Red Mosquito

The nutjobs expecting the end of the world are overreacting, but the normalcy bias of intellectuals never ceases to amaze me. The U.S. twenty years from now could and probably will look much different than the place we now live in. Anything can happen.

I just need a little time to get my shelter ready. Does anyone have a backhoe I can borrow?

E.H. Ruddock wrote:I will be forwarding this thread to some former associates, burt

put in a good word for me. I'm a firm believer in a ruling class.

Green Habit wrote:

InThePresentTense wrote:No tinfoil hat here. And definitely won't be lumped in with the conspiracy theory lot. Simply put. I don't trust my own Government. That doesn't make me some radical asshole or militia quack. I believe in critical thinking. First thing people who behave like your statement points to do is try to label anyone who doesn't follow along as some fringe idiot. Shameful. I pity you though.

You're new here, so I think people may have jumped too quickly to make a joke on you. Anyway, I think most of us here have some level of distrust of the government (I know I do). However, whatever distrust I have in the government, I would consider myself nuts to try and take things into my own hands via force given the immense strength of the government's power. What say you?

I am right there with you. I wouldn't go up against my government but that doesn't mean I trust those with in it any less. I don't like guns and do not own any. Part of me would really love to see Guns outlawed or at least serious limitations on the types of weapons people can have. But then there is that part of me that looks at history and knows that if our population were to be disarmed the potential for totalitarianism and a potential rogue government is quite possible. Plus, I would never want to tell anyone what they can do when it comes to there own self defense and the means to do so. I am one of those people stuck in the middle.

Burt makes a good point about how the political landscape in the US could look different in 20 years, but I'm still wondering: what would it take for the government (which is fractured and inefficient, certainly not monolithic) to unite and use force against law-abiding citizens? The only thing that comes to mind would be sustained, effective domestic terrorism the likes of which we've never seen.

Simple Torture wrote:Burt makes a good point about how the political landscape in the US could look different in 20 years, but I'm still wondering: what would it take for the government (which is fractured and inefficient, certainly not monolithic) to unite and use force against law-abiding citizens? The only thing that comes to mind would be sustained, effective domestic terrorism the likes of which we've never seen.

I think in 20 years the political landscape in most of the world will look different just like it did 20 years ago. I also think it's very common for people to have a degree of disagreement and mistrust for their governments and not just in the western world. As you point out the government isn't monolithic and again not just in the US. It's all very abstract IMO.
As i understand it in this context government usually in practice means POTUS rather than congress. For most Europeans the 2 are essentialy the same as we don't have midterms and the same political side controls both throughout the term anyway.

What i really don't understand is when does the mythical armed to the teeth militia starts to make sense as an option since the mistrust/disagreement with the government is an abstract feeling towards an in practice abstract notion. No matter how fucked up the government may be i don't see how a group of well armed nuts are a better alternative. Besides unarmed demonstrations and protests actually work.
I think the moment a group attempts to overturn a government with arms it makes itself vulnerable to the same government who's even more armed and better trained to use those weapons. This can't happen if the action is non-violent.
You have a great historical example in your country with the African American civil rights movement.

By and large non-violent opposition has been more effective in stable regimes in the last 50 plus years. You don't need guns to withdraw your support for a regime - especially one whose lifeblood is commerce

InThePresentTense wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

InThePresentTense wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

InThePresentTense wrote:Part of me would love to see nothing more than guns outlawed in the US. But then there is that part of me that knows my own fucking Government cant be trusted.

If the government's really going to go after you, guns aren't going to help you.

Yeah, yet a bunch of Militants and Terrorists have proven all around the middle east just the opposite. You underestimate a fair number of Americans who would do the same if and when the government were to turn on it's citizens. It would be a very similar but far more well equipped, well prepared fight than you see abroad. History of warfare including in our own back yard proves just that. A well armed population in fact keeps a Government on it's best behavior more times than not.

Take off your tinfoil hat....jesus

No tinfoil hat here. And definitely won't be lumped in with the conspiracy theory lot. Simply put. I don't trust my own Government. That doesn't make me some radical asshole or militia quack. I believe in critical thinking. First thing people who behave like your statement points to do is try to label anyone who doesn't follow along as some fringe idiot. Shameful. I pity you though.

Having a general distrust of the government and appropriately expressing that distrust can be done without believing your hunting rifle legitimately plays any role in that.

Save your shame and pity brah

"dustrust"

I fixed my type o since you felt the need to be 'that guy' ruddo.

verb_to_trust wrote:I fixed my type o since you felt the need to be 'that guy' ruddo.

I'm usually not, verb. But dustrust just sounded funny when I sounded it out. I just want to preserve the funny moment.

You get a pass

stip wrote:By and large non-violent opposition has been more effective in stable regimes in the last 50 plus years. You don't need guns to withdraw your support for a regime - especially one whose lifeblood is commerce

This is so much kinder a response to this type of thinking than I am capable of these days. I admire you for it.

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:By and large non-violent opposition has been more effective in stable regimes in the last 50 plus years. You don't need guns to withdraw your support for a regime - especially one whose lifeblood is commerce

This is so much kinder a response to this type of thinking than I am capable of these days. I admire you for it.

You are hereby kicked out of the thundercunts

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:By and large non-violent opposition has been more effective in stable regimes in the last 50 plus years. You don't need guns to withdraw your support for a regime - especially one whose lifeblood is commerce

This is so much kinder a response to this type of thinking than I am capable of these days. I admire you for it.

You are hereby kicked out of the thundercunts

Would it help my club standing at all, if what I wish would happen is for all these people to just give their preposterous "guns v gub'ment" logic the old try-and-die?

I suppose the answer to the question, "did the feds learn anything after Ruby Ridge and Waco" is definitely a maybe. We have to wait to see if they revel in death and provide post-hoc justifications to know for sure.

Unfortunately, the lesson for them could be that dead brown people wins more votes than dead white people.

Also, that this kind of shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassina ... ira_Gandhi didn't happen to Reno or Clinton rather indicates the hopelessness of any sort of western rebellion.

Wapo piece on fed land in the west:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ?tid=sm_tw

McParadigm wrote:

stip wrote:By and large non-violent opposition has been more effective in stable regimes in the last 50 plus years. You don't need guns to withdraw your support for a regime - especially one whose lifeblood is commerce

This is so much kinder a response to this type of thinking than I am capable of these days. I admire you for it.

That's just because you don't teach anymore

stip wrote:By and large non-violent opposition has been more effective in stable regimes in the last 50 plus years. You don't need guns to withdraw your support for a regime - especially one whose lifeblood is commerce

I'll prob pass this thought off as my own next Holiday dinner with the in laws. Of course I'll forget how it goes and butcher it.

stip wrote:By and large non-violent opposition has been more effective in stable regimes in the last 50 plus years. You don't need guns to withdraw your support for a regime - especially one whose lifeblood is commerce

Exactly and yet the thesis that people have to be armed to their teeth "just in case" seems to be widely accepted as a pro-gun argument.
I find all of the go to arguments the pro-gunners use obsolete and completely useless unless preached to a choir.

I also fail to understand the pseudo religious text status of the constitution. Constitutions change and adapt to the times which should make sense without further explanation. I sometimes get the feeling that it often becomes synonymous with the 2nd amendment as if it the whole point of it's existence was to grant people the right to bear arms.

I also find it bizarre that the argument that the state of the psychiatric care has to do with anything to the point of being addressed in one of the measures Obama is trying to get trough. Making it extremely difficult for potential crazy people to be anywhere near devices that make it easy to kill or wound a group of people in a very short time should be a viable option and would be much more effective.

My biggest issue is that the gun violence/mass shootings are largely considered a non-issue and implicitly considered acceptable which is what supporting the status quo translates to.

I remember when Ben Carson made that statement about the sight of a death body of a fire arm victim is nowhere as tragic as the loss of the right to bare arms would be. I find this statement to be symptomatic of the state of the gun violence issue meaning a statement like that form a presidential candidate can only happen when the issue is white washed to the extreme.