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  
•       •       •

25810 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 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
 
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