It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Druscilla
Originally posted by Darkphoenix77
Don't be obtuse, you know damn well everyone means the one up to the time our rights started getting usurped with the Patriot Act. Sorry if that sounds blunt, but I can't believe you honestly think anyone means anything different than what I just stated.
Okay, so, if we're going to rewind back to when Dubyah was in office, let's play it out like you were Prez back then.
The towers fall. You're Prez. Show us how to make paradise on earth. You've got 12 whole years to work with!
Go!
Originally posted by Leonidas
reply to post by 31Bravo
Where the heck are people getting the idea that every member of the US military - in any capacity - would fire on citizens just because they were ordered to? Bad movies? Conspiracy Nuts? Alex Jones?
Perhaps a service member may, in a given circumstance, fire on a citizen. There might be isolated incidents. But it is an all volunteer force of people made up of Americans who's main desire in joining was defending the country. And by "defend the country" they mean the people, not the bridges and monuments. (Ok, some joined to get a job, but they arent firing on their neighbors either people!)
Seek out a serving military person in your extended family, or a vetran in your area and talk to them. Get the facts.edit on 26-2-2013 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)
Snipped for brevity...
Originally posted by sajuek
I see this posted a lot, and I'm completely baffled as well as bemused by the shortsightedness of members who claim that the "Free Peoples of the USA" could win an armed conflict against the US government gone full tyrant mode.
Why do they think this?
It could win a civil war easily. Here's why.
Dirty bombs, smallpox & biological warfare
Russia and the USA are the only countries in the world who keep live samples of Smallpox (despite international outcries for them to be destroyed) and they aren't there just for show. I imagine that this, along with any other lovely they have waiting in a lab to unleash on the world would be put to full effect in the case of civil war.
Say, a particularly virulent strain of the Spanish Flu, airborne Ebola, Cholera introduced to all major rivers. Any of these, let alone all of them would completely decimate any effective fighting force in a week and people would run to the government in droves for a cure.
Another surprise for the newly formed revolution would be tactical nuclear weapons and dirty bombs. Radiation poisoning is a bitch and don't think for a second that they wouldn't be used. Historically in conventional war, sides rarely employ chemical weapons because of fear that the enemy will do the same. It's almost a gentlemen's agreement.
Originally posted by 1nquisitive
This O/P is pure pro-gun control rhetoric, and ignores the failed histories of other such oppressors.
Originally posted by HattoriHanzou
Originally posted by 1nquisitive
This O/P is pure pro-gun control rhetoric, and ignores the failed histories of other such oppressors.
On the contrary, the people who want to seize guns out of the hands of law abiding people know the histories of such oppressive actions. Their goal is to repeat them.
Don't even let a gun control advocate try to fool you with their lies about simply wanting to reduce the crime rate. John Lott destroys the idea that this works in his book More Guns, Less Crime. They know that in order to complete a full-bore Commie takeover of the USA, that they need to get the guns out of the hands of the individuals that would use them to destroy their would-be oppressors.
The natural system of the state as we know it will begin to break down in the next 40 to 60 years due to the rising levels of technological innovation and economic cohesion/eventual dissolution.
Originally posted by quietlearner
An armed revolution in USA will NOT win
why?
because there will be no winner
the states will end up divided
warlords will rise to power
and you will end up with another Africa
this is the reality and it gets ignored because it is not fun or heroic
if you were patriotic, if you loved your country, violent revolution would be the last option
last option as in "there is no option left but self-destruction"
because that is what it would be, self-destruction
Originally posted by Variable
reply to post by TheOneElectric
The natural system of the state as we know it will begin to break down in the next 40 to 60 years due to the rising levels of technological innovation and economic cohesion/eventual dissolution.
I think the same was said during the Industrial revolution. What was the camp called that espoused this meme? Luddites, i do believe. Who was right and wrong then? What is different today?
Originally posted by Variable
reply to post by TheOneElectric
The natural system of the state as we know it will begin to break down in the next 40 to 60 years due to the rising levels of technological innovation and economic cohesion/eventual dissolution.
I think the same was said during the Industrial revolution. What was the camp called that espoused this meme? Luddites, i do believe. Who was right and wrong then? What is different today?
V
Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Better to fight than willingly enslave yourself.
Guerilla war is great...it slowly chips away on your enemy until their resources are depleted, they turn on themselves demanding answers, and ultimately lessons are learned. Look at Vietnam...it still exits, fighting worked for them, right?