penn and teller on gun control

[selador]

very nice!

http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/47/45/

[Xela]

1. Good one

Saw it a while ago.

Pretty good.

I was wondering where else I could find it since I couldn't get it in youtube anymore.

thanks for sharing.


Xela

[Old Codger]

2. Great

Thanks for posting

[knight_of_the_star]

3. The argument they make is loaded with fallacy

And it ignores the elephant in the room:

Rifles, even AKs and ARs, are no good if the government comes after you with tanks and F-16s.

[tularetom]

4. That doesn't seem to be the case in Iraq

The government. even backed by the awesome fire power of the US military doesn't seem to be able to get the upper hand on an armed pissed off citizenry.

And the government is less likely to come after us if they know we're gonna fight back.


I like the quote "You can call the police if a gang banger comes after you. But who will you call if the police come after you."

[Xela]

5. Now think more in terms of Blackwater

Imagine them coming after your community with the likes of Cheney at the helm or a nation building corporation like Halliburton.

The second amendment is not about hunting.

Xela

[iverglas]

6. and the damned thing is

Rifles, even AKs and ARs, are no good if the government comes after you with tanks and F-16s.

That "government" is the thingy that something approximating a majority of "you" elected ...

[virginia mountainman]

7. Let me help you with reality...

The reality of the situation IS..

Yes, the US Government has tanks, and has several thousand armored vehicles...But the nation is a BIG PLACE, they will not be everywhere at once..

Odds of seeing more than one or two, in most communities if the nation "goes to hell" are fairly low.

Tanks need spare parts, fuel and ammo, these are hauled by trucks... UNARMORED trucks that are easily disabled.

In the mountainous regions of the USA, the Rockies, the Sierras, the Appalachians etc..etc...

A handful of riflemen, with normal scoped hunting rifles, and NORMAL LEVELS of shooting skill, can very easily close an interstate for a very long time, to all but armored traffic.....Add a few chainsaws to the mix, and armored vehicles can be stopped...

Also, keep in mind, in a large city, a high rise, offers shots of up to and BEYOND a mile, to a skilled rifleman... Their is not enough armored vehicles to protect all the "important people" if "the US goes to hell" Also keep in mind, the "close" nature of American cities, with narrow streets, surrounded by tall buildings, these are "ready made" tank traps...

The Tanks cannot raise their guns UP far enough to engage the upper floors of buildings, who's occupants, would be nearly free to toss out Molotov cocktails at will.....Killing, if not Disabling the tank in the process..I would bet that the vast majority of people reading this, has available all that is needed to make a Molotov Cocktail right now...A glass bottle, a rag and some gasoline... (it does not penetrate the armor, the flames, get drawn into the engine and air intakes for the crew, if they use their NBC gear, they will survive, but the engine will die for lack of oxygen, and their weapon sighting systems may be damaged by an aggressive "Molotov attack" If they are unwise enough to leave a hatch open (HIGHLY likely due to the need to see where the tank is going in the narrow streets)....to bad for them

Really bad for them, if someone stops by a "welding shop" and get thermite....Even the mighty Abrams tank, WILL fall, if someone dumps a soda can worth of burning thermite on it....It will burn RIGHT THRU it...igniting everything it touches, It will burn a hole right thru to the ground...

Improvised bombs, would be common place, just like they are in Iraq...They are easily made, with at hand materials....

Trains are easily derailed, with bits of scrap steel...

As for the air force, not worried, their is too many of us!

And this is not taking into account, the military units, that will refuse to turn on the people....bring with them their weapons and armored vehicles with them...

I am confident, that the side of freedom would win handily, and rapidly.

Problem is, getting people to see that it is TIME, to take up arms...

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

11. What BS...

I care about my civil rights...ALL OF THEM....

I don't specify which ones, I want them all..and NO, I did not vote for him..

You can keep you ad hominems too yourself, because that is all you have in this argument....

[tucsonlib]

12. ad hominems too

I didn't realize that you viewed this dialogue as an argument. And I certainly didn't intend to impugn your good judgment. As for the rest of my comment, I was simply stating facts - Tragic, verifiable facts. If you could refute them I assume you would have at least made an attempt. Ad hominems? "What BS" is a better example than anything I might have written.

[virginia mountainman]

13. BS...

"Busy playing soldier"...
"voted for traitor in chief"....
"right to bear arms is all you cared about"....
"precious 2nd Amendment will be all that's left"

What facts are they to refute, a whole post of BULLSHIT...PURE BULLSHIT..

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

17. What you need is a dose of reality.

"Fact: The America you purport to love was hijacked by a cabal of thugs and criminals. Neither your scoped hunting rifles nor your well-oiled chainsaws were able to stop them. Fact: This administration has been thumbing its nose at the very rights you claim to care about. No more habeas corpus. Illegal wiretapping. Spying on its own citizens. Clampdown on free speech, and on and on. Where is your outrage?"


People, particularly those that strongly dislike/hate guns and the people that own them, once made Democraticunderground.com a very unfriendly place to be. All one has to do is look back in the archives from 2000 and work forward for more than ample examples of that. On a larger scale, many of those same people and people like them, pushed the banning of rifles used in less than 3% of all homicides on a general populace who were not misusing them in the first place. Those people added insult to injury by calling those who disagreed with the doing of it "gun nuts" and "unreasonable" and an assortment of other less than savory things.


Those people...the ones that made it unfriendly here, and the ones that want to ban certain guns, and call those that disagree with them "gun nuts" and "unreasonable" and an assortment of other less than savory things...those people were equally as instrumental in getting the current cronies to power, as the people they pushed away from voting for a Democrat. Maybe more so.


So while you bitch piss and moan about what the current misadministration has done, I very much doubt that you don't share a measure of responsibility for it.

[tucsonlib]

19. As a matter of fact.......

I own several guns. The only people I would ever refer to as "gun nuts" are the ones who claim gun ownership is the only thing protecting us from a rogue government. There are crazies on both sides of the issue, to be sure. I do not define myself by the guns I own, and I would never vote for a candidate based solely on his or her stance on any one issue. I remember well how Bill Clinton was demonized by the NRA when he was running for President. Tell me, in the eight years of his administration how many of your guns were confiscated? Also, I would never contribute money to the NRA, which is nothing but a lobbying group for the firearms industry. Do you really believe they give a damn about your rights? These are corporations, my friend, and care only about their bottom line.
The only point I've been trying to make is that the U.S. Government does NOT fear an armed citizenry. Why should they, when they can obtain absolute power without firing a shot? The citizen militia types playing their war games and predicting imminent invasion are just jerking off.

[beevul]

20. You betrayed yourself already.

"Anyone who fantasizes about disabling tanks with thermite, tossing Molotov cocktails, building IEDs, derailing trains, etc. and calls these lunatic delusions "The reality of the situation" belongs, well, in the mountains of Virginia."


Those are your words. When you characterized that posters musings of what -might- happen if a people were motivated as "fantasising" about it, you betrayed any illusion you might have been trying to paint, that you were in some way reasonable. You knew it was obvious by the time you finished reading my post, and had to try to smooth it over with the "I own several guns" line. Maybe you do, so what?
Your posts are replete with all the typical brady talking points, almost all of them. "Big firearm" for example. As far as the firearms industry, in America, its hardly "big tobacco" or "big pharma" or "big oil", or even "big fast food". A person would never say any of the things you said unless he/she knew nothing about the whole issue of firearms other than what brady talking points 2.0 tells them.

"The citizen militia types playing their war games and predicting imminent invasion are just jerking off."

That there is a big old strawman, because no one HERE is doing that. Yet more evidence that leads me to believe you are a brady stooge.

Now reply to me with a bunch of venemous insults and your journey to the dark side will be complete.

[virginia mountainman]

21. Fantasizing???

What the hell you mean?!?!

If you read my original post, you would SEE, that I was responding do a post from someone who was asking "what is the point, because the government has tanks and F16, All I was doing was pointing out in a few sentences, a brief outline of how such a war could be waged.

It is a COMMON REACTION, among those less familiar with military history that have an irrational fear of tanks, the military actually has a name for just such a reaction, it is called "tank panic", all I was doing was soothing a bit of that fear, with a good dose of reality..

Then YOU come into this thread, tossing out personal attacks.

IT was not fantasizing...If the scenarios I mention happen in the USA, it would mean that MANY MANY people, would have already been killed or hauled off to Gitmos, that have been set up for them, it NO ONE in their right mind would advocate such action, unless, it was, completely necessary.


You do realize that Sara Brady, "Whom you sound a helluva lot like" IS, a Republican??? So while you accuse me of "voting" for chimpy, you are fighting a repukes battle AGAINST civil rights...

[iverglas]

22. what am I not getting????????

If the scenarios I mention happen in the USA, it would mean that MANY MANY people, would have already been killed or hauled off to Gitmos, that have been set up for them, ...

... by the right-wing fucking government that THEY VOTED IN because of their obsession with their fucking guns and refusal to vote in their society's interests, and obviously their own interests ... because of their paranoid fantasies about needing their guns to defend themselves against ... the RIGHT-WING FUCKING GOVERNMENT THAT THEY VOTED IN.

What earthly sense does this NONsense make????


edit ... oh ... unless you're positing that the Democratic government that somehow got in for some reason started rounding up people and sending them to internment camps ...

[tucsonlib]

23. Thank you, iverglas

"the right-wing fucking government that THEY VOTED IN because of their obsession with their fucking guns and refusal to vote in their society's interests, and obviously their own interests ... because of their paranoid fantasies about needing their guns to defend themselves against ... the RIGHT-WING FUCKING GOVERNMENT THAT THEY VOTED IN."

Elegantly stated.

It isn't what you're not getting, iverglas. It's what they will never get. And what could explain their weird obsession with the Bradys? Me, I'm signing off. They're not worth the effort. It's like trying to reason with inbred gerbils.
See ya back on planet Earth.

[iverglas]

24. I know, eh?

And what could explain their weird obsession with the Bradys?

I was actually just fixing to say something along that line myself. ;)

If ya repeat it often enough, "Brady" will sound like "Rove" or "Stalin" or "Goebbels" ... or "Nugent" or "Lapierre" ... it's like some kind of really dumbo mumbo jumbo bad spell casting that just doesn't quite manage to rise to the occasion. Ooo, eeek, the Bradys are coming to get you. Hmm.


But the rest, that's just one of those questions I like to ask, just to hear myself talk. No other reason, since it seems unlikely it's ever going to be answered!

[tucsonlib]

25. Oh, I'm pretty sure you'll receive a reply or two....

And I highly recommend listening to "Dueling Banjos" while reading their posts.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

35. Thats your one sided spin, but its still spin.

"the right-wing fucking government that THEY VOTED IN because of their obsession with their fucking guns and refusal to vote in their society's interests, and obviously their own interests"

Oh but you do make a good game of talking down your nose at people that voted as you describe and even take liberties in claiming to know what those peoples interests are, but you mention nary a word of the people that made those voters feel as if they had no choice BECAUSE of the firearm issue. The people that went after guns numerous times in the past is who I am talking about. People who go after guns are WELL AWARE of how people that value thier firearms rights react to such things, yet they do them anyway.

In another post you claimed that you "blame people who create conditions in which someone else is at greater risk of suffering harm, whether the harm occurs or not. I blame them for putting someone else at risk by their actions." Clearly a vote for the current misadministration is such a thing, just as making someone feel like they have no choice but to vote that way is. You have done a great job expressing your outrage at the former in this thread and others, yet remain silent about the latter. So lets hear your outrage over the latter, spin free, unless that quote from the other thread is bullshit of the purest most unadulterated sort.

[gorfle]

29. Some replies...

I own several guns. The only people I would ever refer to as "gun nuts" are the ones who claim gun ownership is the only thing protecting us from a rogue government.

Question: Once a government has become a "rogue" government (I assume you mean one that no longer answers to the people it governs), what else will protect you besides force of arms?

Tell me, in the eight years of his administration how many of your guns were confiscated?

As the financial papers say in their fine print, "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance". Just because things on the firearm front have been reasonably rosy so far does not mean we should not be vigilant against encroachments on our rights, or that they might be compromised in the future. The Assault Weapon Ban legislation Bill brought us was certainly a big step onto that slippery slope.

Also, I would never contribute money to the NRA, which is nothing but a lobbying group for the firearms industry. Do you really believe they give a damn about your rights? These are corporations, my friend, and care only about their bottom line.

Where do you think the NRA gets most of its funds? From firearm corporations? I highly doubt it. The US firearms industry is small potatoes compared to other lobbying interests. The NRA is the 800-pound gorilla it is because it has the backing of millions of firearm owners. Does the firearm industry love the NRA? I'm sure they do. But to claim the NRA is nothing more than a front for the firearm industry is insane. I'm a member of the NRA and I don't have any ties to the firearm industry. There are millions of people just like me. Probably tens of millions.

The only point I've been trying to make is that the U.S. Government does NOT fear an armed citizenry. Why should they, when they can obtain absolute power without firing a shot?

Please elaborate on this absolute power and how it is obtained?

The citizen militia types playing their war games and predicting imminent invasion are just jerking off.

I guess the founding fathers must have had blisters on their penises when they put them in the ground.

[selador]

26. i totally agree

this is such a sophomoric debate tactic. and i see it here constantly. somebody doesn't agree with you, it's name calling, "you probably voted for bush", "that's a right wing meme" and other such crap.

[SteveM]

28. Yep, it's confirmed: sounds like B.S. to me. (nt)

[krispos42]

16. Can you be sure you didn't vote for him?

Remember how the machines can be hacked. Remember how on the touch-screens, they make the touchable area for Dems SMALLER than is displayed, and for the Repubs BIGGER than what is displayed. And those electronic counting machines... Hmmmm...

[gorfle]

10. some examples...

There are a few examples in modern history of the technologically superior forces being fought to at least a withdrawal in the face of inferior forces. Vietnam (USA). Afghanistan (USSR). Mogadishu (USA). Iraq (USA).

Insurrection on home turf is even harder to combat because it destroys the economy, which destroys tax revenue, which is what drives the government and its military.

The problem is not the ability to resist. It is the will to resist. Apathy is a far greater problem than tanks and F-16s.

[iverglas]

18. I get sooooooo confused

Vietnam (USA). Afghanistan (USSR). Mogadishu (USA). Iraq (USA).

Vietnam (did not vote for USA to occupy it). Afghanistan (did not vote for USSR to occupy it -- but we might remember that the insurrectionists were fascist thugs). Mogadishu (USA got scared and ran). Iraq (hahahahaha).

What lesson, exactly, is one supposed to be learning here?

That the same right-wing assholes who put your current right-wing government in power BY VOTING FOR IT, because they believed that was the way to keep the shiny metal objects of their affection out of the hands of the jack-booted nannies, are going to join with rights-and-freedoms-loving people from coast to coast and start shooting at that self-same right-wing government??

Why can I never figure out what you people are yammering on about?

The right-wing assholes in question aren't rising up to demand that they and their fellows get the health care that will stop them from living and dying in misery, or to demand that their homes not be stolen out from under them or their neighbours by usurious lenders, or that their government stop sending their sons and daughters to die in a monstrous and misbegotten imperialist adventure (even assuming they don't give a pinch of poop about all the foreigners their government and their sons and daughters are murdering) -- or standing up for any of those other rights 'n freedoms their precious shiny objects are supposed to be defending and against the right-wing government that is snuffing 'em all out -- but they're going to do all that once said government comes for their precious firesticks?

What are you people drinking?

And of course the big question ... if YOU haven't risen up against any of those atrocities, but YOU are going to do it if the jack-booted nannies come for your firesticks, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOU?

Why would said revolting right-wing government be trying to take away their precious firearms?

And if the government in question WAS delivering health care and safeguarding people's homes and not murdering people in foreign lands and not conducting secret trials and torturing people, WHY WOULD YOU BE TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST IT in defence of your precious fucking guns when YOU HAVE NOT LIFTED A FINGER, let alone a firearm, to defend the lives and health and well-being and freedom and safety of your fellows, whether domestic or foreign, for all these years?

If the government was doing all those things, WHAT THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO BE SHOOTING AT IT FOR?

All I'm seeing is more evidence of very good reason why a whole lot of people should never have access to firearms.

They're flat-out barmy.

[gorfle]

27. Replies...

Vietnam (USA). Afghanistan (USSR). Mogadishu (USA). Iraq (USA).

Vietnam (did not vote for USA to occupy it). Afghanistan (did not vote for USSR to occupy it -- but we might remember that the insurrectionists were fascist thugs). Mogadishu (USA got scared and ran). Iraq (hahahahaha).

What lesson, exactly, is one supposed to be learning here?

As I said, these are examples of technologically inferior forces successfully making a stand against technologically superior forces.

I was not commenting on the underlying reasons for the conflicts.

That the same right-wing assholes who put your current right-wing government in power BY VOTING FOR IT, because they believed that was the way to keep the shiny metal objects of their affection out of the hands of the jack-booted nannies, are going to join with rights-and-freedoms-loving people from coast to coast and start shooting at that self-same right-wing government??

Why can I never figure out what you people are yammering on about?

The right-wing assholes in question aren't rising up to demand that they and their fellows get the health care that will stop them from living and dying in misery, or to demand that their homes not be stolen out from under them or their neighbours by usurious lenders, or that their government stop sending their sons and daughters to die in a monstrous and misbegotten imperialist adventure (even assuming they don't give a pinch of poop about all the foreigners their government and their sons and daughters are murdering) -- or standing up for any of those other rights 'n freedoms their precious shiny objects are supposed to be defending and against the right-wing government that is snuffing 'em all out -- but they're going to do all that once said government comes for their precious firesticks?

What are you people drinking?

I do not disagree with you, Iverglas, that the "Guns, Guts, and God" crowd have been played by the Republican party, all the while having our liberties eroded by things like the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, free speech zones, and on and on and on. This does not invalidate the usefulness of arms to stand against tyranny. Will the people with the arms take a stand if it becomes necessary? Only time can tell. Not everyone is blind to what is going on, Iverglas. People are rapidly turning away from our current right-wing government in power BY VOTING AGAINST IT. Including people who used to vote Republican. Like me.

Having the means to resist tyranny is only half the problem. Recognizing tyranny and summoning the courage to stand against it is the other half. To many are ignorant and are being lulled by the enticing calls for nationalism, "patriotism", "family values", and the like. The Republican party has learned how to pander to these people perfectly.

And of course the big question ... if YOU haven't risen up against any of those atrocities, but YOU are going to do it if the jack-booted nannies come for your firesticks, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT YOU?

It says that I can see that the time for armed revolution is not yet upon us. Our system of government still works. People are waking up to the evils of our current administration and working against them. The 2006 election turned the tide. I have high hopes for the 2008 election.

Make no mistake, Iverglas. Confiscation of firearms is not the sole justification for revolution. But it would certainly be the final bellwether for me. As for what other things might trigger it, it's hard to say. In the end, it could be something as banal as a tax on tea.

Why would said revolting right-wing government be trying to take away their precious firearms?

To suppress insurrection, would be my guess.

And if the government in question WAS delivering health care and safeguarding people's homes and not murdering people in foreign lands and not conducting secret trials and torturing people, WHY WOULD YOU BE TAKING UP ARMS AGAINST IT in defence of your precious fucking guns when YOU HAVE NOT LIFTED A FINGER, let alone a firearm, to defend the lives and health and well-being and freedom and safety of your fellows, whether domestic or foreign, for all these years?

If the government was doing all those things, WHAT THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO BE SHOOTING AT IT FOR?

You wouldn't. You don't keep arms for the purpose of shooting at a well-functioning government, you keep them for defense against a tyrannical one.

[iverglas]

31. actually ...

As I said, these are examples of technologically inferior forces successfully making a stand against technologically superior forces.

They're examples of residents of a jurisdiction using force to repel unwanted and uninvited invaders.

I have no idea why anyone would think that situation is analogous to anything that might happen in the US involving an indigenous, elected government.

The issue really isn't what technology anybody is using. The issue is WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE who are going to rise up in arms against this chimerical US government of yours. The people who VOTED THE GOVERNMENT INTO OFFICE??

Ya gotta have some forces on the side with the inferior technology before their technology is even a question.


Why would said revolting right-wing government be trying to take away their precious firearms?
To suppress insurrection, would be my guess.

Insurrection by ... ... ... ???

The people who VOTED THAT RIGHT-WING GOVERNMENT INTO OFFICE? The people who don't give a shit about how many people in their country die for want of healthcare or have their homes stolen out from under them, or how many hundreds of thousands of foreigners their government murders in a decade, who voted for the government that uses illegal detentions and torture and murder and oppression to get its way in the world?

What exactly is that government going to be doing that is going to upset them so much that they're going to head for the hills with their firesticks and start taking pot shots at it?

And if we're talking about the people who did NOT vote for said right-wing government, who oppose its policies of murder and theft and neglect and oppression, where the fuck are they and their popguns NOW? What kind of people are they that they sit on their complacent asses while all that goes on, and then rise up in arms when the government comes for their popguns?

Figments of someone's overheated imagination people maybe?

Make no mistake, Iverglas. Confiscation of firearms is not the sole justification for revolution. But it would certainly be the final bellwether for me. As for what other things might trigger it, it's hard to say. In the end, it could be something as banal as a tax on tea.

Hahaha. Good example. The rich and powerful and male and white rising up against some other rich powerful male white guys because they want their share of the spoils. And when it's all over ... life for all the rest is pretty much just exactly like it was before. If not worse. The British did actually abolish slavery, f'r instance, a while before your indigenous rich powerful male white guys got around to it.

First they came for everybody else, being the tyrannical so-and-sos they are, and then when they finally, for some totally unexplained reason, came for my guns, inexplicably not having come for me for any other reason, then I'm peeved.


You wouldn't. You don't keep arms for the purpose of shooting at a well-functioning government, you keep them for defense against a tyrannical one.

And here I am, wondering whom the hell you think you'll be shooting with, and whom you'll be shooting at. Which side will the people who voted FOR the torturing, murdering, oppressive gummint be standing on ...?

[gorfle]

32. More replies...

They're examples of residents of a jurisdiction using force to repel unwanted and uninvited invaders.

That may well be, but they are also examples of technologically inferior forces successfully repelling the aggressions of technologically superior forces, which I provided to counter the claim of the original post I was responding to, that claimed "Rifles, even AKs and ARs, are no good if the government comes after you with tanks and F-16s."

I have no idea why anyone would think that situation is analogous to anything that might happen in the US involving an indigenous, elected government.

And I have no idea why you are trying to change the conversation into a discussion of motivations for armed uprisings when that was never the topic at hand, which is, "Rifles, even AKs and ARs, are no good if the government comes after you with tanks and F-16s."

The whole point of my rebuttal was, and continues to be, that this supposition is demonstrably false.

The issue really isn't what technology anybody is using. The issue is WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE who are going to rise up in arms against this chimerical US government of yours. The people who VOTED THE GOVERNMENT INTO OFFICE??

No, that is the issue you are trying to bring into this subject, for some reason. The issue at hand is are Rifles, even AKs and ARs, any good against tanks and F-16s. You are attempting to change the subject into a discussion about the motivations for rebellion.

Insurrection by ... ... ... ???

The people who VOTED THAT RIGHT-WING GOVERNMENT INTO OFFICE? The people who don't give a shit about how many people in their country die for want of healthcare or have their homes stolen out from under them, or how many hundreds of thousands of foreigners their government murders in a decade, who voted for the government that uses illegal detentions and torture and murder and oppression to get its way in the world?

What exactly is that government going to be doing that is going to upset them so much that they're going to head for the hills with their firesticks and start taking pot shots at it?

And if we're talking about the people who did NOT vote for said right-wing government, who oppose its policies of murder and theft and neglect and oppression, where the fuck are they and their popguns NOW? What kind of people are they that they sit on their complacent asses while all that goes on, and then rise up in arms when the government comes for their popguns?

Figments of someone's overheated imagination people maybe?

You are asking me what will be the catalyst for armed revolution in the United States. My answer is I don't know, but I want to be prepared for the eventuality, as our founding fathers intended.

You seem to be trying to make the case that given the egregious behavior of our government as of late, since no one has instigated an armed rebellion against it yet that the need or will to do so will never come to pass, and, by extension, that therefore the need to keep and bear arms for such a purpose is null and void.

The only thing I can say to you, Iverglas, is that an insufficient number of Americans yet feel their government is bad enough to revolt against, and/or feel that the representative system still works, and/or are quite happy with the way they think things are. I know that this is, in fact, my sentiment personally. I believe our system still works. I do not feel the time for armed rebellion is at hand.

Let me as you a question, Iverglas: Do you feel that the time for armed rebellion is upon us?

[iverglas]

33. let me try to help you

And I have no idea why you are trying to change the conversation into a discussion of motivations for armed uprisings when that was never the topic at hand, which is, "Rifles, even AKs and ARs, are no good if the government comes after you with tanks and F-16s."

Because there's a pronoun in there. YOU. WHO ARE 'YOU'??


The whole point of my rebuttal was, and continues to be, that this supposition is demonstrably false.

No, it's not. It's debatable. No fact from the past is proof that anything will happen in the future in circumstances that are not identical.

And it's only debatable if there is a YOU there. WHO ARE 'YOU'??

We know who THEY were/are in the case of Vietnam and Afghanistan etc. etc.

Who are YOU who are going to be blasting away at those tanks and whatevers when this other THEY come to get YOU??


The people whose arms they are hypothetically attempting to seize, of course.

And those people are ... WHO???

WHOSE firearms are THEY (who?) attempting to seize?

The people who VOTED THEM INTO OFFICE?


You are asking me what will be the catalyst for armed revolution in the United States. My answer is I don't know, but I want to be prepared for the eventuality, as our founding fathers intended.

Oh, well, then.

Don't ask me what the catalyst for defending Earth against little green people from Alpha Centauri will be. My answer will be that I don't know, but I want to be prepared for the eventuality, as L. Ron Hubbard's great-grandfather's secret lovechild with Shirley MacLaine's great-great-grandmother intended. And I always do what L. Ron Hubbard's great-grandfather's secret lovechild with Shirley MacLaine's great-great-grandmother intended. So I'm gonna stock my house up with cobras, 'cause I know that's what will work against those little green people from Alpha Centauri, and that's what L. Ron Hubbard's great-grandfather's secret lovechild with Shirley MacLaine's great-great-grandmother said was the important thing to do.


I believe our system still works. I do not feel the time for armed rebellion is at hand.

Obviously, you believe your system still works FOR YOU. Very obviously, there are billions of people in the world for whom your system is actually working very badly. And very obviously, you don't give a shit -- because you are preparing for the eventuality of rising up and taking potshots at the people responsible ONLY if and when they come for what matters to YOU. Which obviously is not trivial little things like other people's lives.


Let me as you a question, Iverglas: Do you feel that the time for armed rebellion is upon us?

Your question would be meaningful, and not loaded with a false premise, if I had said that I believed the time for armed rebelliion would ever be upon you.

I didn't. I'm not the one indulging in daydreams that I can only describe as ... well, let's just say "unsavoury", for the multiple known reasons.

[gorfle]

34. Still more replies...

And I have no idea why you are trying to change the conversation into a discussion of motivations for armed uprisings when that was never the topic at hand, which is, "Rifles, even AKs and ARs, are no good if the government comes after you with tanks and F-16s."

Because there's a pronoun in there. YOU. WHO ARE 'YOU'??

Oh come on, Iverglas, that's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? The guy was clearly making the case that rifles can't compete with tanks and F-16s, and just as clearly my response was to provide examples where this has been done. The "you" is completely general in his thesis. Stop trying to change the subject.

No, it's not. It's debatable. No fact from the past is proof that anything will happen in the future in circumstances that are not identical.

Nor have I said so. I have merely provided examples where technologically inferior forces have won out over technologically superior ones. Once we have pulled out of Iraq, which will happen hopefully shortly after the next election, there will be at least three cases in modern history where the United States, one of the most powerful military forces on the planet, will have been repulsed by significantly technologically inferior forces.

This is, of course, no guarantee that all such contests against the United States by technologically inferior forces will likewise succeed. But I believe it does indicate that it is certainly possible, and it easily refutes the claim that rifles can't compete with tanks and F-16s.

You are asking me what will be the catalyst for armed revolution in the United States. My answer is I don't know, but I want to be prepared for the eventuality, as our founding fathers intended.

Oh, well, then.

Don't ask me what the catalyst for defending Earth against little green people from Alpha Centauri will be. My answer will be that I don't know, but I want to be prepared for the eventuality, as L. Ron Hubbard's great-grandfather's secret lovechild with Shirley MacLaine's great-great-grandmother intended. And I always do what L. Ron Hubbard's great-grandfather's secret lovechild with Shirley MacLaine's great-great-grandmother intended. So I'm gonna stock my house up with cobras, 'cause I know that's what will work against those little green people from Alpha Centauri, and that's what L. Ron Hubbard's great-grandfather's secret lovechild with Shirley MacLaine's great-great-grandmother said was the important thing to do.

Are you seriously comparing the reasoning of the founding fathers to L. Ron Hubbard's?

I know you are trying to be snide here, Iverglas, but come on. If the best you can do to refute the reasoning of our founding fathers is make jokes about fictional aliens and love children between L. Ron Hubbard and Shirley MacLaine, that's pretty pathetic. Our founding fathers were highly intelligent people who formed this country based on real-world experience and extrapolation based on it. Your comical parody debases them, their efforts, and the principles they stood for and our country was founded on. I know you are just going to reply "Waaah" as you have done in the past, but truly, your parody about our country and its founders offends me.

Even the founding fathers could not predict when, why, or how tyranny would encroach upon us. But they certainly were aware of the possibility, and they made provisions in our Constitution to insure that the people had the means to act against it if necessary. They didn't provide us with a checklist of things to mark off before we start marching off to revolution.

Armed Revolutions require a critical mass of people angry enough to kill. We don't have that today, hence, no revolution, and thankfully so.

Obviously, you believe your system still works FOR YOU. Very obviously, there are billions of people in the world for whom your system is actually working very badly. And very obviously, you don't give a shit -- because you are preparing for the eventuality of rising up and taking potshots at the people responsible ONLY if and when they come for what matters to YOU. Which obviously is not trivial little things like other people's lives.

And this is exactly the point, Iverglas. It's not just me that thinks this way, it is the majority of U.S. citizens. You ask when the revolution will come. The answer is when enough of us "give a shit" to the point that they are willing to kill over it. Right now, not enough people do. What will be the event that makes enough people give a shit to the point that they will kill over it? Who can say? But as bad as things are now, if the dark day ever comes where it is bad enough to cause armed revolt, I would certainly then, even more than today, want the means to do it.

Your question would be meaningful, and not loaded with a false premise, if I had said that I believed the time for armed rebelliion would ever be upon you.

I didn't. I'm not the one indulging in daydreams that I can only describe as ... well, let's just say "unsavoury", for the multiple known reasons.

So is it your position, then, that the time for armed rebellion will never be upon us?

[gorfle]

36. Still waiting for a reply...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=164917&mesg_id=165171

[krispos42]

15. The tanks and F-16's have to have a target.

In the event of a rebellion, the rebels are not going to spontaniously form battalions and divisions and fight a conventional war.

It would be an insurgency, a secret movement, a guerrilla war. How can the F-16's bomb an enemy munitions factory when the insurgents are getting ammo by ambushing supply columns?

Eventually, if it dragged on long enough and enough soldiers switched sides, you might start seeing uniforms and fielded armies and battlefields.

[L1A1Rocker]

9. I really enjoyed that episode!