The First Shots of the Second American Revolution have been fired

Originally posted by Bluesma

But in the case of a revolt and the people currently calling themselves "lawful citizens" decide to be instead criminals, yes, they would have problems defending themselves and their homes, and many of them would be killed by the rebels. This is what I called sad. The guns would be used for killing ordinary citizens, not "government".

I believe you may be mistaken there, to a fair degree. Why would they be killed by the rebels if they weren't trying to kill the rebels? There may well be a few "incidents" - there always are, in the fogs of war - but by and large the rebels wouldn't likely have enough ammo to waste shooting unarmed people who weren't trying to shoot them. Generally speaking, it's better to save your bullets in that sort of situation for people who desperately need to be shot because they're trying to kill you.

It's easy to confuse "lawlessness" with "war", because they do have several points of congruence, but they are not the same thing. Given the situation that's developing, the first 30 days or so would be hell on Earth, but after that things would get down to serious business. Tell your relatives that if it pops, keep a low profile for a month or two, and they'll probably be OK.

What I worry more about is the period AFTER the war concludes. Those shakedowns and reorganizations are always rough. It's been that way in every country after a civil war, our last civil war included. Study up on the "Reconstruction", and see how the losers were treated by the winners to get an idea of how it might go.

No, I do not see it as you do. They know the other half of the people are pissed off, and do not want the same thing. They do not see it as "unjustifiable". They feel there is good reason to make changes in the country.

There IS good reason to make changes in the country. there is always room for improvement. They changes they are making, however, are not improvements, or for the better. It makes it even worse that there is no discussion, just bills passed in the dark, and foisted off on us whether we like it or not.

That's no way to run a country.

I cannot see the proposed solutions as "unilateral". We have used the Obamacare as example of a controversial subject- one problem I see with it is that it is an attempt to mix universal healthcare with capitalism. Making it obligatory to have insurance, with companies that work for profit! This attempt to please the other side is one of the (many) big mistakes.

I am an old cold warrior. I spent my misguided youth fighting communists. Now I'm old, and don't care about who's a "communist" or who's a "capitalist" or what they do - provided THEY do it, and don't force ME to. I've come to see, in my old age, that all that economic mumbo jumbo means nothing at all. Forcing your will on other people is the problem, whatever your economic philosophy. I've come to understand, as have many of my former foes, that dictatorial tyranny is the problem, and that is independent of economic system. Neither is immune to it. Dictatorial socialists are called "communist", and dictatorial capitalists are called "fascist", but they have that common ground that make them the same - dictatorship. The economic theory is just fluff.

THAT is my problem with "health care reform". I don't care if they have single payer, or if it's run by private insrance companies. I don't care what they do at all, as long as I'm not forced into their downhill ride. I'm not buying insurance, and don't much care who says I have to. It's a scam, a lottery, a gamble, in which the patient loses and the insurer gets rich. I don't care if the government decided to give everyone free health care, either - as long as I don't have to partake.

As I said, I'm old. I have my medical problems, and I take care of them. I neither need nor want a doctor or insurance. When they get to be more than I can handle on my own, I will die. That's the way life goes. None of us are going to live for ever, and it's useless to pretend we will. Either way, it's not a government's job to force me into a medical trap. If anyone else wants to, then have at it and more power to them. I'm just not going to, don't care the least what the law says about it.

I doubt seriously that the entire government will be obliterated. Not by the same conservatives who felt it most important to put tax money into that governments military.

I didn't say it WOULD be, I said it COULD be, and it wouldn't make any difference in the fact that it's the people who will suffer the most, even more than an obliterated government. If you insist on framing it in a "conservative vs liberal" framework, you will lose. That isn't the divide, no matter how badly the progressives want you to think it is.

Not by people with guns. ....Maybe another government with some technology, like the capability to do a high altitude EMP attack or something, but not a bunch of people with guns. The bunch of people with guns will kill a bunch of people on their street, in their town, for a while, until the government decides the rats have killed enough of their own and it is time to stop them.

Again, you are only looking at "them evil GUNS", and missing the bigger picture. The MSM spin is that people with guns are killing off "innocent folks" left and right, hoping you will believe that's how a civil war goes. It's a fallacy of projection. That is how criminal activity is currently operated, but it's not how wars work.

It is true that in a democracy, the majority tends to win decisions, and the minority can feel "oppressed" because things are not going the direction they wanted.

Which is why I am, always have been, and always will be opposed to turning the US into a democracy. It never has been, and never will be, so long as I'm still breathing. The rights of minorities are not protected in democracies, they are steamrolled by the majority.

What did our anscestors do that was effective against that? They left the country. They founded another one, or they joined one that had a structure closer to their own preferences.

About half of mine did. The other half tried to keep them from taking our land for their own. Since half of them came here and founded this country, I think I'd rather keep the one they made, and the one the other half died for - in droves - than turn it into the ones they ran from. I figure there was a good reason that the immigrants ran away from their old countries, and a good reason the natives would rather die than give up theirs to invaders. This land is worth fighting to keep. It's soaked in my ancestors' blood on both sides of virtually every conflict here. This is where they are buried, and it's where I will be buried, too.

Where is there left to run TO?

Just sayin'. That is what I noticed in my history studies as a kid. That is what worked for them. The "fighting and killing your countrymen in the area your natal land" wasn't so successful an idea.....

It has ALWAYS been successful - for one side or the other.

Originally posted by Daedalus

I don't believe it's nitpicking..i'm pointing out faults in your argument...

the people are mad over things like obamacare, and the proposed gun ban...just look at new york....

your argument is that you think a revolution would kill more civilians than anything else....talk about that, instead of trying to justify and explain away the catalysts that have the ability to spark a violent revolution..

People are mad about them BECAUSE they're unconstitutional, and the people know it.

Exactly. That's what I get from a lot of these posts at ATS. They are effectively saying "so what if it's bad, we're going to make you live that way, you're damned well gonna like it 'cause we said so, and it would be REALLY bad for you to defend your freedom from us".

In other words, what I hear is

"all your freedom are belong to us".

"Resistance is futile".

Seriously - how can we ever be free if we won't let them take our freedoms away?

"War is peace".

"Freedom is slavery".

"Ignorance is strength".

Can't recall at the moment where I heard those...

reply to post by Daedalus


The "Health Care reform" and the attacks on the Second Amendment are infuriating to be sure, but they are only the latest events in a long chain of events which have blindsided America and been forced upon us against our wishes. ALL of those events are building up, one upon the other, and creating pressure that is threatening to blow the boiler.

Now that the assault on the Second has pushed us over the edge, there probably isn't any turning back, and I'd say that just backing off now is backing off too late, because people are going to insist that the rest of Draconia is addressed as well.

We've had just a bit more than enough, us "old mossbacks" (hat tip to frazzle fer that!).

reply to post by nenothtu


yeah...lets not forget about the subprime mortgage scandal that cost so many people their homes, tanked the housing market, and wrecked the economy...

or "too big to fail", where we gave a f**kton of money to the bankers, and the auto industry, so they could still lay people off, and give themselves huge bonuses...

or the billions we dole out in "foreign aid", while americans literally lose everything

or the economy STILL being in the s**tter...

or the out of control unemployment...

or the illegal immigration problem...


guns and obamacare are just the latest...i know the people are mad about more than just that..

Originally posted by nenothtu

I believe you may be mistaken there, to a fair degree. Why would they be killed by the rebels if they weren't trying to kill the rebels? There may well be a few "incidents" - there always are, in the fogs of war - but by and large the rebels wouldn't likely have enough ammo to waste shooting unarmed people who weren't trying to shoot them.

I guess I don't trust them as much as you. It sounds to me like some of them are not real good at thinking rationally. (have you been reading some of their thought process here??)I also suspect that the action would cut off the distribution of things like food, water, gas... things people need to live. This means people having to go into action to survive, and all that goes with that state.

There IS good reason to make changes in the country. there is always room for improvement. They changes they are making, however, are not improvements, or for the better. It makes it even worse that there is no discussion, just bills passed in the dark, and foisted off on us whether we like it or not.

To the people that voted for Obama, they knew what he was going to do. It is not a surprise. They don't feel that these thigns were forced upon them, they feel they chose and voted for them.

On the healthcare reform, it was barely mentioned to counter a claim that if the gun question was left alone, there would be no more worry about a revolution.... I used it as an example of one of the many subjects that the people are upset about and that would continue to fuel revolt urges.
I did not mean to initiate a discussion on the topic here, and did not reveal but a tiny, tiny, part of my personal opinion on that issue.
In this thread topic, it doesn't matter what I think. The fact that is relevant is that some people in the US want this, some don't, and it is a flammable point.

I doubt seriously that the entire government will be obliterated. Not by the same conservatives who felt it most important to put tax money into that governments military.
I didn't say it WOULD be, I said it COULD be, and it wouldn't make any difference in the fact that it's the people who will suffer the most, even more than an obliterated government. If you insist on framing it in a "conservative vs liberal" framework, you will lose. That isn't the divide, no matter how badly the progressives want you to think it is.

I still doubt it would happen. I don't care what terminology you prefer, I will use whichever works for you- what term refers to "those who desire to start a revolution". I will take back the suggestion that it is the same people who also were supporters of investing in military- in the people I know personally, there is that correlation, but I have no other reaon to believe it is the same for all the revolutionists, and it is not an important point here.
The important point of it is that the military is very advanced and strong, beyond regular firearms.

When I try to respond to your post, it will not show half of it! So I have to copy and paste using word and this might get a little mixed up- I'll do my best.

The MSM spin is that people with guns are killing off "innocent folks" left and right, hoping you will believe that's how a civil war goes. It's a fallacy of projection. That is how criminal activity is currently operated, but it's not how wars work.

I don't know about the MSM, honestly. I am not in the US currently and the media in France isn't into this. But in what I have learned of the french revolution, it got very bloody and people went a bit nutso in their elation. When I read some of the peoples thought patterns on this site, I don't feel very sure that they would be very careful, nor that they would worry that much about the life of the "liberal" next to them that voted this administration into being.

Help me understand how the revolutionaries are going to be discerning about how they use their weapons, I would like to feel more trusting of this.

Who exactly are these revolutionaries going to attack with their guns?
(I don't mean names of course, I mean a rough general idea of who the enemy is for them that is vulnerable to their weapons).

Originally posted by Daedalus



the reasons behind the potential revolution.....

don't take this the wrong way, but you are infuriating sometimes, lol

people are mad about the bull# healthcare legislation, people are MORE mad about the bull# gun legislation..

You tried to explain away both of them away as being justifiable, and potentially beneficial...THAT'S what i take exception to. i was just pointing out that they're wrong, counter to what you were saying..nothing more, nothing less..

I did NOT try to explain them away! I described a point of view that is of other people!

As in almost ALL disagreements and conflics, there are two sides, and both side has a reasoning for what they believe and stand upon! The people who wanted things like gun control or healthcare reform have a particular reasoning- they believe these things are justfiable and a good idea.

Are you actualy suggesting that no one should speak outloud that fact? That we should actually pretend that the other side of the issue is actually people with no reason at all.. they just, I don't know, pulled the ideas out of a hat with little papers on it with all kinds of miscellaneous ideas in it and said "duh..... okay! I'll vote for that!"

Look, that might be a fun thing to believe for a second, but it is a very bad tactic for you. Know your enemy is a valuable tactic. Know what is really going on in their heads, know why they do what they do, what they see out their eyes and with their mind.

Maybe you are young and haven't learned that one yet. Try it, you will see it is an effective method.

reply to post by Bluesma

To the people that voted for Obama, they knew what he was going to do. It is not a surprise. They don't feel that these thigns were forced upon them, they feel they chose and voted for them.

On the healthcare reform, it was barely mentioned to counter a claim that if the gun question was left alone, there would be no more worry about a revolution.... I used it as an example of one of the many subjects that the people are upset about and that would continue to fuel revolt urges.
I did not mean to initiate a discussion on the topic here, and did not reveal but a tiny, tiny, part of my personal opinion on that issue.
In this thread topic, it doesn't matter what I think. The fact that is relevant is that some people in the US want this, some don't, and it is a flammable point.

No people didn't know what he was going to do, they thought they knew. Big difference.

But you’re absolutely right to worry about food, water, gas, power and other essentials of daily life being cut off by the centralized gang of cutthroats who control them all and that’s probably the biggest single reason no one has long since started the revolution. They don’t even have to make the threat, we all know subliminally that this is exactly WHY they took control of all those services. And as hard as the cabal has pushed, who wants to be even semi responsible for cutting off grandma’s heating or cooling, or her oxygen? The fact that they would be likely to DO that speaks volumes about their legitimacy because it would kill tens of thousands of innocents, just as it has done in the military’s many illegal, immoral and unjustified foreign invasions. Infrastructure is invariably the first target ~ to demoralize the citizenry.

Gun control and forced medical coverage may end up being the last straw but there is so much more wrong than that. Perverts and economic criminals write unreadable, unenforceable laws, thugs in law enforcement run roughshod over law abiding taxpayers while rapists and murderers go free and millions of ordinary people end up working for pennies a day in corporately owned sweat shops (aka prisons) for minor infractions of stupid laws. This is nothing new but its getting worse every day.

If Obamacare was really about health care that would be one thing but it isn’t that at all, it puts insurance companies and government agents even MOREso between patients and their doctors which ends up taking infinitely more lives than it saves. Who would pay a couple hundred dollars for a brief office visit if not for insurance benefits? What doctor in his right mind would prescribe potentially harmful medication if not for the pressure he’s under by government agencies to do so with guaranteed immunity from law suits if the medicine kills his patient? Why would anyone vote for that? Why would anyone PAY for that? Well see, they wouldn't and that's why they "need" insurance.

If gun control was about getting criminals off the streets they’d be hunting down killers instead of ticketing and fining mommies and daddies for having gardens in their front yards or saving water in rain barrels, and they sure wouldn’t be showing up twenty minutes AFTER a killer on early parole left you dead in your home because you weren’t armed and he was. Only something like two percent of violent crime actually ends in prosecution and conviction but even they seldom serve their full terms because the jails are so "overcrowded'.

And if the justice system worked as advertised cops wouldn’t be spending weeks and months looking for yet another missing child who was abducted by a known sex offender out of prison early ~ because of overcrowding ~ he would still be locked away from society instead of those poor saps who are guilty only of victimless crimes. They get to serve out their full sentences.


Fix all that and then come back and tell us we can trust the system. Meanwhile ….

Originally posted by Bluesma

I did NOT try to explain them away! I described a point of view that is of other people!

As in almost ALL disagreements and conflics, there are two sides, and both side has a reasoning for what they believe and stand upon! The people who wanted things like gun control or healthcare reform have a particular reasoning- they believe these things are justfiable and a good idea.

Are you actualy suggesting that no one should speak outloud that fact? That we should actually pretend that the other side of the issue is actually people with no reason at all.. they just, I don't know, pulled the ideas out of a hat with little papers on it with all kinds of miscellaneous ideas in it and said "duh..... okay! I'll vote for that!"

I misread your earlier statement, my apologies. I do not, however, agree with your assessment of their definition of gun control.

Firstly, ANY "law" or "statute" that disallows a free citizen of these united states to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, and illegal.

they're not just looking to keep guns away from kids...which is stupid, but that's another discussion ...they're trying to get them all...today it's scary black guns, then it'll be the rest of them....the federal government is trying to violate our constitutional rights, and they are attempting to disarm the citizens. it is wrong.

Have i said anything that isn't fact yet?

As to the voting thing...i don't know how long you've been away from america, but the general population over here has become much less intelligent, and voter fraud has become a serious issue....the problem is that because the people are dumber now, even when they're presented with clear, irrefutable proof of vote tampering, hacked voting machines, dead people voting, and votes literally being thrown in the garbage without being counted, they still call it a conspiracy theory, and laugh at whoever is telling them...

Yes, people voted for obama...and generally, they're "liberals" who want gun control, believe in strong federal government, no state's rights, believe the welfare state is a good thing, and would openly welcome the police state with open arms, because they're too stupid to understand that they're welcoming their own destruction...

now, as i said...that's generally..there are always exceptions, so dont jump on me, for insulting people you may know...there are exceptions..

Look, that might be a fun thing to believe for a second, but it is a very bad tactic for you. Know your enemy is a valuable tactic. Know what is really going on in their heads, know why they do what they do, what they see out their eyes and with their mind.

Maybe you are young and haven't learned that one yet. Try it, you will see it is an effective method.

So now you assume that i'm young and inexperienced at life...i'm not going to tell you anything specific about myself, because honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, it's none of your business....but i can assure you, i've lived quite a while, and i've seen and done quite a bit, and i know my enemy quite well...

Additionally, one thing i take exception to, that you actually did say, is that you keep referring to america as a democracy...and that it's normal for people in a democracy to feel oppressed if they're part of the minority that doesn't get it's way...

We are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy...they're different...the majority is not supposed to lord over the minority, and force things on them...somewhere along the way, the american people were duped into believing that this is a democracy, but is not.

We are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy...they're different...the majority is not supposed to lord over the minority, and force things on them...somewhere along the way, the american people were duped into believing that this is a democracy, but is not.

To all; pay close attention to that statement. I recall when I was young, we had a Pledge of Allegiance.

“I pledge allegiance” (I promise to be true) “to the flag” (to the symbol of our country) “of the United States of America” (each state that has joined to make our country) “and to the Republic” (a republic is a country where the people choose others to make laws for them -- the government is “of, by and for” the people) “for which it stands,” (the flag means the country) “one nation” (a single country) “under God,” (the people believe in a supreme being) “indivisible,” (the country cannot be split into parts) “with Liberty and Justice” (with freedom and fairness) “for all.” (for each person in the country...you and me!)

Gee, I wonder why they wanted to rid the schools of this?

Originally posted by Bluesma

I guess I don't trust them as much as you. It sounds to me like some of them are not real good at thinking rationally. (have you been reading some of their thought process here??)I also suspect that the action would cut off the distribution of things like food, water, gas... things people need to live. This means people having to go into action to survive, and all that goes with that state.

Too much trust is a Very Bad Thing. I understand that, but one thing you CAN trust in is the proclivities of people to act in their own best interests. Randomly shooting unarmed strangers when there are other people trying to very seriously kill you is not in your own best interest - it wastes bullets you may need later. You're mistaken if you think I trust them to act nice - I don't. I trust them to try to survive. Random murder is not a good survival trait. You reach a point (and of this I am CERTAIN) where your own people will shoot you, because you've become too dangerous to be around.

Yes, I've read some of the thought processes here, and you must understand that a lot of it is nothing more than over the top rhetoric in order to try to drive a point home, and much of it is reckless bravado. Some of it is even disinformation, people outputting plans they don't intend to follow, just so they throw their opposition off, have them looking where there is nothing to find and wasting their time.

I don't know if you've seen it, but I have a thread here that digs into some of the supply and demand concerns, and demographics of the situation.

To the people that voted for Obama, they knew what he was going to do. It is not a surprise. They don't feel that these thigns were forced upon them, they feel they chose and voted for them.

I understand that none of it was forced upon them - that they in fact begged for it. More power to them. The problem is that it was forced upon the REST of us, with no discussion, no appeal, and no way out. What's good for them may not be good for the rest of us, and there is no Earthly reason they can't do what they need to for themselves without throwing the same blanket over all of us. None of them has any legitimate claim at all to OUR money or OUR decisions, any more than we have to theirs.

That brings up another point - they should take care of the power they attempt to exercise over the rest of us, because when that power is wielded by OUR hands, they may not like what comes down the pike for THEIR own good. By setting this precedent that a minority can force control on a majority, they may be setting up things that they are not going to like a few years down the road when it's someone else's turn at the wheel.

On the healthcare reform, it was barely mentioned to counter a claim that if the gun question was left alone, there would be no more worry about a revolution.... I used it as an example of one of the many subjects that the people are upset about and that would continue to fuel revolt urges.

You're absolutely right, it IS but one of several problematic flash points. If some people want something, they should have it - but there is no legitimate reason to force others to have the same thing. They are trying to set a very bad precedent, and although not a single one of them would admit it, my stance against it is as much for them, and what THEY may find themselves forced into on down the road, as it is for me.

That goes for the rest, too - it's why I stand against nearly all of it. The precedents they are trying to set by forcing an unwilling, but large, segment of the population into schemes that they have come up with can and WILL be turned against them at some future date. Best not to let it get started. One day it will be the other side's schemes, and THEY will be on the receiving end.

I still doubt it would happen. I don't care what terminology you prefer, I will use whichever works for you- what term refers to "those who desire to start a revolution". I will take back the suggestion that it is the same people who also were supporters of investing in military- in the people I know personally, there is that correlation, but I have no other reaon to believe it is the same for all the revolutionists, and it is not an important point here.

I suppose "revolutionist" or "rebel" ought to pretty well cover the concept. Revolutions are not dependent on a left-right paradigm. Last century, most of the revolutions were prosecuted by the "left", now it is the "right" taking the heat, but here there are as many Democrats up in arms as there are Republicans, and the issue has crossed party lines - perhaps for the first time in my memory. To lay all of the discontent at the feet of "republicans" or "conservatives" (absolutely not the same thing) is to ignore an important part of the equation.

The important point of it is that the military is very advanced and strong, beyond regular firearms.

True as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Too much reliance on the technological factors ignores the human factors, and that would be a strategic mistake. Technology fails far more often than human will, and in fact human will can MAKE technology fail - or become irrelevant.

I have seen entire armored columns halted and then trapped by rag-wearing peasants with just a little ingenuity and an implacable hatred of what those columns contained.

When I try to respond to your post, it will not show half of it! So I have to copy and paste using word and this might get a little mixed up- I'll do my best.

No problem - I do the same.

I don't know about the MSM, honestly. I am not in the US currently and the media in France isn't into this. But in what I have learned of the french revolution, it got very bloody and people went a bit nutso in their elation. When I read some of the peoples thought patterns on this site, I don't feel very sure that they would be very careful, nor that they would worry that much about the life of the "liberal" next to them that voted this administration into being.

Yes, that is a good example of the "aftermath" I spoke of before. It's a factor in all successful revolutions to one extent or another, even the first American Revolution. Several thousand "tories" were forced to flee for their lives when it was over. Most wound up in Canada and in Bermuda, as I recall.

Help me understand how the revolutionaries are going to be discerning about how they use their weapons, I would like to feel more trusting of this.

Who exactly are these revolutionaries going to attack with their guns?
(I don't mean names of course, I mean a rough general idea of who the enemy is for them that is vulnerable to their weapons).

That's a big subject, perhaps one for another thread. I can't for example, go into the principles of guerrilla warfare here, or how guerrilla war eventually morphs into conventional warfare over time. Generally speaking, one shoots at people who are trying to kill them, while remaining mobile themselves. They do not shoot at people who are helping them, nor do they shoot at neutrals - shooting at someone not harming you is a very good way to lose their potential support, and drive them to be active for the opposition. That's how you LOSE a guerrilla war. The general idea is to make the opposition drive them to YOU, and you don't shoot at them as they come running. Instead, you welcome them.

It doesn't matter who they voted for before, it matters where they stand NOW. If they pick the wrong side to stand on, well, they'll get the same treatment the "rebels" would get if the other side were to win. Think deeply on that - what would THEY do to the rebels? That is what they can expect themselves. If that scares them, then I submit that they perhaps ought to re-think their position on a number of things. It speaks more to their own mindset and urges than it does to those of the "rebels".

ETA: The rebels would be fighting the government, government agents, and such "civilians" as picked up arms against them. Everyone else would be mostly in the clear. There is always a criminal element present that will take advantage of the general confusion and mayhem. Everyone - "liberal" and "conservative" alike should fear them, but not make the mistake of equating them with the rebels. Successful rebellions usually execute those types of criminals, for the good of the revolution. It helps to get the people on the side of the rebels, by making them safer, and shows that the rebels have the interest of the people at heart more than the government does.

Note to TL/DR type folks: if you haven't read this far, and aren't reading this, then I don't care. You don't have a long enough attention span or the patience to fight a war anyhow.

Oh look! A butterfly!

Originally posted by Daedalus

they're not just looking to keep guns away from kids...which is stupid, but that's another discussion ...they're trying to get them all...today it's scary black guns, then it'll be the rest of them....the federal government is trying to violate our constitutional rights, and they are attempting to disarm the citizens. it is wrong.

You know, when you really think about it, your average "deer rifle" is just a military-grade sniper rifle with a flashy finish on it, and your average "grouse shotgun" is just a military-grade entry broom, with a mundane finish on it...

Yeah, baby steps lead to running. When "the obvious" is gone, they turn attention to the "less obvious" and make it "more obvious".

Once upon a time, submachine guns were "obvious problems". Now that they are dealt with, semi-auto rifles (of ANY sort, it appears) are the "new obvious problems".

When THEY are dealt with, "sniper rifles in private hands" will be the "new obvious problems".

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


yea but the problem is not just "at the top" it seeps way down into the cracks..............

Originally posted by nenothtu
You know, when you really think about it, your average "deer rifle" is just a military-grade sniper rifle with a flashy finish on it, and your average "grouse shotgun" is just a military-grade entry broom, with a mundane finish on it...

Yeah, baby steps lead to running. When "the obvious" is gone, they turn attention to the "less obvious" and make it "more obvious".

Once upon a time, submachine guns were "obvious problems". Now that they are dealt with, semi-auto rifles (of ANY sort, it appears) are the "new obvious problems".

When THEY are dealt with, "sniper rifles in private hands" will be the "new obvious problems".

and so on, and so on, until the next thing you know, a kid gets 20 to life for making a finger gun, and yelling "bang" at another kid on the playground...but we're not supposed to think that far ahead...we're supposed to shut up, and let it happen....no...no...no...no...

Originally posted by Daedalus
I do not, however, agree with your assessment of their definition of gun control.

Firstly, ANY "law" or "statute" that disallows a free citizen of these united states to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, and illegal.

they're not just looking to keep guns away from kids...which is stupid, but that's another discussion ...they're trying to get them all...today it's scary black guns, then it'll be the rest of them....the federal government is trying to violate our constitutional rights, and they are attempting to disarm the citizens. it is wrong.

Have i said anything that isn't fact yet?

Yes. Since as I said repeatedly, I am describing the opinions and attitudes of very specific individuals (some family members, of whom I gave information about earlier) I know their stance on gun control because they have talked with me about it. I can say with full confidence that you are mistaken about their position.

They have told me clearly that they are for gun control. I explained already that they would like to see better screening for permits and licenses to buy, and perhaps some laws and obligations on learning how to use the weapons and store them safetly. A few of these individuals deal with the mentally ill- my stepmother does evaluations in prisons of the criminally insane (serial killers and such) in particular. Their experiences led them to think that it is all too easy for very mentally ill people to get and use weapons. (as well as the undereducated)

Remember that I was not talking about the federal government- I am talking about civilians. Normal people>. The kind of people who live next door to you. I am not real concerned about the well being of the federal government.

Furthermore, the debate on gun control is a different one and to go into that here would be to derail the topic. If you want to debate that with me, let's meet on a thread on that subject.

]So now you assume that i'm young and inexperienced at life.

What did you think? That you would start your discourse with me with a condescending insult about my needing you to explain things to me and you'd not get the same sort of treatment back?

Additionally, one thing i take exception to, that you actually did say, is that you keep referring to america as a democracy...and that it's normal for people in a democracy to feel oppressed if they're part of the minority that doesn't get it's way...

We are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy...they're different...the majority is not supposed to lord over the minority, and force things on them...somewhere along the way, the american people were duped into believing that this is a democracy, but is not.

Yeah, I've said that a bunch of times on boards. If you go way back you can find some of my posts on this site where I made the same assertion. Except with further research, I found out it is called an "indirect democracy."

reply to post by ajay59


A Republic such as ours is an "Indirect Democracy"
In Indirect, or Representative democracy, citizens elect representatives to make laws on their behalf.
The people have the power to elect their representative; they choose the one with the attitudes, positions, and goals that they want.

That is exactly what I refered to, and what I will stand behind.

Originally posted by nenothtu


I understand that none of it was forced upon them - that they in fact begged for it. More power to them. The problem is that it was forced upon the REST of us, with no discussion, no appeal, and no way out.

Though I understand that sentiment, it is the exact one that I heard from these people earlier, when the Bush's were in office, and they were radically against the choices and decisions being made at that time, that affected their lives, and they felt powerless to influence. The felt forced upon, oppressed and tyranized. I do not mean to play down the intensity of this experience, only point out that for someone like me, who feels a bit distanced from the actual issues, their experience then and yours as you describe it now, are equal.

By setting this precedent that a minority can force control on a majority, they may be setting up things that they are not going to like a few years down the road when it's someone else's turn at the wheel.

I am a bit confused by "this precedent"? I don't know what you refer to there, if you'd like to specify for me.
But whether it be minority or majority, they didn't like what was forced upon them in the earlier years either, so they are familiar with this experience and understand it. But at least for the particular individuals I speak of, they shrug and have the atttitude like "Everyone has to accept not getting their way sometimes. That is life in a group. You grumble and continue on . " Though some of these opinions I am not sure what I feel about, this, I must say, seems to me to be a rational attitude...?

You're absolutely right, it IS but one of several problematic flash points. If some people want something, they should have it - but there is no legitimate reason to force others to have the same thing.

I really hesitate to head down the road of debating the healthcare topic here, because though I have an opinion, if we start getting into that here it will take over the thread. But that is one of my personal objections. One of the things I learned I appreciate in the french system is that no one is obligated to accept social security (and no one can recieve it unless they are legally employed).

But these details were not what these people wanted. They had a general idea of what they wanted... that is what they voted for when they elected the president. But how they feel about the details of the plan, I don't know. I'll see everyone in May and will disuss the subject.

One day it will be the other side's schemes, and THEY will be on the receiving end.

As I pointed out, from their point of view, they WERE on the receiving end already, before! They will probably be so again the future (as the pendalum swings). The only difference being that they expected that will happen through civilized legal channels- like in the future, those who oppose their preferences will vote into office someone with their values.

I ran out of your text again, but when I read it the first time, my response to your explanation of how such a revolt would work, the question in my head is- how can you defend yourself when you are being shot down by drones?? Many of these now can be so high they cannot be seen, much of the technology that would be used against you comes through satelite surviellence and there is no "person" around for you to shoot!

I really wonder if that doesn't change the previous concepts of war of all types...

(by the way, thank you for the civil and polite debate. I appreciate it greatly. )

This strikes me as more of a States Rights vs. Federal Rights, not Liberal vs. Conservative., left vs right.

Originally posted by Bluesma
Though I understand that sentiment, it is the exact one that I heard from these people earlier, when the Bush's were in office, and they were radically against the choices and decisions being made at that time, that affected their lives, and they felt powerless to influence. The felt forced upon, oppressed and tyranized. I do not mean to play down the intensity of this experience, only point out that for someone like me, who feels a bit distanced from the actual issues, their experience then and yours as you describe it now, are equal.

I know of the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and the bank bailouts under Bush. Those were horrendous, inexcusable decisions made by piss-poor "leadership", but they didn't have the same impact on those opposed to them as the current decisions have. They neither abrogated any constitutional rights (the Patriot Act did, but not to the entire population in general) nor did they force any one to purchase anything simply for drawing breath. They took nothing that was not already gone - they just reallocated what we no longer had. It's possible that I'm missing something that personally impacted the lives of the people you speak of. If so, please enlighten me. These event have been a long time building to where we are today, there have been a lot of them, and I can't lay claim to knowing them all.

I am a bit confused by "this precedent"? I don't know what you refer to there, if you'd like to specify for me.

The precedent set by passing surreptitious legislation affecting all, yet ignoring the voices of the affected, which forces them to purchase things from private companies. In effect, guaranteeing private companies an income by governmental edict. That is very near textbook fascism. The precedent set by abrogating constitutional guarantees by bypassing them. That's not just the Second Amendment, but several others as well. Bush did it, and people screamed bloody murder, myself included. Obama continues the tradition, extends the same things and builds further upon them, yet many of the same people who decried Bush's policies sing the praises of Obama's policies which are more of the same. it's very confusing to me, and nonsensical.

But whether it be minority or majority, they didn't like what was forced upon them in the earlier years either, so they are familiar with this experience and understand it.

I'm genuinely curious as to what these people had to give up, what was forced upon them personally. They will have had to give up something in order for me to understand the comparison.

But at least for the particular individuals I speak of, they shrug and have the atttitude like "Everyone has to accept not getting their way sometimes. That is life in a group. You grumble and continue on . " Though some of these opinions I am not sure what I feel about, this, I must say, seems to me to be a rational attitude...?

It's not a matter of "not getting our way", it's a matter of being forced into living theirs. That's not "living in a group", it's life in a hive. That's not what government is for. It's not meant to impose their will on me, it's meant to restrain me from imposing my will on them should I ever decide that's a good idea, and vice versa. It doesn't seem to be working that way any more, and has not for a long time.

America was allegedly founded on an ideal of freedom. Maybe I just have an odd notion of what that is. I think freedom is the liberty to do as I will, so long as I'm not harming anyone else. Under that concept if I harm someone else, then government steps in and corrects that, or restrains me from doing so. It does not force me to DO anything, but it may force me NOT to do something that brings actual harm to someone else.

Life in a group does not imply that everyone must get along, nor does it imply that everyone must live the same way. It only implies that they may not injure one another within that group. Living in the same way as each other is something ants and bees do, not humans.

I really hesitate to head down the road of debating the healthcare topic here, because though I have an opinion, if we start getting into that here it will take over the thread. But that is one of my personal objections. One of the things I learned I appreciate in the french system is that no one is obligated to accept social security (and no one can recieve it unless they are legally employed).

I'm not sure how French Social Security works. I'm not obligated to accept it here either, and as a matter of fact have been assured by government officials that I will never see a dime of mine, in spite of having paid into it for years and years now. I will have to find other ways to survive. It doesn't matter whether the SS system survives or not, I've already been told that I will be out in the cold. I'm fine with that, because that is how it should be, but I do wish that I had a different choice in whether to pay into it or not. Right now, the only choice I have is not to work a gainful job. Still, it's a choice, an option. It's not the government's job to keep me up in my old age.

As I pointed out, from their point of view, they WERE on the receiving end already, before! They will probably be so again the future (as the pendalum swings). The only difference being that they expected that will happen through civilized legal channels- like in the future, those who oppose their preferences will vote into office someone with their values.

See above, and let me know what it is they've had to give up, or had to purchase from private corporations just by virtue of breathing. I'm willing to entertain the notion that they've been on the receiving end, but I'll need a better idea of what that was for them.

I have no intention of voting anyone into office who will force them to do anything at all. It's not my place to decide for them how they should live their lives, and not my place to take their decisions away from them. By voting someone into office who would do that to them, I leave the door open to have it done to ME as well.

I ran out of your text again, but when I read it the first time, my response to your explanation of how such a revolt would work, the question in my head is- how can you defend yourself when you are being shot down by drones?? Many of these now can be so high they cannot be seen, much of the technology that would be used against you comes through satelite surviellence and there is no "person" around for you to shoot!

Without giving away any operational details, I'm not even a little bit concerned with drones. They have to get airborne to begin with to do anything at all from the air, however high. Once airborne, they have to find a target in order to hit it. They're not as scary as everyone thinks. if they were, there would be no Taliban left on the face of the Earth.

Satellite surveillance doesn't scare me, either. It's SURVEILLANCE, not a space borne Gatling Gun. The only "shooting" I do (or even need to do) of the satellites is to shoot them the bird once a day, every day. I may have to stop doing that in the future, though. When you're under surveillance, and think you've got something to hide, the general idea is NOT to draw attention - unless you are intentionally drawing it so that it's not directed somewhere else more important.

I really wonder if that doesn't change the previous concepts of war of all types...

Not so much. All of the basic principles are the same, only the tools and countermeasures have changed. We could ask the Taliban for confirmation of that, because they are STILL around, after nearly 12 years of eradication efforts by those drones and satellites.

(by the way, thank you for the civil and polite debate. I appreciate it greatly. )

My pleasure, and thank YOU - there is nothing to be gained, no progress to be made, no dialog to be had by screaming and spitting. Sometimes that sort of thing may be called for, but this is not one of those times.

Originally posted by Leonidas
This strikes me as more of a States Rights vs. Federal Rights, not Liberal vs. Conservative., left vs right.

Some of it is The People's Rights vs. Federal Rights. For example, the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of The People, not the rights of the States.

The Federal Government seems to be intent on abrogating the rights of both the people AND the States.

reply to post by nenothtu

The precedent set by passing surreptitious legislation affecting all, yet ignoring the voices of the affected, which forces them to purchase things from private companies. In effect, guaranteeing private companies an income by governmental edict. That is very near textbook fascism. The precedent set by abrogating constitutional guarantees by bypassing them. That's not just the Second Amendment, but several others as well.

Forcing people to buy things they don't want always reminds me of one little section in the Arizona Constitution about equal privileges and immunities. The AZ state constitution is the only one I am familiar with but something similar may be found in others). It goes:

Article 2, Section 13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.

www.aacj.org...

Now the way I've always read that has been in the context of insurance companies (groups of individuals and corporations) being granted a privilege that forces other individuals and groups of individuals to buy their products (auto insurance) while not granting that same privilege to other types of companies/industries. That would also apply to any other class of mandatory insurance as well. And lets face it, the ACA is more about insurance than anything to do with quality health care.

It may be a stretch, but this clause would seem to also seem to speak to one group of citizens (anti gunners) prohibiting other citizens or groups of citizens FROM buying or owning items of which they do not approve, and especially the attempt to force them to buy insurance for those products as seven states are already trying to pass regarding gun ownership.

Mandatory insurance is the bain of our existence and some people want MORE of it.