Originally posted by darthgooberI'm not totally unsympathetic to these concerns: but are you seriously suggesting that a decentralized militia could stand any chance against the 700 billion dollar US military on home soil? Barring an army mutiny, I just can't see that happening. The technology and weapons that the US army are too much , and I'm speaking just in regards to the weapons that we know about. You know: drones, tanks, stealth bombers etc... There are probably many weapons that the US army has that we don't even know about, and would be able to nip an uprising in the bud.
It IS a practical concern. Think about the rights we've already had stripped from us by things like the Patriot Act. Giving up our ability to effectively fight back in a worst case scenario is a horrible idea because once we do that we're screwed if/when the impending threat of a true tyrant presents itself.
And if you don't want a tyrannical government, it might be prudent to stop voting for authoritarian demagogues who erode the foundations of American democracy. I mean, isn't it funny that many of the neurotic right-wingers who raise these tyrannical government concerns are more than happy to line up and vote for a man who is bombastically authoritarian and constantly attacks the institutions and norms of the American political system?
Originally posted by SquallX
You do know when the 2nd amendment was written, there were already fully auto weapons in circulation right?Acids are also being use in England and Afghanistan.
Slavery is still being practiced on Blacks by Muslims!
Yet, gun! gun! gun!
Yeah, but, this is America! It's "racist" to care about blacks especially blacks being enslaved (still) and black homicides.
Get it right, geeeez!
Originally posted by Silent MasterI assume this post was directed at me. And yes, I obviously understand what guerilla warfare is and how it has sometimes prevailed against a stronger force. But this glamorized view of a few desperate stragglers fighting off a much more formidable force is typically the exception rather than the rule, in my opinion. And in modern times, we are seeing all manner of new modes of warfare that go beyond the indiscriminate carpet bombing employed in Vietnam. There is also a difference between home-grown forces on the other side of the world fighting off an invading force and fighting the US military on home soil, where it can bring its full might to bear nigh-instantaneously.
Do you not understand what Guerrilla warfare is?
Originally posted by lazybones
I assume this post was directed at me. And yes, I obviously understand what guerilla warfare is and how it has sometimes prevailed against a stronger force. But this glamorized view of a few desperate stragglers fighting off a much more formidable force is typically the exception rather than the rule, in my opinion. And in modern times, we are seeing all manner of new modes of warfare that go beyond the indiscriminate carpet bombing employed in Vietnam. There is also a difference between home-grown forces on the other side of the world fighting off an invading force and fighting the US military on home soil, where it can bring its full might to bear nigh-instantaneously.
They can't bring their "full might to bear nigh-instantaneously" if they can't find the guerrillas.
Originally posted by lazybones
I'm not totally unsympathetic to these concerns: but are you seriously suggesting that a decentralized militia could stand any chance against the 700 billion dollar US military on home soil? Barring an army mutiny, I just can't see that happening. The technology and weapons that the US army are too much , and I'm speaking just in regards to the weapons that we know about. You know: drones, tanks, stealth bombers etc... There are probably many weapons that the US army has that we don't even know about, and would be able to nip an uprising in the bud.And if you don't want a tyrannical government, it might be prudent to stop voting for authoritarian demagogues who erode the foundations of American democracy. I mean, isn't it funny that many of the neurotic right-wingers who raise these tyrannical government concerns are more than happy to line up and vote for a man who is bombastically authoritarian and constantly attacks the institutions and norms of the American political system?
You're right. Let's go ahead and just recoup those costs for billions of dollars in lost equipment and supplies that were destroyed by Iraqis and Afghans because you think they don't stand a chance.
Oh, and those thousands of American lives lost against the warfare you think doesn't stand a chance against the US MIS, they will get undone. Revived from the dead. Because you don't believe they stand a chance.
Thanks a $4.79 trillion for clearing that up. I would say "thanks a billion" but that's not accurate.
Whew, glad you cleared that up for all of us ignorant folk.
Originally posted by dadudemonIf you're trying to make some sort of coherent counter-point here, it's lost on me. I explicitly stated 'home soil', because I realize that guerillas in far flung places have given pause to the US military. I just find the idea of a spontaneous uprising on home soil, which the US military could strike against instantly with maximum force, to have extremely steep odds of succeeding or even taking root in any significant way. Barring an army mutiny, of course, or something so spontaneous and vast that the army couldn't nip it in the bud before it spreads.
You're right. Let's go ahead and just recoup those costs for billions of dollars in lost equipment and supplies that were destroyed by Iraqis and Afghans because you think they don't stand a chance.Oh, and those thousands of American lives lost against the warfare you think doesn't stand a chance against the US MIS, they will get undone. Revived from the dead. Because you don't believe they stand a chance.
Thanks a $4.79 trillion for clearing that up. I would say "thanks a billion" but that's not accurate.
Whew, glad you cleared that up for all of us ignorant folk.
But of course, this entire conversation is mounted on an extremely unlikely premise from the get-go: that is, that a tyrant could subvert the military, the intelligence agencies and the dozens of government bureaucracies and make an attempt to establish a dictatorship without being thwarted at some point. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the responsibility of citizens to be aware and conscious of such possibilities, but they shouldn't dominate our conversations.
And I don't think a kneejerk reaction to sacrifice liberty for security whenever a tragedy happens should dominate our conversations either. I don't think the conversation is unwarranted, and I recognize some sacrifices have to be made, but it should be understandable why some people are hesitant to jump on board as eagerly as those who disagree with them are willing to.
And if you don't want a tyrannical government, it might be prudent to stop voting for authoritarian demagogues who erode the foundations of American democracy. I mean, isn't it funny that many of the neurotic right-wingers who raise these tyrannical government concerns are more than happy to line up and vote for a man who is bombastically authoritarian and constantly attacks the institutions and norms of the American political system?
This is a hugely magnificent pile of shit.
Now that you have used a wonderful cliff note ultra liberal talking point you need to expand on HOW our foundations of democracy have eroded........because so far that just isn't true and the fact the even an authoritarian president isn't a king we still have the legislative branch and judicial branch to keep him check and last that I have seen they have done just that.
Originally posted by lazybones
And if you don't want a tyrannical government, it might be prudent to stop voting for authoritarian demagogues who erode the foundations of American democracy.
Originally posted by snowdragon
This is a hugely magnificent pile of shit.Now that you have used a wonderful cliff note ultra liberal talking point you need to expand on HOW our foundations of democracy have eroded........because so far that just isn't true and the fact the even an authoritarian president isn't a king we still have the legislative branch and judicial branch to keep him check and last that I have seen they have done just that.
I don't know, man, I like exactly what he said and I think it is 100% accurate and it is something I've said before.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou can misrepresent data to say whatever you want buddy, but ultimately you know what you're saying is dishonest. Would you rather be attacked by a baseball bat or an AK-47? There's your answer
Well, according to the facts, yeah, knives are 5x more dangerous than all rifles.Remember, the US has a violence problem, not a gun problem.
Originally posted by snowdragonFucck this. The legislative branch doesn't hold Trump's regime accountable for anything, they need him to stay in power.
This is a hugely magnificent pile of shit.Now that you have used a wonderful cliff note ultra liberal talking point you need to expand on HOW our foundations of democracy have eroded........because so far that just isn't true and the fact the even an authoritarian president isn't a king we still have the legislative branch and judicial branch to keep him check and last that I have seen they have done just that.
This government has obstructed investigations on a dubious election, it has attacked and silenced the free press, it has infringed on the civil rights of minority groups, it has stolen a seat on the Supreme Court and it is shamelessly in the pocket of corrupt corporations like NRA and Oil.
Originally posted by Firefly218
You can misrepresent data to say whatever you want buddy, but ultimately you know what you're saying is dishonest. Would you rather be attacked by a baseball bat or an AK-47? There's your answer
What I would rather be attacked by is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the numbers are. If more people are dying from knives than rifles, at a rate of 5 times, and you (not me) want to try and prevent some of this homicides, where do you think we should be spending our efforts to more effectively reduce those homicides based on your logic?
Make fact based decisions, not emotion based. Stick to the facts.
I think tackling the weapons is the wrong move so going to either one is not correct. I think we need to solve the reasons behind the violence instead of going after the tools people use to commit violent acts. What about you?
Originally posted by Firefly218
Fucck this. The legislative branch doesn't hold Trump's regime accountable for anything, they need him to stay in power.This government has obstructed investigations on a dubious election, it has attacked and silenced the free press, it has infringed on the civil rights of minority groups, it has stolen a seat on the Supreme Court and it is shamelessly in the pocket of corrupt corporations like NRA and Oil.
How has it silenced the press?
The owners can have them all say pretty much whatever they want. Corporate affiliates, shareholders, and management do more to silence the press then any politician could..