|
VikingSkull posted:I would have more respect for him if he had gone Waco on these fucks tbh Oh, please. We have drones now.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:We have drones now. I really wonder what these militia chickenfuckers think about the governments ability to send a Hellfire missile through the roof of whatever shithole they're inhabiting in the same amount of time it would take for a pizza to be delivered. Like, yeah, you've got a bunch of rifles and pistols and shotguns and maybe some improvised pipebombs or whatever but they'll blow up the building before you even know death is coming. How do they keep up any sense of bravado in the face of that? I guess that's why they keep kids around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
BlackIronHeart posted:I really wonder what these militia chickenfuckers think about the governments ability to send a Hellfire missile through the roof of whatever shithole they're inhabiting in the same amount of time it would take for a pizza to be delivered. Like, yeah, you've got a bunch of rifles and pistols and shotguns and maybe some improvised pipebombs or whatever but they'll blow up the building before you even know death is coming. How do they keep up any sense of bravado in the face of that? I guess that's why they keep kids around. They're not black, so they're OK. In the last 50 years, the worst that's been done is Waco and Ruby Ridge, the latter being a gunfire tradeoff and the former either self-immolation or a freakish cockup with incendiaries and tear gas. The only bombing to be done on US soil by representatives of the government (aside from 9/11  ) was in 85 in philly, where they unloaded 10,000 rounds and airdropped bombs just to make sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I would have more respect for him if he had gone Waco on these fucks tbh Janet Reno died in 2016. She never lived it down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
BlackIronHeart posted:I really wonder what these militia chickenfuckers think about the governments ability to send a Hellfire missile through the roof of whatever shithole they're inhabiting in the same amount of time it would take for a pizza to be delivered. Like, yeah, you've got a bunch of rifles and pistols and shotguns and maybe some improvised pipebombs or whatever but they'll blow up the building before you even know death is coming. How do they keep up any sense of bravado in the face of that? I guess that's why they keep kids around. They think that if the government did something like that to white self-proclaimed patriots, gun owners all over the nation would rise up in revolt against the government, the military and National Guard and local sheriffs would all stand aside and refuse to put down the rebellion, the government would be forced to step down and be replaced by libertarians somehow, and in the end they would all be revered as heroic martyrs who died Making America Great Again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
BlackIronHeart posted:I really wonder what these militia chickenfuckers think about the governments ability to send a Hellfire missile through the roof of whatever shithole they're inhabiting in the same amount of time it would take for a pizza to be delivered. Like, yeah, you've got a bunch of rifles and pistols and shotguns and maybe some improvised pipebombs or whatever but they'll blow up the building before you even know death is coming. How do they keep up any sense of bravado in the face of that? I guess that's why they keep kids around. They probably have a better outlook then a piece of poo poo like you eager for the US Government to deploy military weaponry against civilians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They think that if the government did something like that to white self-proclaimed patriots, gun owners all over the nation would rise up in revolt against the government, the military and National Guard and local sheriffs would all stand aside and refuse to put down the rebellion, the government would be forced to step down and be replaced by libertarians somehow, and in the end they would all be revered as heroic martyrs who died Making America Great Again. ate poo poo on live tv posted:They probably have a better outlook then a piece of poo poo like you eager for the US Government to deploy military weaponry against civilians. ^^ yup AND they would be on the right side of history too
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:^^ dont you mean the alt right side of history,
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:^^ there are still standing monuments to the White League members who overthrew black-elected governments by force at the end of Reconstruction
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:They probably have a better outlook then a piece of poo poo like you eager for the US Government to deploy military weaponry against civilians. lol yes you are absolutely still a civilian if you arm yourself in order to fight the federal government. unless yr a moslem or a mexican 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:lol yes you are absolutely still a civilian if you arm yourself in order to fight the federal government. unless yr a moslem or a mexican Yes? Citizen Militia is legally distinct from a Regular Army.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Yes? Citizen Militia is legally distinct from a Regular Army. Not since GWB categorized them as "enemy combatants"
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Not since GWB categorized them as "enemy combatants" YOu misspelled "OBUMMER" there
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Can't we agree that the Bundy people are morons while also not disparaging the people's right to be armed and to revolt against an unjust government?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Can't we agree that the Bundy people are morons while also not disparaging the people's right to be armed and to revolt against an unjust government? Ah yes, the Constitutional right to armed revolt
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ah yes, the Constitutional right to armed revolt I realize the Declaration of Independence isn't like a legal government document as such but uh quote:whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. that's why the 2nd amendment exists
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:the people's right to be armed and to revolt against an unjust government? Even assuming you believe this was the founders' intent with the second amendment do you really believe in this day and age - when a guy sitting thousands of miles away in an air conditioned trailer can push a button to drop a high explosive tipped missile on you - revolting against an unjust government with nothing more than small arms is realistic? I mean, I can think of easier, faster ways of committing suicide...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I realize the Declaration of Independence isn't like a legal government document as such but uh lol. And you think this is a realistic option today? I get the sentiment and I agree that military action within our borders on our citizens is hosed up. But come on. Don't pretend that "armed revolt" would be a real option post-1918 or so (?).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
I'll just say lol if you think the US military would indiscriminately shoot at civilians ceaselessly and also a bunch of civilians armed with nothing in Turkey just stopped a military coup. Also, see Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. TotalLossBrain posted:lol. Look that's what the right to bear arms is for. whether you think it is possible or not in today's age is a different argument. I'm simply saying let's not curtail or disparage our own rights needlessly and we can make fun of the Bundy people at the same time. Geoj posted:Even assuming you believe this was the founders' intent with the second amendment do you really believe in this day and age - when a guy sitting thousands of miles away in an air conditioned trailer can push a button to drop a high explosive tipped missile on you - revolting against an unjust government with nothing more than small arms is realistic? like do you think these things are just unlimited and the people operating the weapons are robots or something? Civilians need to produce the bombs/drones in the first place yo. Soldiers need to be recruited from somewhere. You can't fight a popular revolt forever and in most historical instances of this happening the military takes a sideline and lets things resolve on their own. Most of the French military literally waited outside of Paris for things to shake out during the Revolution and many of them even joined the revolt (that's how the Bastille got stormed). Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 21:28 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Even assuming you believe this was the founders' intent with the second amendment Also as to this it seems like the SCOTUS is also of this opinion, 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority opinion quotes Blackstone's text: “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation” wrt to 2nd amendment protections in Federal territories/enclaves (like DC). e: hell the Russians haven't even managed to stop the Chechnyan insurgency after decades and decades of fighting with a relatively modern military versus people machining their own guns with pipes Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 21:31 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:I get the sentiment and I agree that military action within our borders on our citizens is hosed up. But come on. Don't pretend that "armed revolt" would be a real option post-1918 or so (?). Armed Revolt, or the threat thereof, has been an important part of making progress in this country many times since 1918. The US government absolutely fears the threat of it, and that matters a lot more than the reality. (Because while the government itself would probably survive an armed result, safety and power is a bit less guaranteed for any individual politician, I'd imagine)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I realize the Declaration of Independence isn't like a legal government document as such but uh funnily enough the US federal government has never, ever recognized a case of armed rebellion being valid, and the very same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence were involved in putting down no less than three major rebellions, all of which believed they were fighting for constitutional principles against an unjust federal government
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:funnily enough the US federal government has never, ever recognized a case of armed rebellion being valid, and the very same people who wrote the Declaration of Independence were involved in putting down no less than three major rebellions, all of which believed they were fighting for constitutional principles against an unjust federal government Okay? They also were involved with one major rebellion called the US Revolution. Just because they thought the government's power is ultimately derived from the people who have a duty to disobey unjust laws/governments doesn't mean they then have to agree with every single person who wants to rebel. For example, the Bundys are morons just mad about their own pocketbook. quote:And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 21:36 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Okay? They also were involved with one major rebellion called the US Revolution. Just because they thought the government's power is ultimately derived from the people who have a duty to disobey unjust laws/governments doesn't mean they then have to agree with every single person who wants to rebel. For example, the Bundys are morons just mad about their own pocketbook. The second amendment was written largely to protect the government from rebellion (it was the state militias that put them down, since the feds weren't allowed to have a standing army), not to enable them. The Founding Fathers themselves had rather diverse opinions on the issue, but the idea that the second amendment is pro-rebellion is... not really historically accurate. Also, a number of them weren't particularly revolutionary during the revolution, and those who were still around were often pushed out of the process. Remember that this was the second go at government for them, and their primary concern at the time was the reasons the Confederation failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The second amendment was written largely to protect the government from rebellion not to enable them. Citation needed I think The founding fathers were concerned with standing armies and their threat to liberty. Madison posted:A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. Surely that extends to state militias as well. GlyphGryph posted:The Founding Fathers themselves had rather diverse opinions on the issue, but the idea that the second amendment is pro-rebellion is... not really historically accurate. Also, a number of them weren't particularly revolutionary during the revolution, and those who were still around were often pushed out of the process. Remember that this was the second go at government for them, and their primary concern at the time was the reasons the Confederation failed. Yeah well, like I said the SCOTUS disagrees with you and specifically cited "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation" in 2008. And the fact that it was the second go attempting to make the Federal gov't more powerful is precisely why the South was concerned with having a second amendment (so they could revolt if they wanted to). Idk what bearing "a lot of them weren't all that revolutionary during the revolution" has on anything really. So what? We had a war for independence didn't we?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I'll just say lol if you think the US military would indiscriminately shoot at civilians ceaselessly Unarmed civilians? Probably not. Civilians who have taken up arms against the government? I doubt the entire military standing down is a likely outcome in that scenario, and if your entire popular uprising is based on the entire military refusing to follow orders its going to be a short, short revolution. I mean, this is even considering it got to the point where local, state or federal law enforcement is unable to contain the revolt. And I have little doubt that they would indiscriminately shoot at civilians - they do it all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Unarmed civilians? Probably not. What would probably happen in a large scale event is the military would factionalize and we'd probably have a civil war on our hands, just like what happens with most large revolts. The fact that police are willing to shoot the occasional civilian they for some reason find threatening (whether legit or not) is kind of immaterial because you're comparing apples to oranges. This imagined scenario of the military being all in for the gov't against a massive popular uprising is some Tom Clancy bullshit man. It simply wouldn't shake out like that and I think any number of actual soldiers/officers would agree with me. They usually do when this argument crops up on SA. And again you're ignoring the logistics of the situation. Don't get me wrong I don't think things are nearly bad enough for something like this to happen but idk why so many liberals have a hard on for neutering the people's ability to defend themselves. Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 21:55 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
this thread suddenly got really lovely
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
always someone going "aw this thread got lovely" when people say something they don't like lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Surely that extends to state militias as well. Oddly, no. The framers of the constitution had, for the most part, wildly romantic ideas about the virtues of citizen-militiaman vs. regular soldiers, with the latter presumed to be amoral hired goons. They'd inherited this attitude from the British, where regulars were seen as more the enforcers of the crown's will* than defenders of the nation (that role being reserved for the Royal Navy). Furthermore, unlike standing armies, militias were largely hypothetical organizations until actually called up to deal with this or that specific problem, and almost always short-lived and demobbed shortly after the problem had been dealt with, further limiting their likelihood of being actual threats to liberty. *In both nations this suspicion would linger until WWI, with the idea of service in the ranks being only half a step better than being a career criminal being quite common.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Either way, the US Military shouldn't be involved with the Bundy's at all. Local or even federal law enforcement can take care of a few rednecks with guns. No need to go all Military Fascism on them. They are a few selfish law-breakers not some Tom Clancyesque popular uprising.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I'll just say lol if you think the US military would indiscriminately shoot at civilians ceaselessly and also a bunch of civilians armed with nothing in Turkey just stopped a military coup. lol no Erdogan’s supporters are not “a bunch of civilians armed with nothing”
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Surely that extends to state militias as well. Militias weren't standing military forces. That's why they were called militias rather than militaries - they were temporary military forces assembled to meet a potential threat, not professional standing armies. Under the Militia Act of 1792, for example, every military-age white male citizen was legally required to possess a gun and a certain quantity of ammo...and they were also legally required to join the state militia, which could call them up as soldiers whenever the situation demanded. In other words, it was basically a draft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:lol no Okay but that's not what I said lol you should go look at footage from the coup because it was literally mostly unarmed civilians mobbing soldiers who stood down because they didn't want to fire into a bunch of civilians. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14528...-military-coup/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-streets.html quote:Ordinary Turks confronted rifle-wielding soldiers and laid in front of tanks in an effort to take back control of country I mean okay some of them had some arms of their own but relative to the Turkish military choppers with machine guns flying around strafing stuff yeah they were armed with nothing.  ate poo poo on live tv posted:Either way, the US Military shouldn't be involved with the Bundy's at all. Local or even federal law enforcement can take care of a few rednecks with guns. No need to go all Military Fascism on them. They are a few selfish law-breakers not some Tom Clancyesque popular uprising. Yeah. I just don't like it when people go 'lol loving idiots no one can stop the US government might as well give up guns because their usefulness ended 100 years ago!' Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 22:14 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:The fact that police are willing to shoot the occasional civilian they for some reason find threatening (whether legit or not) is kind of immaterial because you're comparing apples to oranges. How am I comparing apples to oranges? Do you really think there's a scenario in which we'd go from peaceful business as usual to a large-scale mass armed uprising so quickly that the government would bypass local, state or federal law enforcement intervention and just declare martial law with actual combat troops in the streets as their first move? I admit that such a scenario might be possible, but its massively improbable. And are we talking about the same law enforcement that is notoriously frightened of their own shadows, trigger happy to a fault and have a predilection to shooting anyone holding an object that can be loosely described as gun shaped or sized? Because I have no problem believing they'd open fire on civilians who have taken up arms against the government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Geoj posted:Do you really think there's a scenario in which we'd go from peaceful business as usual to a large-scale mass armed uprising so quickly And where did I ever say anything like that? In fact I specifically mentioned that the state of things as they are today = very unlikely for any kind of popular revolt to happen. Usually that happens when people can't eat regularly anymore, historically. I never said it'd be some crazy 0 to 100 situation. I'm simply responding to "lol at the concept of an uprising against the US in the day and age where a dude can drone bomb you from 1000 miles away" which a couple people posted. Geoj posted:And are we talking about the same law enforcement that is notoriously frightened of their own shadows, trigger happy to a fault and have a predilection to shooting anyone holding an object that can be loosely described as gun shaped or sized? Because I have no problem believing they'd open fire on civilians who have taken up arms against the government. Sure, some would. Others wouldn't. The point is that law enforcement isn't meant to fight a mass uprising nor could they. gently caress man they can barely control riots that get out of hand. The apples to oranges is comparing some officers shooting a civilian in a particular situation versus something like the LA riots with guns. What exactly would they do? You really think LAPD is going to engage in urban hand to hand combat against thousands of people? e: like here this specifically is what I am responding to: Geoj posted:Even assuming you believe this was the founders' intent with the second amendment do you really believe in this day and age - when a guy sitting thousands of miles away in an air conditioned trailer can push a button to drop a high explosive tipped missile on you - revolting against an unjust government with nothing more than small arms is realistic? Yes, I do think that in this day and age a large enough revolt could topple the US gov't regardless of the fancy gadgets and weapons the US military has. That's all I'm saying. And yeah, tons of people would be killed. Hasn't stopped people from trying before. To say "it could never happen anyway" and then use that as a justification to disarm the people is silly. If we're so pro at war and putting down insurrections/unrest then how come a bunch of dudes with Soviet era small arms gave us so much trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan? Moridin920 has issued a correction as of 22:24 on Dec 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
CommunistPancake posted:this thread suddenly got really lovely moridin's poasting has that effect yes
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Yeah. I just don't like it when people go 'lol loving idiots no one can stop the US government might as well give up guns because their usefulness ended 100 years ago!'  If the US Military needs to get involved in domestic peace keeping, then it should be a full blown civil war scenario, and not one second sooner. Also demilitarize the police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:To say "it could never happen anyway" and then use that as a justification to disarm the people I didn't see anyone here trying to make that point. (Did I miss it?) So who are you arguing with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
please do not continue to engage w/ moridin's retarded rear end
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:53
|
|