Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

25807 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 11:03 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 424 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report