Here it is the libs are coming after our guns
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
given how much of a pain in the ass I am to the local powers that be, it'd be all too easy to conjure up a few allegations and get a search warrant for drugs, then crash my place and taser me till my heart stopped, and insinuate that such was a result of extensive drug use and coerce a few students to corroborate that for the media, ALL TOO EASY, and it happens more often in our society than anyone but me seems willing to admit.
Oh how very freakin ironic.
Sudden cardiac arrest, Tasering caused man's death after Superior Township drug bust
http://www.annarbor.com/news/tasering-listed-as-a-cause-of-belleville-
mans-death-after-drug-bust-in-superior-township/
Quote:
According to the Oct. 4 report released Thursday afternoon, Jackson was shot with a Taser gun, then drive-stunned twice after police say he engaged in suspected illegal activity and resisted arrest. The report also says that when Jackson was at the hospital, he was given an injection of Lorazepam for agitation, roughly 36 minutes before he died.
The paper doesn't mention it, but this incident had a damn lot to do with a FOIA request the guy was trying to push through, and note they say "suspected drugs" (usually oregano or baking soda from the kitchen dumped into a baggie to look good for the media as they carry it out.) because they know damn well wasn't anything to be found.
And while Detroit might "officially" be pretty bad off, the residents have prettymuch resorted to ignoring Government and taking care of themselves, everything from underground-urban farming (and dodging the DNS bastards and their Monsanto friends regarding it), to tracking down criminals and dumping them on the police doorstep (Jackrabbit, Detroit 300) while not in any way cooperating with the rapacious badge bearing bastards - some communities have even gone as far as to start adding emergency medical transport to their pre-existing contracts with local security firms who not only do what the police wont and protect their community, but often protect their community FROM the police, they don't like their harrassment, abuse and extortion winding up on tape, you know...
And we're still gonna fight em tooth and claw over that posh new MGM Grand Casino HQ they want, bastards wanna live it up in style while the city they prey on starves ?
Not if we have anything to say about it!
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110114/NEWS01/110114
028/1318/Bing-Council-picked-politics-over-public-safety&GID=eDRiA&template=fullarticle
So you gotta understand, I get to see, point blank, real world, every single day just how effective weapons in the hands of joe sixpack are at staving off tyranny, cause the DPD, malicious as it is, is remarkably well-behaved in the presence of a known CCW holder.
And given their obvious propensity for nastiness, the correlation between someone being armed, and their reluctance to agress, is freakin obvious to me.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Story is the Lefts version of Kane (no offense Kane).
Sure, I could see how a simpleton like yourself might think that.
But I post with a higher IQ, broader vocabulary, and better literacy skills, and without the reliance on vulgarity, empty threats, raging racism and homophobia.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Sure, I could see how a simpleton like yourself might think that.
But I post with a higher IQ, broader vocabulary, and better literacy skills...."
So... you are a more elitist version of Kane. Good to know. 
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Good thing the events in Arizona proved that old gun-nut meme that if people were allowed to carry, they'd stop a gunman before they could do much damage.
Oh, wait....
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
Speaking of memes
from the greatest mind of the Cretaceous period, the Philosoraptor
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We, obviously, need to regulate spoons. Commen sense regulations of course. Like smaller spoons!
Or spoons with holes in them!
Won't someone think of how many children will be prevented from being fatties by this?!!
Spoons are made for one thing, and one thing only! Making people fat!
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
We, obviously, need to regulate spoons. Commen sense regulations of course. Like smaller spoons!
Or spoons with holes in them!
Won't someone think of how many children will be prevented from being fatties by this?!!
Spoons are made for one thing, and one thing only! Making people fat!
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
Heroic effort, but you are absolutely wrong! Spoons with holes in them?!?! Are you serious? The picture below illustrates how the fatties have conspired to keep functional spoons no matter what the cost!
They don't understand 'reasonable limits.' All they understand is 'rocky road ice cream,' and the hide their true intentions shameless and cowardly behind the skirts of the music industry. That's why we've taken action against music in all it's forms, starting with the public school system! It's the only way we can ensure our children's safety!
Did you know Asian country's use chop sticks instead of spoons? Did you also know they statistically are far less obese? There is factual proof that spoons and only spoons are the cause of weight gain. I rest my case.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"However, the shell casing remains intact. The bullet and the casing are two separate components of the round. Firing pin imprint, and in the case of a semi-automatic, the extractor claw, will indelibly mark a case."
Hello,
You've forgotten that there is no shell casing.
We are speaking of a silenced revolver, which does not eject shell-casings onto the scene.
Unless you imagine our murderer to empty his shells onto the dead body to make the job of the police easier? That would be like our imagined murderer leaving his knife at the scene of the crime, replete with fingerprints.
The Nagant revolver is the only revolver ever manufactured that can possibly be silenced. It fires the 7.62 Nagant round. Very odd round. The cylinder moves forward to seal the cylinder/barrel gap and prevent gas from escaping. But I'm pretty sure that the shape of the bullet and the odd caliber would be a dead giveaway.
The simplest ways are the best. Do it the Mob way and put a couple of .22 shorts behind the ear. They've got enough energy to get in and not enough to get out. A .22 short, even from an unsilenced pistol, is pretty darn quiet. I had to shoot a rabid skunk that my dogs had crippled. My neighbors were about 40 feet away in their front yard and they never heard the shots. We only talked about it because they heard a commotion from my dogs and smelled the skunk spray.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Sure, I could see how a simpleton like yourself might think that.
But I post with a higher IQ, broader vocabulary, and better literacy skills...."
So... you are a more elitist version of Kane. Good to know.
If you think basic literacy compared to threats of rape to make me elitist.... well no wonder you hillbillies hate people with an education so much.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DAMMIT!
I will not rest until spoons are shorter, less useful!
Spoons are SCARY! Ask any hispanic child (who got spanked with them by their mother...)!
Spoons cause fat! They allow for the easy feeding of people! They must be stopped!
Damn them, those people who dare say spoons are a necessary part of our civilization!
Now there are some who say that criminals could easily get spoons off the street! I say... I have NO ANSWER FOR THAT!
Its the SPOONS that are wrong! Not how they are used! If there was a delicious meal in front of you, and your spoon could not work or could not be found, WOULD YOU BE FAT?!!
I'm willing to say you are dumb enough to say NO!
Join me at the Wulf Centre for Spoon Control! (Dont forget to send lots and lots of money... please, we are starving here..)
TOGETHER WE CAN STOP SPOON RELATED FATNESS!
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fuken spoons....
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just another day in Wulfland:
< /just kidding fool >
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I believe you all are missing the point. Statistically, most people know the food that they are eating and are determined to eat it, buy whatever means necessary. If you take their spoons they'll just use forks and you just see more people getting forked up! Also, silverwere is a thing of the past, a relic. The founding fathers could have never anticipated the sandwiches and finger foods that are responsible for more fatness than all utensil related fatness combined?
Do we mean to do away with all finger foods now? What will we replace our sandwiches with? What will we tell our wives to make us? "Get in the kitchen and make me a... omolette?" Where does this madness end?
Peoples hands and mouths come in different sizes. Spoons make the serving sizes equal. If you ban spoons, you place the women, the children, the old and the infirm at the mercy of those with the biggest mouths, who by the way, could easily obtain silverware illegally. They do it all the time, I know this from watching procedurals like CSI and Law and Order.
God made men, spoons made them civilized.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I think this is a very good point. You don't want to give guns to insane people.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Maybe we have incredibly disfunctional relationships, I'm not sure. I think that gun ownership in these circumstances would make things worse, not better as people who are demonstrating an incredible lack of control in conflict situations would have access to deadlier weapons than they already do.
But the solution is not to take away guns. It is to make those people sane.
One might advocate taking away guns first, temporarily, and returning them when the people are sane. However, while the first is relatively easy, the second is overwhelmingly difficult. Once the first is done, why do the second?
However, if you leave the guns in the hands of the insane, you have a huge incentive now to cure their insanity, which is ultimately the true root of violence. And you'd want to do it as quickly as possible.
When shooting tragedies happen, the first question we need to ask is, "How do we prevent young men and women from going crazy like that?"
.
CTS, to be clear I'm not advocating anything for Americans at all. I don't want the kind of gun ownership that you guys have for where I live, but I'm not sure what you can do once the genie is out of the bottle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The Nagant revolver is the only revolver ever manufactured that can possibly be silenced. It fires the 7.62 Nagant round. Very odd round. The cylinder moves forward to seal the cylinder/barrel gap and prevent gas from escaping. But I'm pretty sure that the shape of the bullet and the odd caliber would be a dead giveaway."
Hello,
The Nagant was the specific Russian gas-sealed revolver I had in mind. Available for a hundred bucks in the current market. Keep in mind that the bullet is not what is uniquely shaped in the revolver. Rather, it is the long casing. Also remember that a .30 inch frangible projectile is not easily discernable from the much more common .32.
A .22 short is not a bad idea, but it requires you to get so close to the target, and it has such anemic power, that I think you'd be better off with a knife or bludgeon in that case. The .22 is so unpredictable a bullet. It can zig-zag, it can ricochet, and it can skirt right around the brainpan without touching the target. .22 wound-channels can be erratic both for good and for ill. Even if you do get the brain... Phineas Gage haunts my imagination.
However, you should feel free to have your imaginary villain use whatever means you prefer. ;-)
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Do we mean to do away with all finger foods now? What will we replace our sandwiches with? What will we tell our wives to make us? "Get in the kitchen and make me a... omolette?" Where does this madness end?
It's an omelette you illiterate hillbilly! You can't even read, how could you possibly think for yourself? This is further proof that the only solution to this problem is increased government intervention. As a whole, people are just not responsible and can't be trusted. They need an intrusive government who has their best interest at heart. We should strive as a country to be more like England or Australia, even though my argument is based off of made up statistics in a place like China.
You must be AURaptors sock puppet!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Won't someone think of the children? Everyday they are eating with these big spoons and just getting fatter... its an epidemic of spoon fatness.
We at the Wulf Centre to Prevent Spoon Fatness support reasonable spoon control. But the National Spoon Association controls too much of the Congress.
We need your support, if we are ever to get reasonable spoon laws enacted.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Right, I knew you were talking about Australia.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTS, to be clear I'm not advocating anything for Americans at all.
When I said, "You don't give to guns to insane people," I meant generic you, not Magonsdaughter you. I was talking about us not giving guns to insane people. Sorry that was confusing.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Right, I knew you were talking about Australia.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTS, to be clear I'm not advocating anything for Americans at all.
When I said, "You don't give to guns to insane people," I meant generic you, not Magonsdaughter you. I was talking about us not giving guns to insane people. Sorry that was confusing.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
That seems like a sane solution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
"2) In case citizens need to revolt against an oppressive government.
Two important things have changed since the time of the FF's. Firstly, the firepower and technology of the state has increased dramatically. Small arms are not really an equaliser...
Also these days the world has discovered peaceful protest as an effective way of shutting down and unseating governments. With this as a viable option, it makes the idea of armed resistance criminally stupid - not just needlessly bloody, but counterproductive (like Hamas)."
Hello,
It continues to boggle my mind.
The U.S. is fighting a never-ending, resource-sapping war against largely disorganized people who are equipped with small-arms, small-explosives, and improvised weapons.
And yet the United States continues to be viewed as unopposeable by these same means.
I agree with the usefulness of peaceful protest, but I do not agree with the naivete' of discounting the alternative. An alternative which proves effective daily in bogging down the efforts and economy of our entire nation.
Afghanistan is slightly smaller than the state of Texas. There are ~438,000 allied troops there, plus the most advanced war machines in our arsenal. Surveillance is constant, and is of our most sophisticated variety. There are no real civil liberties there. We can and do shoot anyone if we even *think* they *might* be a terrorist. We have been fighting this war for over nine years, and have no clear expectation of victory. Allied forces there have suffered nearly 60,000 casualties.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
Hmm, well argued, I've probably been a little dismissive and unimaginative about the prospects of armed citizens' resistance in America. I do still find it hard to picture the scenario... Any government with a firm enough grip to quash mass protests/civil disobedience etc. (which I hope would be the first steps) - and then withstand the fallout from that, would also have a pretty firm grip on the military, and CIA, it seems to me. So you would have a determined and enthusiastic U.S military (assumedly stripped of most of its weak-willed/'traitorous' elements) waging war against U.S citizens who have taken up arms. As I say, it's hard for me to conjure the scenario, without resort to theories of government mass propaganda and military brain-washing, which I'm not a fan of...
But I'll concede, determined citizens with small arms most likely could resist with some effectiveness, in a kind of attritional guerilla campaign. It might be little more than nuisance value, I'm not sure (U.S citizens would likely not have some advantages that Iraqi/Afghan insurgents have had, like home advantage, poor infrastructure, safe havens/foreign backers in neighbouring countries, willing suicide bombers and tolerance of civilian casualties etc.)
So I wouldn't say citizen gun ownership is a vital barrier/obstacle to tyrannical government (there are others), nor a formidable one - but it is an obstacle, and has some deterrent value, so there is an argument for it. :-/
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't forget spoons.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You see, this is why you'd never make it as a criminal, Anthony - your brain just ain't wired that way.
You wanna off someone, here's how ya do it.
First thing ya do, get dressed, jeans, sweater, flannel shirt, cap, like every damn body else around here, only you put on surgical gloves and then knit gloves over em so you're covered for prints without bein really obvious about it and all.
Then you go down to the airport and rent a car, something ridiculously anonymous, go ahead and card it, don't matter none - drive it down to the red light district and put it in one of them parking garages nearby, take yourself a walk down to the corner, and when the local pushers make their approach, get them to hook you up with a gat, they'll be more than glad to sell you a nine real cheap, no doubt stolen and maybe with a body or two already on it, this is what you WANT but go on and play it cool... I'd say get em to throw in some bullets but even the dumbest punk around here isn't gonna hand you ammo for it and stand the risk of being robbed with the piece he just sold you, so slip up the street a bit and buy a box of crummy ass nine-mil and some smokes from one of the bodegas and pay cash, ain't no one even gonna notice.
Then you find somewhere discreet to load it, and hump it or hop a bus to your target, depending on how far.
You spot em out, follow em, get em somewhere relatively discreet, and storm rush, get in close and fill them with lead, give em six, seven, real quick, point blank, all in the torso, no fancy shit - you put ENOUGH lead in someone from that range, they're gone no matter what, then you roll em up, watch-wallet-rings-cellphone (you DROP the cellphone on the way off though, like you fumbled it) and get the hell gone.
Won't nobody come lookin, a salvo like that, the locals might call it in, but sure as shit they're not stickin their heads up or coming to investigate any time soon.
So you hump it or lump it back to the red light district and pick up your car from the garage, and on your way out, you cut through one of them dark alleys and pitch the piece and the loot out the window, don't even slow down, them skells will be on it before it hits the ground, and whichever one bags the piece will wind up with the rest, sure enough.
You drop off the rental, go home, take a shower, do a little laundry, no worries.
Now, damn good chance, almost a certainty, this'll wind up pitched in the "drug related" file and forgotten, oh-what-a-tragedy, hand me another double-glazed, eh ?
Rare, outside chance, someone rolls the skell when he tries to fence the loot, and you really think the cops are gonna buy whatever bullshit story about where he got the stuff ? oh hell no.
And being a skell, prolly with priors and holding a hot piece, they're gonna beat a confession out of him quick enough, and maybe close off a couple cases on it, for them it's win-win.
For you too, cause that's the end of the story right there, innit now ?
Now, one in a million chance, your target was high profile enough to warrant actual investigation, AND the investigator is some hot-shit sherlock type, at BEST all they'll get from anyone is that airport rental sticker, and the first thing hot-shot boy is gonna think is professional hit, at which point he goes off barking up the wrong tree never to be seen again.
And in the one in a billion chance that someone, somewhere, got the plate, and they ask YOU about it, you *already* got a flawless alibi.
"Look man, I was gettin a blowjob and didn't want my wife/girlfriend catchin wise, ok ?
So what'd she look like ?
Fuck man, I wasn't lookin at her FACE...
Come on, give us something!
Screw you, get my lawyer!"
Even if they don't dump it then, they'll wind up chasing their own damn tails lookin for that hooker, as the case gets colder and colder, and no way could they coach one well enough to slip it past even the dumbest of judges, so they got nothin, jack diddly shit.
And THAT, old friend, is how this kinda thing is done.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind Go
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
"2) In case citizens need to revolt against an oppressive government.
Two important things have changed since the time of the FF's. Firstly, the firepower and technology of the state has increased dramatically. Small arms are not really an equaliser...
Also these days the world has discovered peaceful protest as an effective way of shutting down and unseating governments. With this as a viable option, it makes the idea of armed resistance criminally stupid - not just needlessly bloody, but counterproductive (like Hamas)."
Hello,
It continues to boggle my mind.
The U.S. is fighting a never-ending, resource-sapping war against largely disorganized people who are equipped with small-arms, small-explosives, and improvised weapons.
And yet the United States continues to be viewed as unopposeable by these same means.
I agree with the usefulness of peaceful protest, but I do not agree with the naivete' of discounting the alternative. An alternative which proves effective daily in bogging down the efforts and economy of our entire nation.
Afghanistan is slightly smaller than the state of Texas. There are ~438,000 allied troops there, plus the most advanced war machines in our arsenal. Surveillance is constant, and is of our most sophisticated variety. There are no real civil liberties there. We can and do shoot anyone if we even *think* they *might* be a terrorist. We have been fighting this war for over nine years, and have no clear expectation of victory. Allied forces there have suffered nearly 60,000 casualties.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
Hmm, well argued, I've probably been a little dismissive and unimaginative about the prospects of armed citizens' resistance in America. I do still find it hard to picture the scenario... Any government with a firm enough grip to quash mass protests/civil disobedience etc. (which I hope would be the first steps) - and then withstand the fallout from that, would also have a pretty firm grip on the military, and CIA, it seems to me. So you would have a determined and enthusiastic U.S military (assumedly stripped of most of its weak-willed/'traitorous' elements) waging war against U.S citizens who have taken up arms. As I say, it's hard for me to conjure the scenario, without resort to theories of government mass propaganda and military brain-washing, which I'm not a fan of...
But I'll concede, determined citizens with small arms most likely could resist with some effectiveness, in a kind of attritional guerilla campaign. It might be little more than nuisance value, I'm not sure (U.S citizens would likely not have some advantages that Iraqi/Afghan insurgents have had, like home advantage, poor infrastructure, safe havens/foreign backers in neighbouring countries, willing suicide bombers and tolerance of civilian casualties etc.)
So I wouldn't say citizen gun ownership is a vital barrier/obstacle to tyrannical government (there are others), nor a formidable one - but it is an obstacle, and has some deterrent value, so there is an argument for it. :-/
It's not personal. It's just war.
Well, not so fast kpo. An armed uprising in the US would topple our government in days. See, we are having a hard enough time in the middle east(as Anthony pointed out), can you imagine it here? First the size of our country is a major factor. Then you have to factor in that we are not arabs half way around the world. The men and women in our military, cia, local law would not turn guns on us. In fact a large majority would fight with their neighbors and family against their employer. We Americans have an extremly high internal value on freedom and nationalism...especially when threatened. Most people I know in the military have already said that their first responsibility is to the constitution and families and view their mili
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It would take days to topple this government...if we had guns."
Hello,
The trick is the hard part. It is a very hard part.
The trick is getting a serious percentage of everyone to revolt. I can't begin to imagine how horrible things would have to become to motivate a serious percentage of our populace into that.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This has gone on far too long, predictably, since I was last here to read the whole thing. Besides, I probably know everything that was written. So I stopped at the first two posts, since it was obvious where it was going.Quote:
Had to hit that one; first, he was anything BUT a "leftie commie", obviously by now everyone knows that. Second, it's a shame you can't make even a stupid point without misspelling "shudder".
Think one lefty commie shooting a congresswomen is bad...I shutter to think what real Americans will do to their congress people when they come for the guns...
I think the idea of a revolt in this country is absurd, and again, I'm sure I'm the lone holdout (or one of the very few). I did read the last couple of posts, and among the quotes and what people wrote, I guess I'm not the only one.
The comparison of Afghanistan to the US is not valid, in my opinion. If there were armed resistance in America, yes, it would take virtually the whole COUNTRY to revolt, and given those who've been talking in gun terms have been talking to their VERY TINY base, I don't see it happening. I also don't see us having a legislature stupid enough to try the kind of tyranny openly that would cause enough people to "raise up" to fight it. They do quite nicely, thank you, as it is.
I just think it's stupid to imagine our government become that tyrannical, and/or enough people taking up arms to be even slightly effective at anything. This isn't 1776, it's a whole different world.
It amuses me to see reactions here--not just to guns. We are an unquestionably reactionary bunch, which I hope (and believe) doesn't reflect the majority of the population. We're a thinking bunch, too, which also is not reflective of the majority of Americans.
But we're an awful black-and-white bunch, in the case of many. It's all or nothing; the government is the bad guy and in danger of destroying us, or whatever, and every SINGLE thing is immediately grasped as a conspiracy by some, there is no concept it might NOT be. We speak in very extreme terms on almost every issue, even leaving aside the personal attacks.
Says more about "Firefly" to me than it does about Joss, which is interesting in what a number of people are attracted to about it. Would be interesting to see profiles of each of us--especially those who see thing in every black-and-white terms (not counting those who are already off the deep end). But then, that would probably be viewed as a conspiracy...or an effort to enslave any opposition...or a conspiracy to enslave any opposition...
In my opinion, Maddow also made another good point; if there is NO conscription on the owning of weapons because we might have to overthrow the government, then it should be legal for all of us to own tanks, and everything up to and including nuclear weapons. Like I said, black-and-white, and it's all in where you draw the line. Me, I'd draw it at 30-round clips and some automatic weapons. They'd be useless against an armed government put-down and otherwise are only good for mass murder. Strangely, I think we managed to survive the restrictions against those clips for several years...
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magazines. Clips feed magazines. Magazines feed weapons.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whatever. Everyone understood what I was saying.
Strikes me how funny it is, people about their guns. The title of this thread says it all; any tiny thing, and omigawd, the liberals are coming after our guns!!!! 
We're all gonna DIE! They're gonna GET US! 
...have to pry 'em out of my cold, dead hands... 
The recent run on those magazines in gun shops is a perfect example...ANYTHING happens with regard to guns, and the gun bunnies freak out. Funny.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Try to imagine that unlimited marijuana use had recently been made legal after years of prohibition.
Everyone interested in using the herb rejoiced.
But, from time to time, something happens that empowers the anti-weed lobby. Maybe someone high on marijuana commits a crime, or runs someone over. There is talk about limiting sales of the herb, so that you can no longer get as much of it as you'd like.
At those times, people fearful of future prohibitions might buy up a lot of marijuana at the local outlet. So that there's extra on hand to counteract the future constriction on supply.
In other words, there's no sponge like the Today sponge.
Everyone has something they enjoy that they'd prefer not to do without.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Whatever. Everyone understood what I was saying.
Not arguing against your opinion. Just correcting the terminology. You present a better case that way.
Quote:
Strikes me how funny it is, people about their guns. The title of this thread says it all; any tiny thing, and omigawd, the liberals are coming after our guns!!!!
...have to pry 'em out of my cold, dead hands...
The recent run on those magazines in gun shops is a perfect example...ANYTHING happens with regard to guns, and the gun bunnies freak out. Funny.
Same can be said of the liberals, nanny staters or the label of your choice. Any one incident and omigawd, guns are evawl!!!!
We're all gonna DIE! They're gonna GET US! You forgot about the run on guns and ammo when 0b0m0 got in office. Of course I am counting on that panic buying. Sooner or later those guns, magazines and ammunition will hit the market for resale. Patience can turn a profit.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm still curious as to when Peter King (R-NY) became a "lib". After all, he's the one who proposed making it a crime to carry a firearm within 1000' of a government official. Seems pretty broad and overarching to me.
Meanwhile, that great "socialist" Obama signed such offensive, draconian, knee-jerk laws as the one that allows Americans to carry firearms in our national parks.
Damned dirty liberal! There he goes again, trying to take our guns. Trying to take them to a nice day at the park, it seems...
This Space For Rent!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
1934. FDR. Progressive president. Founder of numerous entitlement programs. Supporter of the NFA. 2011-1934=77 years. Nearly 80 years.
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act (interesting, modeled after Nazi Germany's 1938 Law on Weapons by Senator Thomas Dodd. http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm )
1972 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms created
1986 Law Enforcement Officer's Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the ones in '72, '86, and '90 signed by GOP Presidents? Not too often do I hear names like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush bandied about as "progressives" with the likes of FDR and Clinton, but thanks for confirming that there really are no conservatives anymore.
This Space For Rent!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The men and women in our military, cia, local law would not turn guns on us.
Excellent - and this is exactly my point
Why then do you need guns to bring down the government, why can't you do it peacefully? Think of tyrannical regimes that have quelled non-violent mass protests - Iran, Zimbabwe are two recent examples. The government succeeded by turning the state security services on the people: violently breaking up the protests, rounding up the leaders and beating/imprisoning them. You say this wouldn't happen in America, and I agree! So what's the role for guns then? If anything they give an excuse to the security services to be heavy-handed, and a license for a tyrannical government to be tyrannical...This is why I say I find a scenario where armed resistance is required hard to conjure. It would have to be a tyrannical government that somehow still had loyal (or at least 'firm') control of the security services.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The men and women in our military, cia, local law would not turn guns on us. In fact a large majority would fight with their neighbors and family against their employer. We Americans have an extremly high internal value on freedom and nationalism...especially when threatened. Most people I know in the military have already said that their first responsibility is to the constitution and families and view their military lives as a job. Would you kill your neighbors and friends if your boss asked? Shit we had guys in Nam kill their superiors all the time, because they didn't like the orders. This is true for congressmen, police, cia, etc.....
I disagree, bitterly.
Firstoff, ever since those infamous surveys and a pathetic but still sufficient resistance to the idea of shooting civvies for not handing over their guns, military training and conditioning has been enhanced and altered to solve that little problem - they WILL do it, absolutely and without question, tell me, did even ONE SINGLE MEMBER of the 82nd Airborne ground arms and refuse to confiscate arms during that mess in New Orleans, even ONE ?
No, they did not - and most of the folks they're training for "Homeland Security" are conditioned to see us as commie-librul terror-symps and so on and so forth, all but waiting the day they get to put us in our place, shit man, they're currently training for domestic civil unrest suppression, house to house work and mass incarceration, or have you not been LISTENING to me alluding to our surveillence and harrassment of such activities here in MI - since one of them damn camps, Grayling, is located up here, they even have specially designed armor units just for this purpose.
And remember all those cops who said they'd never, ever, ever help suppress the populace, who then went RUNNING down there for the extra bonus and overtime, and not only did it, but gleefully ?
The same guys you see talking such a good game, and then see later clubbing protestors with an obvious hard on and a BIG smile on their face ?
Shit man, you'd think TSA would have a hard time finding pyschos willing to feel people up at the airport, right - but our society breeds jackboot lickers and authoritarian nutters like fucking rabbits, man, only recently have we seen ANY progress in stemming the tide.
A very LARGE percentage of these goons, especially the alphabet boys, would practically come in their pants at the notion of being ALLOWED to slaughter americans who didn't toe the line, got that "Oh yeah, NOW we'll show em, hoo-rah!" fuckin attitude, and every single one of you knows it, but just doesn't wanna believe it....
Because you KNOW, you would have to kill them, and that is something you really do not wanna talk about, think about, that you would have to slaughter your own countrymen too, who found the jackboot a better fit that freedom and got off on the power it gave em - and on top of that some percentage of em will get away, slither under a rock and pray for forgiveness and short memories...
Only to slither out once again when the opportunity presents itself, as it will, history is unforgiving about that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DyingLikeAnimals
Quote:
Jackals: "Finally, we have a strong leader ready to put those malcontents in their places! Where do I sign up?!"
Jackals are like Lemmings and Snakes: they eagerly collaborate with the villain because they think his campaign of terror and genocide are just causes. Whether it's out of hate, fanaticism, or ignorance, they prefer the villain's despotism to a more benevolent regime. Usually they're harmless once the villain is dethroned: their prejudice comes out only when the bad guys are in power.
Look anywhere in our society there is an official uniform, and odds are you'll find packs of jackals underneath em, many of em.
And how to you plan to DEAL with that, I ask you ?
Cause nobody seems to LIKE *my* answer.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
The men and women in our military, cia, local law would not turn guns on us. In fact a large majority would fight with their neighbors and family against their employer. We Americans have an extremly high internal value on freedom and nationalism...especially when threatened. Most people I know in the military have already said that their first responsibility is to the constitution and families and view their military lives as a job. Would you kill your neighbors and friends if your boss asked? Shit we had guys in Nam kill their superiors all the time, because they didn't like the orders. This is true for congressmen, police, cia, etc.....
I disagree, bitterly.
Firstoff, ever since those infamous surveys and a pathetic but still sufficient resistance to the idea of shooting civvies for not handing over their guns, military training and conditioning has been enhanced and altered to solve that little problem - they WILL do it, absolutely and without question, tell me, did even ONE SINGLE MEMBER of the 82nd Airborne ground arms and refuse to confiscate arms during that mess in New Orleans, even ONE ?
No, they did not - and most of the folks they're training for "Homeland Security" are conditioned to see us as commie-librul terror-symps and so on and so forth, all but waiting the day they get to put us in our place, shit man, they're currently training for domestic civil unrest suppression, house to house work and mass incarceration, or have you not been LISTENING to me alluding to our surveillence and harrassment of such activities here in MI - since one of them damn camps, Grayling, is located up here, they even have specially designed armor units just for this purpose.
And remember all those cops who said they'd never, ever, ever help suppress the populace, who then went RUNNING down there for the extra bonus and overtime, and not only did it, but gleefully ?
The same guys you see talking such a good game, and then see later clubbing protestors with an obvious hard on and a BIG smile on their face ?
Shit man, you'd think TSA would have a hard time finding pyschos willing to feel people up at the airport, right - but our society breeds jackboot lickers and authoritarian nutters like fucking rabbits, man, only recently have we seen ANY progress in stemming the tide.
A very LARGE percentage of these goons, especially the alphabet boys, would practically come in their pants at the notion of being ALLOWED to slaughter americans who didn't toe the line, got that "Oh yeah, NOW we'll show em, hoo-rah!" fuckin attitude, and every single one of you knows it, but just doesn't wanna believe it....
Because you KNOW, you would have to kill them, and that is something you really do not wanna talk about, think about, that you would have to slaughter your own countrymen too, who found the jackboot a better fit that freedom and got off on the power it gave em - and on top of that some percentage of em will get away, slither under a rock and pray for forgiveness and short memories...
Only to slither out once again when the opportunity presents itself, as it will, history is unforgiving about that.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DyingLikeAnimalsQuote:
Jackals: "Finally, we have a strong leader ready to put those malcontents in their places! Where do I sign up?!"
Jackals are like Lemmings and Snakes: they eagerly collaborate with the villain because they think his campaign of terror and genocide are just causes. Whether it's out of hate, fanaticism, or ignorance, they prefer the villain's despotism to a more benevolent regime. Usually they're harmless once the villain is dethroned: their prejudice comes out only when the bad guys are in power.
Look anywhere in our society there is an official uniform, and odds are you'll find packs of jackals underneath em, many of em.
And how to you plan to DEAL with that, I ask you ?
Cause nobody seems to LIKE *my* answer.
-Frem
I doNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
1934. FDR. Progressive president. Founder of numerous entitlement programs. Supporter of the NFA. 2011-1934=77 years. Nearly 80 years.
1938 Federal Firearms Act
1968 Gun Control Act (interesting, modeled after Nazi Germany's 1938 Law on Weapons by Senator Thomas Dodd. http://jpfo.org/common-sense/cs34.htm )
1972 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms created
1986 Law Enforcement Officer's Protection Act
1990 Crime Control Act
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
All these laws, at a Federal Level, and can you honestly say the streets are safer than they were in 1937?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the ones in '72, '86, and '90 signed by GOP Presidents? Not too often do I hear names like Nixon, Reagan, and Bush bandied about as "progressives" with the likes of FDR and Clinton, but thanks for confirming that there really are no conservatives anymore.
This Space For Rent!
Oh absolutely, and the worst of the bunch? Reagan. The 1986 law he signed in created a de facto ban on new machine guns. You see, it created a machine gun registry. No new machine gun receivers (the part the ATF considers the actual gun) could be created without being entered into the registry. Of course the registry has never been funded and this has artificially raised the cost of machine guns, since demand now outstrips supply.
It was a poison pill provision slipped into a piece of legislature that Reagan wanted. Just like that carry in national parks law that 0b0m0 signed into law. It was a poison pill provision slipped into a piece of legislation that 0 wanted.
You see, Thomas Jefferson said that the beauty of the 2nd amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away. Food for thought, that.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Case in point, our own Wulfie here, who CLAIMS to stand for the Constitution and all those warm and fuzzies like "liberty" and "honor" of which he knows absolutely nothing but what's been presented to him via vidscreen... yet when given half a chance and half a voice, he'll GLADLY round up all those "enemies", all those "libs/progs", all those "hippies" he hates so much, all those people who are merely following THEIR OWN VERSION OF WHAT HE CALLS "LIBERTY" - he'd round them up, deport them, grind them under his heel, smash his boot into their face, stomp their faces into the curb, all for having the temerity to not follow HIS particular beliefs.
And he has said this more than a few times here. Make no mistake, this is EXACTLY what his kind are after, and Kane as well.
This Space For Rent!
see that is what would worry me about having a large population armed to the teeth with a philosophy of rising up against 'tyranny', especially given the recent hyperbole of the right who currently see health care reforms, all taxation, all government funded services as being a direct threat to their tyranny. That and talk about '2nd amendment solutions'. If you had enough people who actually believed all of this, then you could easily find yourself in a civil war situation, especially given the polarised debate that exists in the US. That would frighten me quite a bit. A lot of extremists marching on washington who don't like government policy and are in a state of mind to kill fellow countrymen. That's scary shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
you could easily find yourself in a civil war situation...
That's what has me bashing people over the head with the fact of WHAT THAT WILL COST, not in money, mind you, but in every way that matters the cost of such a thing is so horrific as to be all but unmentionable - and so they don't mention it, never address it, don't acknowledge it, as if they can pretend it into non-existence.
I refuse to let that happen, cause if folks work themselves into believing otherwise, into forgetting just what an atrocity that would be, go on thinkin it'll be all quick and easy....
That's when people do some terribly stupid shit, yeah.
Mind you, that's why I hated the ending of V for Vendetta - cause it fed that quick-n-easy myth, which it ain't, never was, never will be, but people don't wanna FACE that, and soooo.
Which is why I am so damn anvilicious about beating them over the head with it.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
you could easily find yourself in a civil war situation...
That's what has me bashing people over the head with the fact of WHAT THAT WILL COST, not in money, mind you, but in every way that matters the cost of such a thing is so horrific as to be all but unmentionable - and so they don't mention it, never address it, don't acknowledge it, as if they can pretend it into non-existence.
I refuse to let that happen, cause if folks work themselves into believing otherwise, into forgetting just what an atrocity that would be, go on thinkin it'll be all quick and easy....
That's when people do some terribly stupid shit, yeah.
Like invading Iraq, for one. People forget the horror of war, or think we've managed to "sanitize" it. Just because we don't see it on the news, doesn't mean it isn't happening.
This Space For Rent!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sometimes, peace doesn't work.
Originally posted by kpo:
Why then do you need guns to bring down the government, why can't you do it peacefully?
Quote:Case in point.
Think of tyrannical regimes that have quelled non-violent mass protests - Iran, Zimbabwe are two recent examples.
Quote:I wouldn't say that. It most definitely COULD happen in America. It isn't there right now, but it's heading in that direction.
You say this wouldn't happen in America, ...
Quote:For when it gets so bad that non-violent measures would be violently quashed.
So what's the role for guns then?
Quote:By the time violence is used against the govt, they are ALREADY heavy-handed and tyrannical.
If anything they give an excuse to the security services to be heavy-handed, and a license for a tyrannical government to be tyrannical...
There is a time and place and method for non-violent protests. You try that first. But if it doesn't work (as in the case of Iran, for example), it is time to simply defend oneself with arms. If the Iranian people had arms, they would be having an armed revolution now.
Quote:ALL tyrannical governments that have ever existed had loyal security services, from Rome to Czar's Russia to modern Iran. How else would they be tyrannical if they didn't have the means?
It would have to be a tyrannical government that somehow still had loyal (or at least 'firm') control of the security services.
Revolution occurs when citizens clash with the security services.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
...especially given the recent hyperbole of the right who currently see health care reforms, all taxation, all government funded services as being a direct threat to their tyranny.
You're mixing different groups of people here. The ones who are rabid about the health care reforms (Tea Party folk)--they aren't against all taxation. After all, they want their War against Terror, a large military, and heavily patrolled borders. That doesn't come free. They aren't against all govt funded services, just those for poor people. For all their incendiary rhetoric, they won't ever take over the govt because they need THIS govt for their goals.
The ones against all taxation and all govt services, like myself--we're in the very small minority. These are the hardcore libertarians. There are not enough of us to take Waco, with it's cult leader and a bunch of women and kids, let alone the govt.
Like with the use of a nuclear weapon, you need to piss off a sizable number of extremist nuts.
Quote:It's the same scary shit that started the American Revolution. What did they revolt for? A tax on tea?
A lot of extremists marching on washington who don't like government policy and are in a state of mind to kill fellow countrymen. That's scary shit.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If anything they give an excuse to the security services to be heavy-handed, and a license for a tyrannical government to be tyrannical..."
Hello,
I am always aghast at this sort of suggestion.
It's like saying, 'She deserved it for dressing like that.'
Making yourself utterly defenseless before a potentially tyrannical power does not strike me as the best means for stopping tyranny.
"Oh, but if you hadn't been so potentially dangerous, they wouldn't have needed to violate you" sounds pretty repugnant to me.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
ALL tyrannical governments that have ever existed had loyal security services, from Rome to Czar's Russia to modern Iran.
Yep, I and Kane were working on the agreed premise that US citizens working in the military and security services would not obey tyrannical orders against their fellow citizens... (or it's hard to conceive of a scenario where they would)
So Kane's in my camp now; but I never assumed everyone would agree with mine and Kane's premise. Some people think that a US government could conceivably wield the state security services tyrannically against the people successfully (and even I don't rule it out, just find it hard to imagine). With these ppl I simply point out that revolting against a government with such a tight grip on power would be a potentially bloody disaster - like the Shia uprising against Sadaam after the first Gulf War, or the Warsaw uprising against the Nazis in 1944.
Quote:
If the Iranian people had arms, they would be having an armed revolution now.
Perhaps... Be careful what you wish for, the US government encouraged the Shia in Iraq to take up armed resistance against Sadaam - and they were quickly brutally crushed. Part of me would have liked to see an armed uprising in Zimbabwe long ago - but I cannot say that it would definitely succeed, or even that it would be worth the cost.
From Wikipedia on the Warsaw uprising:
Quote:
Although the exact number of casualties remains unknown, it is estimated that about 16,000 members of the Polish resistance were killed and about 6,000 badly wounded. In addition, between 150,000 and 200,000 civilians died, mostly from mass murders conducted by troops fighting on the German side. German casualties totaled over 2,000 soldiers killed, 7,000 missing, and 9,000 wounded. During the urban combat approximately 25% of Warsaw's buildings were destroyed. Following the surrender of Polish forces, German troops systematically leveled 35% of the city block by block.
A dispute I have with you Americans is that I think the idea of tyranny that you have in your heads is the very genteel and quaint brand of 'tyranny' that we British imposed on you -taxation without representation or whatever. I still have strong doubts that an armed US citizens' uprising could succeed against REAL tyranny. All I know is it would be bloody.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"If anything they give an excuse to the security services to be heavy-handed, and a license for a tyrannical government to be tyrannical..."
Hello,
I am always aghast at this sort of suggestion.
It's like saying, 'She deserved it for dressing like that.'
Making yourself utterly defenseless before a potentially tyrannical power does not strike me as the best means for stopping tyranny.
"Oh, but if you hadn't been so potentially dangerous, they wouldn't have needed to violate you" sounds pretty repugnant to me.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying I would condone or approve of the subsequent tyranny, only that it would give the government an excuse - or a pretext.
My wording could've been better I'll admit.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree, Hardware...it’s always fascinated me how easily people can be stirred up to act out of fear.
KPO, wonderfully said, and exactly how I feel!
And yeah, Mike, I noticed that a long time ago. Problem is, I don’t think HE’D actually do it; he wants a government in place that will do it for him...then, of course, he’d grouse about that government infringing on “liberties”...
Magons, yup, but don’t worry about it; will never happen. We’re just too big and too independent of thought for anyone to get enough of an “army” to do anything serious. Small “cults”, sure, but they end up only able to control their own little populations, or being taken down by the government. It’s not something I fear; far more I fear this stupid gun rhetoric convincing enough idiots LIKE Wulf that it’s possible, and the blood that would flow as a result. As Frem said,Quote:
That about says it; enough rhetoric encouraging people to think along those lines, and you’ve got a damned bad situation, little more.
I refuse to let that happen, cause if folks work themselves into believing otherwise, into forgetting just what an atrocity that would be, go on thinkin it'll be all quick and easy....
That's when people do some terribly stupid shit, yeah.
And yeah, Frem, I agree about V; for me that was just a great visceral outlet, and I enjoyed the black-and-white terms of it...because it was a MOVIE, and they’re for getting entertained, not taking as reality (of course Wulf’s not listening...). Case in point, the mentality CTTS exhibits. Far too many people ALREADY think that way, so they don’t need encouraging. America will never be overthrown, from within or without, mostly ‘cuz of our size and diversity. Now, if the states were to break up, that would be a different matter, but I doubt that will happen in anyone alive’s foreseeable future either. It’s just too easy for people to think in black and white and forget all the consequences...talk about visceral!
We’re not headed for tyranny, far from it. The current rhetoric may make some people believe we are, which makes me sad for them. Too much energy/thought directed toward what I see as idiocy is always sad. Even sadder would be if they DID get their wish!
Ditto KPO again:Quote:
Too many people view uprising as romantic and that it would unquestionably bring about what they want, without really knowing WHAT they want in the first place.
The dispute I have with you Americans is that I think the idea of tyranny that you have in your heads is the very genteel and quaint brand of 'tyranny' that we British imposed on you -taxation without representation or whatever. I still have strong doubts that an armed US citizens' uprising could succeed against REAL tyranny. All I know is it would be bloody.
Mostly I suppose I just think it's silly--when you contrast America with REAL tyranny, we're just a bunch of spoiled kids throwing a tantrum 'cuz mom tells us to eat our veggies. In contrast to the vast majority of the rest of the world, we ARE terribly spoiled, in my opinion.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Too many people view uprising as romantic and that it would unquestionably bring about what they want, without really knowing WHAT they want in the first place.
Mostly I suppose I just think it's silly--when you contrast America with REAL tyranny, we're just a bunch of spoiled kids throwing a tantrum 'cuz mom tells us to eat our veggies. In contrast to the vast majority of the rest of the world, we ARE terribly spoiled, in my opinion.
We are living on the dividend of massive investment during the depression and in the post war years when we were incredibly flush from a total employment, even over-employment economy. There was a post-war recession, but ultimately our economy boomed and we had massive technological adavances in part due to the space race.
Unfortunately, the massive dividends have been squandered on entitlement programs. We've incentivized people to have children they cannot support and now there's no way to cut the incentives without a political backlash on any party that does the cutting. Entitlements now account for twice the amount of military spending the US federal budget does. Getting the government into the retirement and aid to the poor business has been demonstrated aptly to be a bad idea. Unfortunately it's a pit trap with no way out.
So, the amazing Hardware will now progonosticate on the future.
Within 15 years the US debt will grow to such proportions that nobody will be willing to extend credit to us.
The lack of credit to the federal budget will force the government to go on a starvation diet.
Wealthier states will start with complaints about paying more than their fair share. The complaints will grow until they refuse to pay out more in taxes to the federal government than they take in.
Military forces will be used to bring these "rebel" states back into line.
Meanwhile the end of entitlement programs will cause a run on the banks and dissolve the Federal Reserve system, as it collapses under it's own weight.
With no national body to create currency left, regional banks that remain solvent will begin to print their own fiat currencies. Several will collapse under mismanagement.
During this period of unrest and uncertainty, cities will become uninhabitable as decaying infrastructure and lack of resources makes it impossible to bring food and materials to the city centers. The remains will become abandoned wrecking yards that will be mined for materials.
With a growing distrust of fiat currencies the government(s) will have no choice but to issue bullion based currencies or bullion coinage.
With a resource based currency in place, the economy can now be rebooted and real, sustainable growth can occur.
May it please God that I am dead and buried before this comes to pass.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What mentality is that?
Originally posted by Niki2:
Case in point, the mentality CTTS exhibits. Far too many people ALREADY think that way,....
I believe our govt COULD become tyrannical enough that a sizable portion might revolt. But it doesn't mean it WILL happen or that it will happen soon. COULD simply means possible. It doesn't mean probable.
The only thing I've advocated is keeping our right to own arms, as a deterrent against tyranny. (It is very similar to the idea that if the other side has nuclear weapons, we should too, as a deterrent, not to use.) I believe keeping our arms will slow down the road to tyranny, maybe even prevent the worst case scenario altogether.
I've never advocated using arms to overthrow tyranny.
I've advocated trying all non-violent methods of redress FIRST. Even then, I still do not agree with resorting to violence (remember, I am a pacifist), but I do understand it.
I advocate keeping arms precisely because I believe getting as close to an equilibrium in power between the people and the govt improves the chances of non-violent change.
So, I am very unclear what mentality you are speaking of.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I HAVE lived in REAL tyranny, the kind where there is only 1 newspaper in the country, and people disappear if they say ANYTHING against the govt, even privately. The kind where there exists no political opposition and no hope for political change, short of the death of the autocrat.
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mostly I suppose I just think it's silly--when you contrast America with REAL tyranny,....
It is my opinion that America is approaching the REAL tyranny in these countries. It's not there right now, no. But it is heading in that direction.
I know people who have been to prison. Here I am, a middle class non-colored American who is as law abiding as they come. Yet I know people, middle class acquaintances and friends, who have served time in prison. This is not normal. This is not right in a free society.
Once upon a time, Germany was a democracy too. The horrifying atrocities of the Third Reich was unthinkable to most Germans. Yet it happened.
You are all familiar with Naomi Wolf's "10 Steps to Close Down an Open Society."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_4
6695.html
As an epilogue to Wolf's essay, I should note that Obama has reversed none of these steps. Under his administration, some of these steps have actually advanced. I believe they will continue to advance with each successive administration until we eventually get there.
I hope against hope it doesn't happen. I would love to be wrong on this.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm still curious as to when Peter King (R-NY) became a "lib". After all, he's the one who proposed making it a crime to carry a firearm within 1000' of a government official. Seems pretty broad and overarching to me.
Meanwhile, that great "socialist" Obama signed such offensive, draconian, knee-jerk laws as the one that allows Americans to carry firearms in our national parks.
Damned dirty liberal! There he goes again, trying to take our guns. Trying to take them to a nice day at the park, it seems...
This Space For Rent!
Hey gayboy, just 'cause that cunt has an "R" after his name doesn't mean he can't be a liberal douche-bag. That is why we have the tea party.....what say you? Cunt.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm still curious as to when Peter King (R-NY) became a "lib". After all, he's the one who proposed making it a crime to carry a firearm within 1000' of a government official. Seems pretty broad and overarching to me.
Meanwhile, that great "socialist" Obama signed such offensive, draconian, knee-jerk laws as the one that allows Americans to carry firearms in our national parks.
Damned dirty liberal! There he goes again, trying to take our guns. Trying to take them to a nice day at the park, it seems...
This Space For Rent!
Hey gayboy, just 'cause that cunt has an "R" after his name doesn't mean he can't be a liberal douche-bag. That is why we have the tea party.....what say you? Cunt.
It's also why every teabagger in Congress has that same "R" after his or her name. ;)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Hardware,
Your prediction seems flawed to me. I fully expect the government to create money to bridge the gap of any shortfalls. This will cause a large quantity of inflation.
I can not imagine any future where this does not occur. It should be included in your analysis.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Too many people view uprising as romantic and that it would unquestionably bring about what they want"
Hello,
As a Cuban-American, I know from the experience of history, history that exists within living memory, that revolution does not typically get you the change you want.
I have never felt that revolution is a romantic concept. It is blood without rational thought, while playing a game of dice against the devil.
However, limiting the ability to engage in revolution carries its own host of evils. They are legion.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not just Cuba, but the Communist revolutions of Russia and China, the islamic revolution of Iran, the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia, even the overthrow of Mobutu of Zaire/DRC.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
As a Cuban-American, I know from the experience of history, history that exists within living memory, that revolution does not typically get you the change you want.
History is replete with examples revolutions that were worse than the tyranny, cures worse than the disease, and "out of the frying pan and into the fire."
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yanno, Anthony, in respect to recent commentary as a whole...
You may be a piss-poor crook, but you're a pretty good Anarchist, even if you don't subscribe officially to that personal philosophy.
And I find myself much gratified by that.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Hardware,
Your prediction seems flawed to me. I fully expect the government to create money to bridge the gap of any shortfalls. This will cause a large quantity of inflation.
I can not imagine any future where this does not occur. It should be included in your analysis.
Uhm, how do you "create" money? In America the government doesn't create money. The Federal Reserve system prints our money and manages the liquidity of banks in it's system using interest rates. Banks can expand the economy, by taking cash deposits and using them to make loans. The interest on the loans is used to pay the interest on deposits and keep the bank in operation. But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation. See the Weimar republic for examples.
If you want a good example of how quickly a currency can fail, research Argentina's economic collapses. They went from a fully functional currency to a failed economy, a dissolved government and near anarchy in 4 weeks.
Oh, and more fun? If America goes down, there's a good chance the rest of you are along for the ride. We've still got the peak consumer economy on the planet. Look up the root causes for the great depression and compare them with our economic situation now. Same/same, except the US government in 1929 was not up to its eyeballs in debt.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/18/students-shot-california-high-sch
ool/
So. Pro-Gun-Control people.
Please explain how this student was able to have a gun in California (of all places)?
But heres the kicker. Since California has some of the most strict gun-control laws, and this person obviously violated a slew of them... explain how more laws would prevent anything.
How making laws stricter HAS EVER stopped ANYONE?
Ya'll know me, you know I believe that we should all have a gun with us at all times. (After 18, before 18 with a permit). We should also be able to use it in defense of ourselves and others without fear of civil or criminal penalty.
Imagine also, if everyone had a gun, the boom in innovation. Bullet-proof vests, less-leathal options etc.
But I digress.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hardware, to begin with, no, “squandered on entitlement programs” is incorrect, entitlement programs were squandered by the government. If you don’t know about that, I’m surprised; if you choose to ignore that and blame our economic mess on “entitlements” (by which, I’m guessing, you don’t mean entitlements to PRIVATE ENTERPRISE), I’m not too surprised. There are far too many who choose to do so.
Just FYI, if you're interested; if not, for any here who don't know the facts:Quote:
The rationale for cutting Social Security seems to be that, during such difficult economic times, everything should be a candidate for the chopping block, and that the public should support such cuts out of a sense of patriotism.
The flaw in this argument is that u]Social Security has not contributed a dime to the budget deficits or the soaring national debt. Social Security is funded exclusively by payroll taxes (also known as FICA taxes), paid into the fund by working Americans.
In 1983, the payroll tax was increased substantially in response to the recommendations, the previous year, of the Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform. Prior to 1983, Social Security had operated on a "pay-as-you-go" basis with each generation responsible for paying for the benefits of the generation that preceded them.
The 1983 legislation changed the nature of Social Security funding. In addition to paying for the benefits of the preceding generation, as was customary, the baby boomers were also required to pay additional taxes to partially pre-fund their own retirement.
The net result is that the baby boomers have paid more into Social Security than any other generation. Yet they are often made scapegoats and blamed for the Social Security funding problem.
The intent of the 1983 legislation was to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years that were supposed to be saved and invested, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could later be drawn down to pay benefits to the baby boomers. The 1983 payroll tax hike has generated more than $2.5 trillion that is supposed to be in the trust fund. If the trust fund actually held this amount in real assets, full Social Security benefits could be paid until at least 2037 without any changes. Unfortunately, none of the surplus revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent, by the government, on wars and other government programs without making any provisions for repaying the money.
During the past 25 years, five presidents, and the members of Congress/u], have participated in the great Social Security scam. All Social Security contributions made by working Americans, except the amount which was needed to pay current retirement benefits, has been funneled into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes.
Some like to say that the government just "borrowed" the money during the time period when it was not needed to pay benefits. But borrowing implies repayment, and u]no provisions for repayment have been made.
The government did not enact future tax increases that would automatically kick in when the Social Security money was needed. Neither did they enact legislation that would end other spending programs once the Social Security money was needed so the money could be transferred to the trust fund.
The government spent the Social Security money, pure and simple, without making any provisions for future repayments. The IOUs in the trust fund are not marketable, and they could not be sold to anyone even for a penny on the dollar. The Social Security trustees confirmed the worthlessness of the IOUs in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report with the following words:Quote:
"Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other governmen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki. Just because you wouldn't fight doesn't mean there are not any who would.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To respond to your post Wulf, just on my own behalf:
The guy got the gun obviously because there are holes in laws, in enforcement, and even if they were perfect, it's a simple matter to get a gun illegally. That's true of any state, whatever gun laws they might have.
I'm not in favor of limiting gun ownership any more than it is "limited" now, because I recognize that people can get guns, legally or otherwise, easily in this country. It's too late to limit gun ownership.
I am in favor of banning some of the more egregous examples of guns that have no purpose whatsoever besides large-scale violence; there is in my opinion no cause for the more aggressive automatic weapons, as I don't view them as particularly more effective for self-defense than other automatic weapons.
I am in favor of limiting the sale of high-volume magazines, as all they are useful for is mass slaughter. If they weren't allowed to be sold, there would be fewer of them, period. Sure, they'd probably be around on the black market, but that's a fact of life with anything. Nonethelss, they would be harder to obtain.
I don't see them being useful for self-defense; if someone's coming after you with a high-volume magazine in an automatic weapon, your chances of "fighting back", however many bullets available, are pathetic. I know you'll disagree with that, but we live in different worlds (and I mean that insofar as fantasy of heroes and villains versus reality).
That's my response to your question.
Oops, I was typing as you posted. Where exactly did I say I wouldn't fight? You'll have to point that out to me, because it's not true, so I don't see where you could have gotten that idea.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I don't see them being useful for self-defense; if someone's coming after you with a high-volume magazine in an automatic weapon, your chances of "fighting back", however many bullets available, are pathetic. I know you'll disagree with that, but we live in different worlds (and I mean that insofar as fantasy of heroes and villains versus reality)."
Hello,
I found this statement curious. It seems to indicate that a a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation."
Hello,
This is correct, and it is conspicuously absent from your prognostications of disaster. I'm curious as to why, since it is the most obvious path the government would take.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would argue that ANY limit (up to chemical, biological, nuclear weapon) on weapons is a violation of our civil liberties, is also a violation of our Constitutionally-protected (and needed) right of self-defense against ALL enimies (foreign and domestice) who wish to do the citizens of America harm.
ALLOW me to have an Ak-47. And, besides target shooting, I most likely would never fire it.
HOWEVER, should it be needed, in defense of my home, or in defense of my state, I would HAVE it to use.
Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
More than likely, I would never need to use it, but its that "what-if" that always plays.
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?
Our right to self-defense, and our responsibility to civil-defense, is absolute.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I HAVE lived in REAL tyranny, the kind where there is only 1 newspaper in the country, and people disappear if they say ANYTHING against the govt, even privately. The kind where there exists no political opposition and no hope for political change, short of the death of the autocrat.
Originally posted by Niki2:
Mostly I suppose I just think it's silly--when you contrast America with REAL tyranny,....
It is my opinion that America is approaching the REAL tyranny in these countries. It's not there right now, no. But it is heading in that direction.
I know people who have been to prison. Here I am, a middle class non-colored American who is as law abiding as they come. Yet I know people, middle class acquaintances and friends, who have served time in prison. This is not normal. This is not right in a free society.
What did these folks get prison time for?
I honestly think your past - I mean holy shite you lived in 4 of these places - has completely and understandably made you a bit hyper when it comes to this subject.
If you need any consoling just turn on the television and start listing all the sponsors. These people make way too much money with a happy populace and a stable government to ever let it get run over. Other countries are not like that, the countries you lived in were not like that.
I'm also curious - what would constitute tyranny in your opinion? Work camps? I saw the "one newspaper" reference, what others? I have no clue when people talk about Tyranny what they mean or if they are being purposely obscure because they don't really know themselves.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
That was my point. An attacker knows what he’s going into, plans and I would assume has some experience with the weapon. A defender is usually not prepared for the attack, may have little experience (if any when it comes to shooting humans), and can only react. As shown by the guy with the gun in Tucson, just having a gun isn’t enough. Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker, and since anyone can get such magazines very easily, they aren’t effective as a defensive weapon. If they were unavailable legally, certainly they would still exist, but if you can’t do it with 15 bullets in your gun, I see no reason for anyone except someone who wants to kill a LOT of people quickly to be able to attain magazines with more. If there were less bullets in the gun, an attacker could still carry around several magazines, but the time it would take him to reload would at least give an opportunity for someone to take him down. That’s my reasoning.
a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.
Wulf, I don’t know if an AK-47 is one of the weapons I’m thinking of, so I can’t answer that. But as to Quote:
How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat.
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Oh, well said and some good, previously unnoticed, points Pizmo. We don't hear enough from you, dammit, I wish we heard your voice more.
If you need any consoling just turn on the television and start listing all the sponsors. These people make way too much money with a happy populace and a stable government to ever let it get run over. Other countries are not like that, the countries you lived in were not like that.
I'm also curious - what would constitute tyranny in your opinion? Work camps? I saw the "one newspaper" reference, what others? I have no clue when people talk about Tyranny what they mean or if they are being purposely obscure because they don't really know themselves.
Personally, I don’t think CTTS is “hyper”, I think she’s comparing her experiences and knowledge to a place which is different enough for them to be less pertinent than she realizes, that’s all. Tyranny is certainly possible anywhere, even maybe in a country as big and diverse as the US, but I think applying the example of Germany or Peru, or other places she has experienced, doesn’t work.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat."
1. Katrina. When the waters rose, the first act of the state government was to confiscate all weapons.
Then, they put all the people in the Terror Dome.
2. The LA Riots. When they happened, the homes and businesses which were not robbed or burned were in chinatown (or koreaville not sure which). Why? The owners all packed heat. They shot at looters who crossed into their territory.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also.
If in doubt, just read the Constitution.
Sometimes the system works as it should, as it was meant to.
http://networkedblogs.com/daifn
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:Quote:That was my point. An attacker knows what he’s going into, plans and I would assume has some experience with the weapon. A defender is usually not prepared for the attack, may have little experience (if any when it comes to shooting humans), and can only react. As shown by the guy with the gun in Tucson, just having a gun isn’t enough. Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker, and since anyone can get such magazines very easily, they aren’t effective as a defensive weapon. If they were unavailable legally, certainly they would still exist, but if you can’t do it with 15 bullets in your gun, I see no reason for anyone except someone who wants to kill a LOT of people quickly to be able to attain magazines with more. If there were less bullets in the gun, an attacker could still carry around several magazines, but the time it would take him to reload would at least give an opportunity for someone to take him down. That’s my reasoning.
a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.
Wulf, I don’t know if an AK-47 is one of the weapons I’m thinking of, so I can’t answer that. But as toQuote:How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat.
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?
Hello,
I find some of your reasoning bizarre, Niki.
A prepared attacker with good knowledge of his weapon and the situation is the least likely to need lots of firepower. The definition of this sort of attacker would be a 'sniper' who has intimate knowledge of his surroundings, threat forces, weapon, and target.
The less prepared you are, the less in-command of your situation, your surroundings, your threats, and your weapon- then the MORE firepower you need to compensate for these shortcomings.
Firefights are exceedingly rare. Usually a gunfight is over within moments and takes place at extremely close range. However, in the unlikely event that a firefight should materialize (indicating that both the attacker and defender are taking advantage of surroundings and terrain to provide cover and/or concealment) I can not think of a situation where I would not prefer to have equal or greater firepower than my opponent.
You simultaneously assert that the illegal antagonist will be able to get the highest capacity arms via the black market, and then claim that since he has an inherent advantage (what I would call the 'initiative') it is pointless for the defender to have equal firepower.
So, you advocate policies to ensure that the illegal antagonist is the only person who will ever be able to acquire such arms, taking the hobbled defender (who lacks the initiative) and kneecapping him further by denying him an arms parity.
"How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference?"
I am not entirely sure what you are saying here. I am not convinced you have even a rudimentary grasp of the technology of firearms, nor any firm idea of where you want to place limits or why. It seems that you are feeling your way through the issue, seeking compromises that feel emotionally like they might do some good.
A similar amount of well-intentioned 'feeling' and ignorance of detail was the building-block for this nation's last assault weapons ban, including its arbitrary limitations on magazine size and firearm appearance.
I do not own any weapon that would be touched by such a ban. None of my firearms would suffer from limited magazine sizes or 'scary looking gun' laws. However, I am not blind to the possibility of people having legitimate use for such
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker
Niki, if this were the case, no army would be able to hold position, and a machine gun nest would be worthless.
If magazines are common and easy to get, then I don't understand your point about an attacker having greater access to them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1293
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ron Paul WIN!
(and since I agree and support RP.. I guess I WIN too.)
lol
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:One person went for turning an antique weapon into an illegal weapon. He restores antique guns as a hobby. He was asked to falsely testify against one of his clients on the same charge. He refused. So they charged him with it.
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
What did these folks get prison time for?
The others (4 persons) went for failure to file income tax returns. They were tax protesters. One is a physician; he got 5 years. One got 7 years in prison. When he got out after serving his sentence, they charged him with failure to report to someone, and he went back in for another 7 years. He recently died in prison.
Quote:Yes, I agree. But let me explain. The hypervigilance wasn't always there.
I honestly think your past - I mean holy shite you lived in 4 of these places - has completely and understandably made you a bit hyper when it comes to this subject.
When I lived in those places, we had to be VERY careful what we said. It is feeling of self-censorship that never relaxes. Now for 20 years in the USA, I've splurged and indulged myself in this haven of free expression. And I've loved it.
But the last 2 or 3 years, I'm starting to see signs of the kind of place where I grew up. I get that same feeling of self-censorship again, that I need to be careful. It's a reflex; the hypervigilance has come back because I feel the threat has crept back.
Obviously, I'm still spouting my mouth here on FFF, but my inner cautious self is telling me to stop. The only reason I don't is because I'm still in denial about my spidey sense going off.
Quote:
I'm also curious - what would constitute tyranny in your opinion? Work camps? I saw the "one newspaper" reference, what others?
Good question. Tyranny is the extreme end of political, economic, and moral control of a population by a elite group of persons who are themselves notably ungoverned.
1. Physical consequences for saying things the government doesn't like. Unapproved speech is illegal. Fines, prison, death, torture, death of loved ones even.
2. No democracy. No practical ability to change government policies. Sometimes they have a nominal process for change, but they erect obstacles that are prohibitive. In extreme situations, voting is simply a surveillance device to find out who is against the govt.
3. Control of common items (such as clothing and electronics) through excessive taxation or outright bans. In a tyranny, there is usually a thriving black market selling common household goods.
4. Corruption. Enforcement of the law does not depend on the law, but luck, personal wealth, race, and social status. Bribes are not only routine; the society wouldn't be able to function without them. Everyone would be in prison if it weren't for bribes.
5. Rigorous standards for morality that are enforced with harsh physical consequences. This can be anywhere from caning for littering to prison for possessing alcohol to death/torture for actual crimes. Tyrannical societies are VERY safe, clean, and orderly.
Those are just 5 common characteristics I can think of off the top of my head.
Incidentally, Peru is NOT one of the tyrannical places where I have lived. One of the reasons I like it here is because there is MORE freedom here than in the USA. I tell Peruvians what goes on in the USA, and they are aghast with horror.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS:
Standing against the tide.
Good job.
Damn. We need more folks to finally do that.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"
P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation."
Hello,
This is correct, and it is conspicuously absent from your prognostications of disaster. I'm curious as to why, since it is the most obvious path the government would take.
All I said was the lack of hard capital in the form of loans would force the government to go on a crash diet. That diet can come from having plenty of worthless money in the coffers, or little or no still viable money in the coffers. Do you really want to argue the mechanism? Or is this just a nitpick?
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
One person went for turning an antique weapon into an illegal weapon. He restores antique guns as a hobby. He was asked to falsely testify against one of his clients on the same charge. He refused. So they charged him with it.
The others (4 persons) went for failure to file income tax returns. They were tax protesters. One is a physician; he got 5 years. One got 7 years in prison. When he got out after serving his sentence, they charged him with failure to report to someone, and he went back in for another 7 years. He recently died in prison.
I'm sorry about your friend. Not knowing the details it's hard to judge but the last scenario… the IRS is well known for being the least forgiving and the closest thing to pure evil there is in a government agency… it's just hard to feel too much sympathy for their stance.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Tyranny is the extreme end of political, economic, and moral control of a population by a elite group of persons who are themselves notably ungoverned.
1. Physical consequences for saying things the government doesn't like. Unapproved speech is illegal. Fines, prison, death, torture, death of loved ones even.
2. No democracy. No practical ability to change government policies. Sometimes they have a nominal process for change, but they erect obstacles that are prohibitive. In extreme situations, voting is simply a surveillance device to find out who is against the govt.
3. Control of common items (such as clothing and electronics) through excessive taxation or outright bans. In a tyranny, there is usually a thriving black market selling common household goods.
4. Corruption. Enforcement of the law does not depend on the law, but luck, personal wealth, race, and social status. Bribes are not only routine; the society wouldn't be able to function without them. Everyone would be in prison if it weren't for bribes.
5. Rigorous standards for morality that are enforced with harsh physical consequences. This can be anywhere from caning for littering to prison for possessing alcohol to death/torture for actual crimes. Tyrannical societies are VERY safe, clean, and orderly.
Those are just 5 common characteristics I can think of off the top of my head.
Incidentally, Peru is NOT one of the tyrannical places where I have lived. One of the reasons I like it here is because there is MORE freedom here than in the USA. I tell Peruvians what goes on in the USA, and they are aghast with horror.
You tell Peruvians how bad it is here and yet none of the 5 things you list for Tyranny is happening here? You've lived in 4 countries other than the US, all during an armed revolt, and yet you tell your friends how bad it is here? I don't get it, what's up with that? Seems out of proportion. Maybe you over idealized the US at one time?
I appreciate your list, thanks - it's a good answer. It's also the first time anyone's explained what they fear when they say they fear Tyranny.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:Quote:That was my point. An attacker knows what he’s going into, plans and I would assume has some experience with the weapon. A defender is usually not prepared for the attack, may have little experience (if any when it comes to shooting humans), and can only react. As shown by the guy with the gun in Tucson, just having a gun isn’t enough. Ergo, in my opinion, if both attacker and defender have high-volume magazines, the odds are with the attacker, and since anyone can get such magazines very easily, they aren’t effective as a defensive weapon. If they were unavailable legally, certainly they would still exist, but if you can’t do it with 15 bullets in your gun, I see no reason for anyone except someone who wants to kill a LOT of people quickly to be able to attain magazines with more. If there were less bullets in the gun, an attacker could still carry around several magazines, but the time it would take him to reload would at least give an opportunity for someone to take him down. That’s my reasoning.
a high-volume magazine is useful for an attacker, but not a defender.
Wulf, I don’t know if an AK-47 is one of the weapons I’m thinking of, so I can’t answer that. But as toQuote:How would one of the most extreme weapons and high-volume magazines have been any better than a less aggressive automatic weapon and lower-volume magazine make any difference? I know your world is all or nothing; mine is more complex, with more nuances, simple athat.
Have we so quickly forgotten Katrina? The LA Riots?
I really hate killing an innocent theory, but you know that the rule of thumb for offense to defense is a 2/1 majority? Attack is always more difficult than defense.
How do you figure that an attacker gains advantage by a large capacity magazine and a defender does not? If you're firearm is in battery and has ammo in the magazine, you're still in the fight. The only thing stopping the defensive shooter in Tuscon was his responsibility. If the laws were structured differently, or if he had made another choice we might be arguing about the motivations of the deceased attacker.
Assuming I have a Glock 19 or 17 for a primary defensive carry piece, after the 17 or 15 in the primary magazine, do you want a reload with 15, 17 or 33? If I've expended 17 and still have active opposition, guess which one I want?
You also completely dismiss suppressive fire. I'm expending rounds to keep your head down so I or others on my team can move to a position with greater advantage. Either to neutralize you, or effect our escape.
Picking nits about the capabilities of various weapons is pointless. The cat is out of the bag on firearms.
As I have said before, skill can make even the least objectionable firearm world class. Witness this video of Jerry Miculek.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Tyranny is extreme. The USA is not at that extreme. But not being pure evil doesn't mean it isn't flirting with the dark side. Freedom exists on a continuum. The USA is just a bit farther down that continuum in many areas than is Peru.
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You tell Peruvians how bad it is here and yet none of the 5 things you list for Tyranny is happening here?
Quote:Oh, no. Only one during an armed revolt. The other 3 got better when when the autocrats died.
You've lived in 4 countries other than the US, all during an armed revolt,
Quote:Certainly there is a bit of over-idealization of the USA in all immigrants. That is why many of us come to the States, for the "land of the free and the home of the brave."
and yet you tell your friends how bad it is here? I don't get it, what's up with that? Seems out of proportion. Maybe you over idealized the US at one time?
But it isn't that. There isn't tyranny in the USA right now, but there isn't freedom either. So to my friends here who live more freely, I tell them what the "land of the free" is really like. They are curious, because we have this reputation for freedom, you know? So I tell them how it really is, that we aren't as free as people think. You don't have to be completely tyrannical to be not-free.
Here are some of the things I tell them about:
1. You can't start a small business without getting all the appropriate permits, which all cost money. (Peruvians can start businesses like kids did lemonade stands in the old days. They just put out a table or a sign and do it.)
2. You are taxed 25-35% on the average of all the money you make. (Peruvians don't pay taxes unless their business income exceeds a certain threshold, and then a much smaller percentage like 5-10%. There are no personal income taxes at all.)
3. You can't sell food unless you get health inspections, and now you can't grow food to sell unless you pass inspections. (There are no health inspections in Peru that I know of.)
4. You can't hire people for whatever wage you agree on. You have to pay them a minimum of what the govt says. (Peruvians have no minimum wage or labor laws.)
5. You can't put 2 adults and 3 kids on a motorcycle or ride without helmets. You can't put more than one person per car seat or ride without seatbelts. You can't even ride a bike without a helmet. (Peruvians can travel however they want. Drivers are supposed to be licensed, and people in the front are supposed to have seatbelts, but that rarely gets enforced.)
6. Some schools have cops there to give tickets to kids. A kid was arrested for using a Sharpie in school. (Peruvian adults don't even get tickets, it is hard for them to imagine children getting them, and for such ridiculous, victimless offenses as mere disobedience or truancy.)
7. You can't fly on an airplane without being radiated or groped. (Peruvian airports have the standard metal detector and very friendly security personnel.)
8. The govt can take your kids away just because someone accused you. Then you have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to get them back if you can prove you didn't abuse them. (Insert horror story here.)
9. If cops catch you with a lot of cash, they can take that cash from you for no reason, even if you didn't commit a crime. Then it takes many months or even years and lawyers to get it back.
10. If you don't file taxes you go to jail. If you don't pay your fines, you go to jail. If you don't pay your child support, you go to jail.
11. 2.3 million Americans, or 0.75% of the US population, live in prison, the highest incarceration rate in the world.
The trade-off, I tell them, is that the American people believe they are safer and less likely to die than Peruvians. The question of tyranny always comes down to a freedom vs. security/cleanliness/order trade-off.
But the ones I talk to, they would rather be more free than more secure. My kind of people. Americans used to be that way, but not very much anymore.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"But if the Fed were to begin printing an endless stream of currency it would lead to devaluation and runaway inflation."
Hello,
This is correct, and it is conspicuously absent from your prognostications of disaster. I'm curious as to why, since it is the most obvious path the government would take.
All I said was the lack of hard capital in the form of loans would force the government to go on a crash diet. That diet can come from having plenty of worthless money in the coffers, or little or no still viable money in the coffers. Do you really want to argue the mechanism? Or is this just a nitpick?
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
Hello,
I was arguing for a better prognostication. I expect a strong temptation for the government to create money to meet shortfalls before any serious 'diet' manifests itself. The 'diet' you speak of is something I anticipate as taking place only after the currency has been devalued, and they simply can't pretend anymore.
I think of it as a very important step on the continuum of ruin.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think Hardware just skipped to "can't pretend anymore" and went straight to talking about the ruin.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The 'diet' you speak of is something I anticipate as taking place only after the currency has been devalued, and they simply can't pretend anymore.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personally, I have no problem with 3 and 4. We’ll have to agree to disagree on the matter of food safety and child labor. As to 8, I’ve seen it used as many times to protect children from abuse as abused. I’ll settle for a half-full glass. As to Quote:
I don’t think that’s the tradeoff of “tyranny”, I think that’s a trade-off every society has to choose for itself. Freedom ain’t so hot, either, without some of those protections, and those protections, whether effective or implemented correctly, were put in place for a reason.
The question of tyranny always comes down to a freedom vs. security/cleanliness/order trade-off
As to #5, enforcement of bicycling without a nelmet around here at least is minimal, if at all. And I of all people resented the HELL out of motorcycle helmets being required, but on the whole I'd rather that and pay less for people who end up in emergency rooms as a result. WE pay for those who can't when it comes to health care, and I'm not in favor of paying for anyone else's stupidity when it comes to motorcycle accidents. My own, yeah, I'd take responsibility for it, but it doesn't work that way.
Obviously 6 and 7 are unpleasant, and needless in some ways. But I would guess our increasingly-more-violent society contributes to the need for cops in schools, and that’s something we haven’t dealt with...yet, or well. The travel thing is just plain stupid, and IS a case of perception of security over common sense.
As to 9, it was my impression that if money was confiscated and the person was found innocent, that money was returned. Do you have facts to the contrary?
I’d be interested in learning how Peru gets by without taxing, could you elucidate further on that, please?
The incarceration thing is a personal bugaboo and I definitely agree with you on that one!
All in all, I'd rather feel SOMEWHAT safe and that there is SOMEWHAT of a safety net in this country than be freer, as you define it.
And once again, the population, culture and size of the two countries aren't comparable in my opinion as to how their respective societies decide to deal with issues.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree that was poorly worded. I should say, the "trade-off on the anarchy vs. tyranny continuum...."
Originally posted by Niki2:
I don’t think that’s the tradeoff of “tyranny”,...
Quote:See I disagree. I would rather live on the outer planets fighting criminals and dodging reavers than live in the safe and clean Core planets. That's me. I understand why others don't want to live on the outer planets though. Freedom is not pretty or easy.
Freedom ain’t so hot, either, without some of those protections,...
Quote:I didn't state the contrary. My statement was it would take months, even years, with lawyers, to get it back. (But yes, I have heard of at least one innocent person who did not get his forfeiture back. I just don't have the link and story at my fingertips.)
As to 9, it was my impression that if money was confiscated and the person was found innocent, that money was returned. Do you have facts to the contrary?
Quote:I said they DO tax, just a LOT less. They can get by with smaller taxes because the government doesn't do very much. They have a small military (no wars), small police force, small courts, small prisons. They don't do a lot of road work or infrastructure development. They have no retirement, disability safety net, or welfare. How does one get by with a smaller income? You simply spend less.
I’d be interested in learning how Peru gets by without taxing, could you elucidate further on that, please?
Quote:Yes, that's my point. Most Americans agree with you (that is why we have those laws, cause they voted for them somehow, right?).
All in all, I'd rather feel SOMEWHAT safe and that there is SOMEWHAT of a safety net in this country than be freer, as you define it.
My point is also that those laws sound very oppressive and draconian to people who are used to living with much more freedom and much less security.
In other words, America is not the "land of the free"--not anymore. Most Americans don't want to live in the "land of the free." They would rather live in the "land of prevention, security, and morality."
Which is fine. It's the prerogative of the majority to shape the country into whatever they want. The minority just has to suck it or leave.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Safety nets exist anyway, with or without government. It when we start to think everyone's being taken care already of that the cracks open up and certain people fall in.
Or when we let some people get away with things that really shouldn't be tolerated. Like polluters, like slavery, like warmongers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki,
I did find this case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700
Court:
"We have adopted the commonsense view that bundling and concealment of large amounts of currency, combined with other suspicious circumstances, supports a connection between money and drug trafficking."
Mr. Emilio Gomez Gonzolez never got his money back. The forfeiture was upheld solely based on circumstantial evidence. Apparently, suspicion and circumstantial evidence is all you need to legally rob other people's money now.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
There is where we differ, CTTS. I happen to believe there are MANY options between anarchy and tyranny, and I think the US is neither. We live “cheap”, we don’t spend much and never have, have no credit cards or debt, save gas, etc. But that doesn’t make it possible to live easily in this country.
I would rather live on the outer planets fighting criminals and dodging reavers than live in the safe and clean Core planets.
I’m afraid I still believe there are a lot of things that can’t be compared between Peru and the US, and that it wouldn’t be as easy, even if we wanted it to, for this country to be that way. I also think there are many other countries in the world that are far, far more “draconian” than the US. I nonetheless agree there are a LOT of things wrong, a lot of laws that need revamping or eliminating, and a lot of improvement to be made.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That is what continuum means. Anarchy on one end, tyranny on the other, and most everything is in between.
Originally posted by Niki2:
I happen to believe there are MANY options between anarchy and tyranny, and I think the US is neither.
There are no anarchistic countries, so obviously most countries on earth (which are not totalitarian) are somewhere in between.
From my point of view, Peru is quite a bit closer to the freedom end than is the USA.
Now you're saying the USA COULDN'T be like Peru even if it wanted to. I vehemently disagree. The USA doesn't WANT to be like Peru, that I believe. But any assertion that we are forced by our culture and population demographics to live the way we live...that feels like not taking responsibility for our choices.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Hello,
It is perhaps an irony that one of the things I worry about when I think of visiting England is that I might get attacked. I understand that violent crime occurs there on a comperable level to many parts of the U.S. My understanding of the law system there is that, when confronted with violent crime, the only certain legal recourse is to comply with your attacker and then call the police afterwards. I have heard that violent resistance, and particularly armed resistance (even if only with a handy bludgeoning object) can carry serious legal consequences. Moreso than in the U.S.
I do not know if these things I have heard about England is true, but the thought of it frightens me.
On the other hand, the citizens of all nations have the right to make whatever society they enjoy. It's up to me to decide if visiting is worth the risk.
--Anthony
Hey, I remembered this from before but didn't have time to reply at the time. I think foreign countries probably seem scarier from far off, with distant news reports etc., than in reality. That's probably true for us non US residents as well.
Regarding self defence in the UK, you may find this article useful, 'Self Defence and The Law' in the UK:
"Public Perception of Self-Defence
There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.
However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:
an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence."
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Something in reference to THIS original post....
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You see, this is why you'd never make it as a criminal, Anthony - your brain just ain't wired that way.
You wanna off someone, here's how ya do it.
First thing ya do, get dressed, jeans, sweater, flannel shirt, cap, like every damn body else around here, only you put on surgical gloves and then knit gloves over em so you're covered for prints without bein really obvious about it and all.
Then you go down to the airport and rent a car, something ridiculously anonymous, go ahead and card it, don't matter none - drive it down to the red light district and put it in one of them parking garages nearby, take yourself a walk down to the corner, and when the local pushers make their approach, get them to hook you up with a gat, they'll be more than glad to sell you a nine real cheap, no doubt stolen and maybe with a body or two already on it, this is what you WANT but go on and play it cool... I'd say get em to throw in some bullets but even the dumbest punk around here isn't gonna hand you ammo for it and stand the risk of being robbed with the piece he just sold you, so slip up the street a bit and buy a box of crummy ass nine-mil and some smokes from one of the bodegas and pay cash, ain't no one even gonna notice.
Then you find somewhere discreet to load it, and hump it or hop a bus to your target, depending on how far.
You spot em out, follow em, get em somewhere relatively discreet, and storm rush, get in close and fill them with lead, give em six, seven, real quick, point blank, all in the torso, no fancy shit - you put ENOUGH lead in someone from that range, they're gone no matter what, then you roll em up, watch-wallet-rings-cellphone (you DROP the cellphone on the way off though, like you fumbled it) and get the hell gone.
Won't nobody come lookin, a salvo like that, the locals might call it in, but sure as shit they're not stickin their heads up or coming to investigate any time soon.
So you hump it or lump it back to the red light district and pick up your car from the garage, and on your way out, you cut through one of them dark alleys and pitch the piece and the loot out the window, don't even slow down, them skells will be on it before it hits the ground, and whichever one bags the piece will wind up with the rest, sure enough.
You drop off the rental, go home, take a shower, do a little laundry, no worries.
Now, damn good chance, almost a certainty, this'll wind up pitched in the "drug related" file and forgotten, oh-what-a-tragedy, hand me another double-glazed, eh ?
Rare, outside chance, someone rolls the skell when he tries to fence the loot, and you really think the cops are gonna buy whatever bullshit story about where he got the stuff ? oh hell no.
And being a skell, prolly with priors and holding a hot piece, they're gonna beat a confession out of him quick enough, and maybe close off a couple cases on it, for them it's win-win.
For you too, cause that's the end of the story right there, innit now ?
Now, one in a million chance, your target was high profile enough to warrant actual investigation, AND the investigator is some hot-shit sherlock type, at BEST all they'll get from anyone is that airport rental sticker, and the first thing hot-shot boy is gonna think is professional hit, at which point he goes off barking up the wrong tree never to be seen again.
And in the one in a billion chance that someone, somewhere, got the plate, and they ask YOU about it, you *already* got a flawless alibi.
"Look man, I was gettin a blowjob and didn't want my wife/girlfriend catchin wise, ok ?
So what'd she look like ?
Fuck man, I wasn't lookin at her FACE...
Come on, give us something!
Screw you, get my lawyer!"
Even if they don't dump it then, they'll wind up chasing their own damn tails lookin for that hooker, as the case gets colder and colder, and no way could they coach one well enough to slip it past even the dumbest of judges, so they got nothin, jack diddly shit.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence."
"
Hello,
This would make British use of force indistinguishable from U.S. use of force.
Is that how it works in practice? Can I bludgeon a street robber with a club I keep for self defense, or stab him with a pocket knife, and be found innocent of any wrongdoing?
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTs, Peru does have compulsory voting though?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, it does. And it is a pain, because you can't vote where you are. You have to vote where you registered, and changing registration is a pain. So on voting day, everyone travels to their hometown to vote. It is one of the very few national laws they enforce.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTs, Peru does have compulsory voting though?
But, they usually have something like 26 candidates to choose from, so there actually IS a choice. It is very easy to get on the ballot. Campaigning is very active, though I hardly ever see negative campaigning like I do in the States.
No place is perfect. Peru has gun control as well. But, on a practical and day-to-day level, I see people living in a lot more freedom here than at home.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Yes, it does. And it is a pain, because you can't vote where you are. You have to vote where you registered, and changing registration is a pain. So on voting day, everyone travels to their hometown to vote. It is one of the very few national laws they enforce.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
CTs, Peru does have compulsory voting though?
But, they usually have something like 26 candidates to choose from, so there actually IS a choice. It is very easy to get on the ballot. Campaigning is very active, though I hardly ever see negative campaigning like I do in the States.
No place is perfect. Peru has gun control as well. But, on a practical and day-to-day level, I see people living in a lot more freedom here than at home.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
Hello,
Can you carry other weapons, or is the restriction limited to guns?
And do the Police carry guns?
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, police carry guns. And of course, criminals have them.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Can you carry other weapons, or is the restriction limited to guns?
I have seen civilians carry guns as well, so the gun control is not a complete ban. I know guns are restricted, but I have to do more research to find out how. Regular Peruvians in my little rural town don't know what the gun control laws are, anymore than regular Americans would know what the laws are on owning rockets.
As far as other weapons go, are you talking about knives? People use knives and machetes and cutting tools all the time. That is no problem. I have no idea about swords or bows/arrows, and neither would anyone else I know.
Most murders we hear about in the news are committed with knives or beatings.
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You've gotten me interested in Peru. Now I'll have to do some reading.
BTW, ever eaten guinea pig?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Is that how it works in practice? Can I bludgeon a street robber with a club I keep for self defense, or stab him with a pocket knife, and be found innocent of any wrongdoing?
I assume so (though it's illegal to carry any knife bigger than a pocket knife). To be honest street crime like this has never been an issue in any of the places I've lived in or visited in Britain. Britain does have its deprived, rough side - but unless you're unlucky enough to live on one of those estates, it's not generally something you have to make an effort to avoid, or take precautions against. In my experience.
A few of the big cities like London especially are a possible exception, where one might feel at risk in certain areas. And I'm from the North So I don't know it that well. Having said that, I had a trip down to London a few weeks ago with my brother, to do a tour of the museums. We stayed in a cheap, near-city centre hostel and got about by walking, and the tube. Never worried about my safety before or during the trip.
As for self-defence examples, the only semi-contentious case I can recall is one where a farmer shot dead a burglar in his home. But I think this was more a 'revenge slaying' than an act of self-defence, as the farmer had been burgled numerous times and finally caught the guys in the act, and killed one of them as they were trying to flee (the one that died got shot in the back).
This is the guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
I sympathise with the farmer, but think the law should attempt to differentiate between real acts of self-defense, and acts with excessive, retributive force. And just because your in your own home doesn't make you above the law.
The only other example of self-defense that really comes to mind is an incident that happened to a colleague of my brother. They both live in quite a poor area of Derby, and the guy was walking home from the city centre late one night after a night out. Two lads demanded his phone and wallet, one of them pretending he had a knife. It descended into a fist-fight, and a running battle as the friend of my brother's tried to make it home with his possessions. He 'gave as good as he got' he says, and successfully made it home, and reported it to the police the next day.
I think in some situations the police would advise compliance with the assailant, but there's no question of incurring prosecution for choosing to 'hold your own', I think.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I went online and found this on guns.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You've gotten me interested in Peru. Now I'll have to do some reading.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/peru
According to this page, guns are licensed in Peru. For a license, one must meet these criteria:
1. Prove a genuine reason for gun ownership, such as security, hunting, target shooting, etc.
2. Have a clean background check including criminal, mental health, and domestic violence records.
3. Pass a test on firearm safety and firearm law.
A licensed owner may carry a firearm in plain view without any special permit.
Quote:I did try it once. It was horrible.
BTW, ever eaten guinea pig?
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I went online and found this on guns.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You've gotten me interested in Peru. Now I'll have to do some reading.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/peru
According to this page, guns are licensed in Peru. For a license, one must meet these criteria:
1. Prove a genuine reason for gun ownership, such as security, hunting, target shooting, etc.
2. Have a clean background check including criminal, mental health, and domestic violence records.
3. Pass a test on firearm safety and firearm law.
A licensed owner may carry a firearm in plain view without any special permit.Quote:I did try it once. It was horrible.
BTW, ever eaten guinea pig?
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
Hello,
I like items 2 and 3. Item 1 seems to allow the government to arbitrarily refuse you for no real reason.
We will presume your government can be trusted not to use their list of licensed guns to confiscate them from the population.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It appears they haven't done so yet.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
We will presume your government can be trusted not to use their list of licensed guns to confiscate them from the population.
According to the same website, 180,000 Peruvian civilians own 750,000 private guns. In comparison, the Peruvian military has 770,000 firearms and the police has 126,000 guns.
Peru has 18.8 guns per 100 people. Compare this rate to some other countries:
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME