439 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

Eonwe, on 23 December 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Power is power. The illusion of power, or how people perceive said power is irrelevant.

Power only matters in a life or death situation or in matters to prevent such life or death situations.

Regardless of our government now - to limit ourselves from even organizing would be a mistake.

The ability to defend oneself against one's government, no matter the odds, is crucial to one's survival.

To independence. To true individuality. Not prepackaged ideas that influence opinion or identity.

If it  comes to an armed struggle you will lose - the Government has more trained men with better weapons and more will to kill for its position. As I said Guns offer the illusion of real power to the diempowered masses. Meanwhile people are almost completely disinterested in engaging in Democratic power - and then wonder why they are in such a bad place.

Your fetish with guns will get you dead - and certainly will not rain in your government,
It is far easier to open fire on a militia man than a democratic and purposeful civil disobedience movement.

Br Cornelius

[AsteroidX]

OK

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

"I'm free anf my gun protects my liberty"
"you're under aresst and this army will make it so"

I am honestly failig to see how guns ensure your freedom, because when the baloon goes up and you've been stripped of your last freedom and the fascists rule, they'll have more guns and biger guns then you.

[Hawkin]

Stellar, on 23 December 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

May 19, 1927. Thats the date of the NYT article. 86 years ago. Its odd that someone would fetch an article from that long ago...

So what's 86 years ago make it any different then today. Human life was lost including many children. The point I'm making is
that now there's a cry for gun control because of Newtown CT. But this guy 86 years ago used dynamite to kill. Anybody with
evil intentions will always find a why to kill even if you take away his gun.

[and then]

Wearer of Hats, on 23 December 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

"I'm free anf my gun protects my liberty"
"you're under aresst and this army will make it so"

I am honestly failig to see how guns ensure your freedom, because when the baloon goes up and you've been stripped of your last freedom and the fascists rule, they'll have more guns and biger guns then you.

Insurgencies are notoriously hard to truly put down.  Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind.  And that is a tale of foreign troops doing the job.  Imagine having to do this with your own countrymen.  And imagine that many of those countrymen were current and former military trained.  It's not so clear as you make it WoH.  As the rules are today, if a police officer (unarmed) came in uniform to seize my guns or myself I would offer no resistance.  But if a law or decree is passed  legally to seize them?  I become several million strong, quickly.

[questionmark]

and then, on 23 December 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

Insurgencies are notoriously hard to truly put down.  Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind.  And that is a tale of foreign troops doing the job.  Imagine having to do this with your own countrymen.  And imagine that many of those countrymen were current and former military trained.  It's not so clear as you make it WoH.  As the rules are today, if a police officer (unarmed) came in uniform to seize my guns or myself I would offer no resistance.  But if a law or decree is passed  legally to seize them?  I become several million strong, quickly.

As long as people think they have something to loose, and be it their overdue Visa bill, there will be no revolution no matter how many guns, gunships and bombs people have.

[preacherman76]

Br Cornelius, on 23 December 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

If it  comes to an armed struggle you will lose - the Government has more trained men with better weapons and more will to kill for its position. As I said Guns offer the illusion of real power to the diempowered masses. Meanwhile people are almost completely disinterested in engaging in Democratic power - and then wonder why they are in such a bad place.

Your fetish with guns will get you dead - and certainly will not rain in your government,
It is far easier to open fire on a militia man than a democratic and purposeful civil disobedience movement.

Br Cornelius

Why do you assume our trained men would side with the government? If they take thier constitutional oaths seriously, and many do, they will be siding with we the people. And the government knows it. Thats why homeland see's returning vets as the greatest terrorist threat right now.

[Br Cornelius]

preacherman76, on 23 December 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

Why do you assume our trained men would side with the government? If they take thier constitutional oaths seriously, and many do, they will be siding with we the people. And the government knows it. Thats why homeland see's returning vets as the greatest terrorist threat right now.

Experience says that is almost never the case.
In a conflict situation - the Government still pays well, where as become a fugitive pays nothing and gets you an appointment with the firing squad.

Far better to actual take the institution of Government seriously and make it work for a change. No one wins by bloody insurrection.

Br Cornelius

[Stellar]

Mag357, on 23 December 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

So what's 86 years ago make it any different then today. Human life was lost including many children. The point I'm making is
that now there's a cry for gun control because of Newtown CT. But this guy 86 years ago used dynamite to kill. Anybody with
evil intentions will always find a why to kill even if you take away his gun.

And my point is that you dont see many cases of people blowing schools up with dynamite, do you? You do see many shooting though. Whats the difference between laws concerning dynamite and laws concerning guns? Is dynamite more strictly controlled, perhaps? Maybe every Tom, Dick and Jane in America don't have dynamite...

[Hawkin]

Stellar, on 23 December 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

And my point is that you dont see many cases of people blowing schools up with dynamite, do you? You do see many shooting though. Whats the difference between laws concerning dynamite and laws concerning guns? Is dynamite more strictly controlled, perhaps? Maybe every Tom, Dick and Jane in America don't have dynamite...

Alexander The Great, The Romans and Genghis Kahn didn't conquer lands and kill millions by using guns.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

As long as people think they have something to loose, and be it their overdue Visa bill, there will be no revolution no matter how many guns, gunships and bombs people have.  

We arent necessarily going to wait for them to make this LAW before we show are displeasure. But by the millions angrily. Not likely. After the Bane passes all bets are off.

[questionmark]

Stellar, on 23 December 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

And my point is that you dont see many cases of people blowing schools up with dynamite, do you? You do see many shooting though. Whats the difference between laws concerning dynamite and laws concerning guns? Is dynamite more strictly controlled, perhaps? Maybe every Tom, Dick and Jane in America don't have dynamite...

Until not so long ago anybody could have had dynamite. All you had to do is to go to some hardware store in most states and buy some.

But in either case, most get gun (weapon control) wrong, they think it is forbidding certain weapons or explosives. It is not about that: it is about controlling guns, from the day they were made to the day they reach the hand of its current owner and then holding the current owner responsible for the damage those guns may cause.

Edited by questionmark, 23 December 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[Stellar]

Mag357, on 23 December 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Alexander The Great, The Romans and Genghis Kahn didn't conquer lands and kill millions by using guns.

What on Earth is your point? Armies of the past didnt use guns, therefore guns should not be controlled? The two things are completely unrelated.

[and then]

Stellar, on 23 December 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

What on Earth is your point? Armies of the past didnt use guns, therefore guns should not be controlled? The two things are completely unrelated.

I think he's just making the point that other weapons are just as lethal in the hands of a person committed to killing.  Not really accurate though....  a semi auto with even an unskilled shooter on the trigger can cause a huge amount of mayhem.  A single shot bolt gun in the hands of someone skilled could do almost as much in the same amount of time.  

Br Cornelius, on 23 December 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

If it  comes to an armed struggle you will lose - the Government has more trained men with better weapons and more will to kill for its position. As I said Guns offer the illusion of real power to the diempowered masses. Meanwhile people are almost completely disinterested in engaging in Democratic power - and then wonder why they are in such a bad place.

Your fetish with guns will get you dead - and certainly will not rain in your government,
It is far easier to open fire on a militia man than a democratic and purposeful civil disobedience movement.

Br Cornelius

A militia like al queda or the Taliban?  The top 2 militaries in the history of the world have tried  on different occasions for a decade or more at a time to stop them.  Insurgencies don't have to field armies like a country does.  They just have to survive and keep fighting.  You underestimate the will of people who have KNOWN freedom, only to have it taken away....

[AsteroidX]

Quote

I think he's just making the point that other weapons are just as lethal in the hands of a person committed to killing.  Not really accurate though....  a semi auto with even an unskilled shooter on the trigger can cause a huge amount of mayhem.  A single shot bolt gun in the hands of someone skilled could do almost as much in the same amount of time.  

A lot of things can cause mayhem