naval assets would take time to return to the continental USA. The army and the National Guard are the biggest threats to any armed uprising since they have the benefit of more anti-personal weapons and in the case of the National Guard it has the advantage of being spread out making it hard to target.



All 4 branches of the service have built up anti-insurgency capabilities since the Iraq invasion. There are USAF ground troops (SPs) in Afghanistan. The future of war is low intensity with lots of involvment by non-state actors and the DOD knows this.
 
2013-01-09 04:14:41 PM

Insatiable Jesus: The only Americans in the past century and a half to take up arms and confront Govt were the Black Panthers.

The Right in this country does not have the balls to take on the Govt, though they could. Authority worshippers don't tend to revolt, although they do show up as volunteers to help load the trains. Not gonna happen, you can't go to war on a hoverround and as soon as it started, they would shut down Fox News and then they wouldn't know what to think anymore and they would go home.


1/10. Try harder next time.
 
2013-01-09 04:16:23 PM

MorePeasPlease: If things ever got so bad that the government was rounding up folks, I'd go out to animal shelters and adopt as many cats as I could bring into my house.
Then, if they knocked on my door I'd open it and cats would begin pouring out the door, and they'd say "whoa-this guy's got so many cats!"
That would be just enough of a distraction for me to sneak up into my attic and feed the younger and sicker cats that I brought back from the shelters.


This was one of my favorite Fark posts in three years of lurking plus two years as a registered user.
 
2013-01-09 04:16:24 PM

sugar_fetus: Insatiable Jesus: The only Americans in the past century and a half to take up arms and confront Govt were the Black Panthers.

The Right in this country does not have the balls to take on the Govt, though they could. Authority worshippers don't tend to revolt, although they do show up as volunteers to help load the trains. Not gonna happen, you can't go to war on a hoverround and as soon as it started, they would shut down Fox News and then they wouldn't know what to think anymore and they would go home.

1/10. Try harder next time.


just cause he's trolling doesn't mean he's wrong
 
2013-01-09 04:21:03 PM

Profedius: Both and the Air Force don't have any friends in the Marines.



Funny you say that. My husband and his crew have had Marines on the ground in Afghanistan thank them for the air support they provide. Link

As a military member whose never seen combat, I know that inter-service rivalry can be fun. My husband and my friends who have say that shiat has no place in a combat zone.
 
2013-01-09 04:28:18 PM

dittybopper: What, a common criminal with a big mouth bragging about committing federal felonies (that weren't true, btw)? Meh.

We aren't close to requiring a "Second Amendment Solution" yet. We're still on the first couple of boxes. As long as we have the first 3 in working order, we don't have to resort to the 4th.


Sorry, but yeah we're passed the first three boxes. The checks and balances built in to the constitution ensure that nothing can get done except for a trickle of more government. None of it ever gets repealed. None of it ever goes away. There's never an opt out. Things will just slowly tighten, pressure will continue to build, one spark and boom.

We're still in stage one of resistance - lots of kicking and screaming. Stage two is active civil disobedience to include tax revolts to starve out the treasury. Stage three is shooting the bastards.

And you wanna know what's gonna move us to the next stage?
1.bp.blogspot.com

This is the last amendment still kind of standing in the bill of rights. When it goes, so does civility.
 
2013-01-09 04:32:14 PM
Why does it always seem to me like the ones who complain most loudly about "jackbooted thugs" are the ones who want to wear the jackboots?
 
2013-01-09 04:43:35 PM
One other thing: If we can't trust our kid's teachers with a gun, why the hell would we trust them WITH OUR KIDS???
 
2013-01-09 04:45:15 PM
After the 2nd amendment is gone...

There goes the 4th as well. I am sure the Democrats will need to make sure you don't have guns. So now the ATF has free reign to search and seize as they want.

Will just snowball from there. Crazy thing is, as Democrats get more power, they become exactly what they used to biatch about. If they get the house, it is all over for tyhe country.
 
2013-01-09 04:46:20 PM

Champion of the Sun: sugar_fetus: Insatiable Jesus: The only Americans in the past century and a half to take up arms and confront Govt were the Black Panthers.

The Right in this country does not have the balls to take on the Govt, though they could. Authority worshippers don't tend to revolt, although they do show up as volunteers to help load the trains. Not gonna happen, you can't go to war on a hoverround and as soon as it started, they would shut down Fox News and then they wouldn't know what to think anymore and they would go home.

1/10. Try harder next time.

just cause he's trolling doesn't mean he's wrong


Randy Weaver did. And in a certain way, he won. It came with huge cost, though.
 
2013-01-09 04:46:33 PM

Fubegra: Why does it always seem to me like the ones who complain most loudly about "jackbooted thugs" are the ones who want to wear the jackboots?


I;m still wondering why most of the gun owners are the ones being civil in threads like this but the people in favor of gun control are the ones wishing violence upon people who disagree with them.


Its like one side is more immature (or more mature depending on what side you are on I guess) than the other......
 
2013-01-09 04:48:29 PM

HeadLever: Champion of the Sun: sugar_fetus: Insatiable Jesus: The only Americans in the past century and a half to take up arms and confront Govt were the Black Panthers.

The Right in this country does not have the balls to take on the Govt, though they could. Authority worshippers don't tend to revolt, although they do show up as volunteers to help load the trains. Not gonna happen, you can't go to war on a hoverround and as soon as it started, they would shut down Fox News and then they wouldn't know what to think anymore and they would go home.

1/10. Try harder next time.

just cause he's trolling doesn't mean he's wrong

Randy Weaver did. And in a certain way, he won. It came with huge cost, though.


A warrant gone wrong does not a revolution make.

/owns a copy of 2nd signed by Weaver
//Left in rental house by methheads
 
2013-01-09 04:57:17 PM

Insatiable Jesus: A warrant gone wrong does not a revolution make.


It was a little bit more than a warrant gone wrong. However, you are correct that it was not a revoution. It was, however a citizen using the second amendment to take on the Federal Government. If it was not for his guns, he would have been steamrolled and the shenanigans of the ATF/Federal Government would have likely never been exposed.
 
2013-01-09 05:58:05 PM

freetomato: Profedius: Both and the Air Force don't have any friends in the Marines.


Funny you say that. My husband and his crew have had Marines on the ground in Afghanistan thank them for the air support they provide. Link

As a military member whose never seen combat, I know that inter-service rivalry can be fun. My husband and my friends who have say that shiat has no place in a combat zone.


Oh it is nothing like that I just don't happen to know any high ranking Marines though I do know some enlisted Marines. Your Husband is right in combat a lot of things change, but I never became involved in the whole inter-service rivalry so in combat that was not one item I did not have change. In my post my thoughts were on assets within the Continental USA the each service would have in place currently to deal with a large armed uprising of 100,000 or more people.
 
2013-01-09 06:21:34 PM

HeadLever: The Right in this country does not have the balls to take on the Govt, though they could. Authority worshippers don't tend to revolt, although they do show up as volunteers to help load the trains. Not gonna happen, you can't go to war on a hoverround and as soon as it started, they would shut down Fox News and then they wouldn't know what to think anymore and they would go home.

1/10. Try harder next time.

just cause he's trolling doesn't mean he's wrong

Randy Weaver did. And in a certain way, he won. It came with huge cost, though.


You could argue that between Ruby Ridge, Waco, and McVeigh's reprisal at Oklahoma City, the libertarians won. They killed 169 and injured over 500, whereas the federal government killed 80 and injured 10. 2nd amendment protections have strengthened, and the government overhauled they're assault rules.
 
2013-01-09 06:26:29 PM

This text is now purple: HeadLever: The Right in this country does not have the balls to take on the Govt, though they could. Authority worshippers don't tend to revolt, although they do show up as volunteers to help load the trains. Not gonna happen, you can't go to war on a hoverround and as soon as it started, they would shut down Fox News and then they wouldn't know what to think anymore and they would go home.

1/10. Try harder next time.

just cause he's trolling doesn't mean he's wrong

Randy Weaver did. And in a certain way, he won. It came with huge cost, though.

You could argue that between Ruby Ridge, Waco, and McVeigh's reprisal at Oklahoma City, the libertarians won. They killed 169 and injured over 500, whereas the federal government killed 80 and injured 10. 2nd amendment protections have strengthened, and the government overhauled they're assault rules.


No there not
 
2013-01-09 06:28:38 PM

This text is now purple: You could argue that between Ruby Ridge, Waco, and McVeigh's reprisal at Oklahoma City, the libertarians won.


Ruby Ridge the set up was completly different than Waco or the OKC Bombing and the winning part is not in the body count but how freedom is preserved. Though you are right about Waco being part of the change regarding rules of engagement and due process requirements.
 
2013-01-09 06:57:19 PM

HeadLever: This text is now purple: You could argue that between Ruby Ridge, Waco, and McVeigh's reprisal at Oklahoma City, the libertarians won.

Ruby Ridge the set up was completly different than Waco or the OKC Bombing and the winning part is not in the body count but how freedom is preserved. Though you are right about Waco being part of the change regarding rules of engagement and due process requirements.


Ruby Ridge was much smaller-scale, but there were many similarities between Ruby Ridge and Waco in the government's handle of them (down to some of the same people), and the Senate hearings encompassed both.

McVeigh openly stated his Murrah building attack was in response to both Ruby Ridge and Waco.
 
2013-01-09 06:59:20 PM
USA, 2040:

"Sir, someone was tweeting negative comments about the government in sector 5, grid 12."
"Neutralize them an unmanned drone, private, same as always."
"Right away Sir!"
 
2013-01-09 07:06:55 PM

This text is now purple: McVeigh openly stated his Murrah building attack was in response to both Ruby Ridge and Waco.


Yep.

I've read that he handed out cards with the Ruby Ridge sniper's name and address at gun shows and other events.
 
2013-01-09 07:36:01 PM
I'm late to the party, but wow, a lot of people in here are really excited about drone strikes on their fellow citizens.
 
2013-01-09 07:51:47 PM
We should be more like Britain
 
2013-01-09 09:26:24 PM

Jarhead_h: dittybopper: What, a common criminal with a big mouth bragging about committing federal felonies (that weren't true, btw)? Meh.

We aren't close to requiring a "Second Amendment Solution" yet. We're still on the first couple of boxes. As long as we have the first 3 in working order, we don't have to resort to the 4th.

Sorry, but yeah we're passed the first three boxes. The checks and balances built in to the constitution ensure that nothing can get done except for a trickle of more government. None of it ever gets repealed. None of it ever goes away. There's never an opt out. Things will just slowly tighten, pressure will continue to build, one spark and boom.

We're still in stage one of resistance - lots of kicking and screaming. Stage two is active civil disobedience to include tax revolts to starve out the treasury. Stage three is shooting the bastards.

And you wanna know what's gonna move us to the next stage?
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 479x421]

This is the last amendment still kind of standing in the bill of rights. When it goes, so does civility.


There's never going to be any Tea Party uprising. The Republicans will be the ones chomping at the bit to herd everyone onto the trains, provided that it's Liberals and Mexicans being sent off to the extermination camps.

What did right-wingers have to say when the Occupy folks were being sent to jail in batches of 1000? "Serves them right. They shouldn't have been breaking the law..."
 
2013-01-09 11:55:47 PM

pciszek: They would be rolling those tanks over a lot of houses belonging to people who had no connection to the militia you were after. They can get away with that in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it would lead to trouble in the US.


And what would people do about it? Especially if there were no news reporting it.

dittybopper: Besides which, legally the government can't prevent the news media from reporting on such things. Any government that tried would be in violation of the Constitution, and thus illegitimate.


Nem Wan: Suspending the Constitution is unconstitutional.


And when a national emergency has been declared and FEMA suspends the Constitution, there's not just a whole hell of a lot the media would be reporting on. I don't like it any more than anyone else does, but that is one of their emergency powers.

 
2013-01-10 12:05:55 AM
Am I the only one who is a little bit sickened by the fact that some of my countrymen are slavering for another civil war?
 
2013-01-10 12:33:12 AM

freetomato: Am I the only one who is a little bit sickened by the fact that some of my countrymen are slavering for another civil war?


You didn't like the outcome of the first one?
 
2013-01-10 12:33:58 AM

caramba421: What did right-wingers have to say when the Occupy folks were being sent to jail in batches of 1000? "Serves them right. They shouldn't have been breaking the law..."


They told you to move, you didn't, now take your lumps and fight them in court?

Did any of them follow through and fight their charges in court? Whatever happend to those OWS guys?

It's not like blocking roads and disobeying police orders were legal when they did it, and government decided that we couldn;t have people blocking roads and disobeying police orders so they created a new law making all of the people blocking roads and disobeying police orders criminals.....like how owning an AR is legal.....and the government wants to make it illegal making millions of Americans criminals after the fact...or whatever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------
The_Sponge

I only have 3 true safe queens....a Springfield/Krag 1892 and a Holland and Holland double rifle in .500ne and one in .375hhmag....those 3 combined are probably worth around 50k now if not more.

The Noveskes and LaRues I own are just damn fine rifles with absolute incredible fit and finish.....If I didn;t know any better I would guess they were made in Germany.

I have 2 full rifles from Noveske, one in .300blk, and one in 6.8spc.
The LaRue is in 7.62 and has a 20" barrel

I also have assorted uppers chambered for 5.56 in various configurations from both companies(the upper is where the accuracy comes from and I can swap out a pinned 14.5 ,16'', 18'' or 20'' upper onto any of my lowers from other manufactures) but I shoot them often (1k rounds a month)so they are dinged and scratched like any of my hammers or wrenches in my toolbox.

Nobody needs a Noveske or LaRue but they do rate at the top of the scale.....and hopefully if all goes as planned I will compete in a national match with one.
 
2013-01-10 02:25:39 AM

freetomato: Profedius: Having thought on the matter quite a bit and discussions with ex high ranking service member friends the scenario with the best chance of success in at least starting a revolution is where a protest movement that is somewhat non-violent gains enough members then becomes organized and switches to a violent agenda on focused targets. In order to maintain any long term resistance several military installations would need to be targeted in the opening actions focusing primarily on Air Force targets since their bases would have a lower level of armed resistance.

The only ones allowed to carry firearms on ANY CONUS military base are the military police, from what I understand - I'm sure there are exceptions. So in a suprise attack, very few on base would be armed (see Fort Hood shooter).  Is this assumption based on the fact that the USAF has no infantry-types?  I still can't see an Air Force base being overtaken by an angry mob of militia-men.  I think you are underestimating what they'd be up against, trying to overtake ANY military facility for that matter.


USAF Combat Control
www.americanspecialops.com

www.af.mil

www.defense.gov
 
2013-01-10 03:45:22 AM
Angry Jailhouse Fistfark

-666/10

I still larfed though :)

Please consider my rating a friendly lefthanded compliment.

Also:

Why are some of you rubbing one out SO VERY STRENUOUSLY over killing your fellow Americans?
 
2013-01-10 03:56:11 AM
Um the 2nd amendment is designed to foster a resource for the government, not to oppose it.

Wouldn't a well-regulated local militia be a great resource if centralized forces were unable to respond? The Texas territories could police themselves several weeks ride from D.D. Wouldn't gun-owning citizens make a worthwhile pool of subjects to draft from?

Armed populace = strategic reserve in 1795.
 
2013-01-10 04:17:52 AM
Why do you chuckleheads need 100 round magazines?

Sergent York killed 28 German troops, captured another 132, and took 32 enemy machine gun positions with an Enfield rifle and a colt .45. The Enfield has a 6 round magazine, and the colt has 7 rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber.
 
2013-01-10 05:09:18 AM

freetomato: Am I the only one who is a little bit sickened by the fact that some of my countrymen are slavering for another civil war?


If any red state wants to secede, we should let them. After a few months of wondering why the farm subsidy and social security checks stopped coming, and trying to cope with the sudden cutoff in grandma's medicare, we should let them re-join only after a lot of grovelling. The only red state that can pull its own weight is Texas; its secession would hurt financially, but it would be nice to have them gone--provided we first got to withdraw any nukes that might be stored on their soil.
 
2013-01-10 05:12:45 AM

Kittypie070: Why are some of you rubbing one out SO VERY STRENUOUSLY over killing your fellow Americans?


It's what they've always wanted:
www.irregularnews.com
 
2013-01-10 07:47:41 AM

StoPPeRmobile: freetomato: Profedius: Having thought on the matter quite a bit and discussions with ex high ranking service member friends the scenario with the best chance of success in at least starting a revolution is where a protest movement that is somewhat non-violent gains enough members then becomes organized and switches to a violent agenda on focused targets. In order to maintain any long term resistance several military installations would need to be targeted in the opening actions focusing primarily on Air Force targets since their bases would have a lower level of armed resistance.

The only ones allowed to carry firearms on ANY CONUS military base are the military police, from what I understand - I'm sure there are exceptions. So in a suprise attack, very few on base would be armed (see Fort Hood shooter).  Is this assumption based on the fact that the USAF has no infantry-types?  I still can't see an Air Force base being overtaken by an angry mob of militia-men.  I think you are underestimating what they'd be up against, trying to overtake ANY military facility for that matter.

USAF Combat Control
[www.americanspecialops.com image 600x448]

[www.af.mil image 720x540]

[www.defense.gov image 300x195]


Yep, the USAF has its share of Special Forces badasses - something that many don't want to acknowledge (badass + high ASVAB score - double scary!).
 
2013-01-10 08:11:35 AM

Artisan Sandwich: orbister: Artisan Sandwich: Why do people think that we lost militarily in Afghanistan?

How about "because your troops keep getting killed there, your enemy controls much of the country and the unscrupulous corrupt bastard you are maintaining in some simulacrum of tenuous power has the life expectancy of a mayfly when you leave?" Will that do for a start?

Did you read what I wrote?


Yes, and misunderstood it. I read it as "Why are people under the impression we lost?" and not, as I now gather you meant it, as "Don't people understand why we lost?". Sorry, but it was a big ambiguous.
 
2013-01-10 08:14:40 AM

Jarhead_h: We're still in stage one of resistance - lots of kicking and screaming. Stage two is active civil disobedience to include tax revolts to starve out the treasury. Stage three is shooting the bastards.


That would be the legally and democratically elected bastards, would it? When people start thinking that their constitution matters more than democracy itself, they really have lost the plot.
 
2013-01-10 10:27:15 AM

orbister: Jarhead_h: We're still in stage one of resistance - lots of kicking and screaming. Stage two is active civil disobedience to include tax revolts to starve out the treasury. Stage three is shooting the bastards.

That would be the legally and democratically elected bastards, would it? When people start thinking that their constitution matters more than democracy itself, they really have lost the plot.


You'd be right if our constitution outlined a democracy. It doesn't for some very good reasons.
 
2013-01-10 11:49:52 AM

pciszek: If any red state wants to secede, we should let them. After a few months of wondering why the farm subsidy and social security checks stopped coming, and trying to cope with the sudden cutoff in grandma's medicare, we should let them re-join only after a lot of grovelling. The only red state that can pull its own weight is Texas; its secession would hurt financially, but it would be nice to have them gone--provided we first got to withdraw any nukes that might be stored on their soil.


Is this the counter-revolution version of "you didn't build that" ?

Some may consider the loss of social security, medicare,and farm subsidies to be well worth the price of leaving.
 
2013-01-10 11:51:22 AM

orbister: That would be the legally and democratically elected bastards, would it? When people start thinking that their constitution matters more than democracy itself, they really have lost the plot.


I'm pretty sure Hitler was legally and democratically elected. Does that mean people were wrong to oppose him, or would have been wrong to take physical action against him, government officials, or the soldiers/police carrying out his orders?
 
2013-01-10 12:02:06 PM

This text is now purple: HeadLever: This text is now purple: You could argue that between Ruby Ridge, Waco, and McVeigh's reprisal at Oklahoma City, the libertarians won.

Ruby Ridge the set up was completly different than Waco or the OKC Bombing and the winning part is not in the body count but how freedom is preserved. Though you are right about Waco being part of the change regarding rules of engagement and due process requirements.

Ruby Ridge was much smaller-scale, but there were many similarities between Ruby Ridge and Waco in the government's handle of them (down to some of the same people), and the Senate hearings encompassed both.

McVeigh openly stated his Murrah building attack was in response to both Ruby Ridge and Waco.


That is why OKC is much different than the other two. The BD and Weavers wanted to be left alone. McVeigh was out for revenge. The governemnt screwed up the first two. The only bad thing the government did with regard to McVeigh is that they did not catch the bastard beforehand. And for that I really can't fault them. The first two helped freedom by forcing the government to take corrective steps to make sure that these jack-booted tactics and suspensions of due process are minimized. OKC had the opposite effect.

For me Ruby Ridge is pretty cut and dried. I am not so sure with Waco that we will ever know fully what really happened.
 
2013-01-10 12:10:12 PM

pedrop357: orbister: That would be the legally and democratically elected bastards, would it? When people start thinking that their constitution matters more than democracy itself, they really have lost the plot.

I'm pretty sure Hitler was legally and democratically elected. Does that mean people were wrong to oppose him, or would have been wrong to take physical action against him, government officials, or the soldiers/police carrying out his orders?


Indeed it might be a much more Jewish Germany if they'd had a 2nd Amendment. We probably wouldn't have fabricated a Zionist state. Let this be a lesson to us.
 
2013-01-10 12:17:11 PM

Wangiss: Indeed it might be a much more Jewish Germany if they'd had a 2nd Amendment. We probably wouldn't have fabricated a Zionist state. Let this be a lesson to us.


Not to mention 6-20 million lives saved. No Bajorans in Star Trek, no godwinning threads, no Bush=Hitler or Obama=Hitler...
 
2013-01-10 01:04:56 PM

Gdalescrboz: because we refuse to do what's necessary to crush their will to fight


We have a winnah. Been that way since WW2
 
2013-01-10 01:19:08 PM

pedrop357: Some may consider the loss of social security, medicare,and farm subsidies to be well worth the price of leaving.


I am guessing that the loss of farm subsides and medicare would not go over well in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, the Dakotas...
 
2013-01-10 01:25:41 PM

pciszek: pedrop357: Some may consider the loss of social security, medicare,and farm subsidies to be well worth the price of leaving.

I am guessing that the loss of farm subsides and medicare would not go over well in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, the Dakotas...


Whoops, Iowa is a Blue state. Substitute Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Montana.
 
2013-01-10 01:35:37 PM

StoPPeRmobile: USAF Combat Control
www.americanspecialops.com

www.af.mil

www.defense.gov


Would those guys be carrying their guns on an air force BASE in the continental US, though? That's the question: When a bunch of armed rowdies try to grab a military base, how many people with guns will be opposing them?

Of course, by the time any such movement got to that stage, the military might have quietly increased the number of people on-base who are carrying.
 
2013-01-10 01:47:34 PM

dr_blasto: I think the whole dream some people have of fighting the government is pretty absurd.


The Syrian Rebels would like a word with you, to explain how a weaker force can rebel against a larger and better armed tyrannical government.

/You didn't think this through, did you?
 
2013-01-10 01:49:03 PM

pciszek: StoPPeRmobile: USAF Combat Control
www.americanspecialops.com

www.af.mil

www.defense.gov

Would those guys be carrying their guns on an air force BASE in the continental US, though? That's the question: When a bunch of armed rowdies try to grab a military base, how many people with guns will be opposing them?

Of course, by the time any such movement got to that stage, the military might have quietly increased the number of people on-base who are carrying.


Well, the military police would be constantly carrying. So would the armed guards. And the on-call quick response unit (and if a particular base doesn't have a QRF set up, I guarantee they will as soon as they hear of the first base to get assaulted).
 
2013-01-10 01:50:16 PM

pciszek: freetomato: Am I the only one who is a little bit sickened by the fact that some of my countrymen are slavering for another civil war?

If any red state wants to secede, we should let them. After a few months of wondering why the farm subsidy and social security checks stopped coming, and trying to cope with the sudden cutoff in grandma's medicare, we should let them re-join only after a lot of grovelling. The only red state that can pull its own weight is Texas; its secession would hurt financially, but it would be nice to have them gone--provided we first got to withdraw any nukes that might be stored on their soil.


I think one of the fist things they would do is put a halt to social security and Medicare for those under 65 which would return those programs to solvency. The farm aid has a large food stamp program attached to it so if that was removed the states might be able to fund the rest with the return of the income taxes that would no longer be sent to the federal government.
 
2013-01-10 02:10:19 PM

ha-ha-guy: Ah this old one. The one where the American military military has overwhelming superiority and technology against any insurgency that could happen. Never mind Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq 2.0.

/plus you don't have to actually perform an insurgency, you know just pop the jackass who declares himself President for Life
//not that I support such actions or consider them the proper way to redress grievances, however to claim they are ineffective is deny facts


Wait until they hear about the Oathkeepers. One small part of the argument they make that they seem to keep forgetting is that the U.S. military is made up of U.S. citizens. Most of whom will rebel right along side of the citizenry against a tyrannical government. Where is your military superiority now?
 
2013-01-10 03:04:55 PM

washington-babylon: dr_blasto: I think the whole dream some people have of fighting the government is pretty absurd.

The Syrian Rebels would like a word with you, to explain how a weaker force can rebel against a larger and better armed tyrannical government.

/You didn't think this through, did you?


Do you ever regret having poor reading and comprehension skills?
 
2013-01-10 03:52:13 PM

Profedius: I think one of the fist things they would do is put a halt to social security and Medicare for those under 65 which would return those programs to solvency. The farm aid has a large food stamp program attached to it so if that was removed the states might be able to fund the rest with the return of the income taxes that would no longer be sent to the federal government.


Every red state except Texas receives more money from the federal government than it pays, and would suffer financially if all ties to the federal government were cut. Farm subsidies are payments made to the farmers; the farmers don't get charged for the food stamp program, except in the sense that they pay income tax like everyone else--and as I have already said, they are getting more than they are paying. The cessation of food stamps within the red state will only hurt that state's poor; does anyone have any data on how much rural families depend on food stamps? From the point of view of an typical individual farmer, the way it would work out would be: "No federal income tax--yay! But I'm not getting my subsidy check, crap. And grandma's in the hospital again, and I have to pay for all of it this time, double crap. Grandma's not even getting her monthly social security check anymore. Well, at least those losers down the road stopped getting their food stamps." Things get real interesting come harvest time when he tries to sell his crop, and all the big buyers are now in another country, probably with import tariffs.

I wonder what happens to military personnel from that state. Their loyalty would become suspect--would they be asked to formally renounce their allegiance to their home state? If they were returned home jobless, that would add to the state's financial woes.
 
2013-01-10 04:05:46 PM
I know, the Bread Basket is such a drag on the economy!
 
2013-01-10 07:02:07 PM

pciszek: pciszek: pedrop357: Some may consider the loss of social security, medicare,and farm subsidies to be well worth the price of leaving.

I am guessing that the loss of farm subsides and medicare would not go over well in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, the Dakotas...

Whoops, Iowa is a Blue state. Substitute Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Montana.


Wyoming farm subsides:
•75 percent of farms in Wyoming did not collect subsidy payments
Montana
•56 percent of farms in Montana did not collect subsidy payments
Oklahoma
•69 percent of farms in Oklahoma did not collect subsidy payments

Iowa
•19 percent of farms in Iowa did not collect subsidy payments

No wonder why Iowa is blue
 
Displayed 424 of 424 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report