2043: Rock of Ages

[Sad Onion]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Pedantic confused me. So I looked it up. Pedant: a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning. Good word. Thank you for that.

I'm very familiar with the seemingly patriotic declaration of gun ownership. I own them to hunt for food. You own them for your own reasons. That's fine. Just don't shoot anyone because Alex Jones told you to, is all I'm saying

Have a good one and again, welcome to the forums.

The relevant definitions:

ped·ant noun \ˈpe-dənt\
: a person who annoys other people by correcting small errors and giving too much attention to minor details

b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

Originally Posted by Keith

Because we need to worry about civilians. But if the US government was against the US civilians, I don't think it'd be a tough fight.

Well, I wouldn't say that any kind of revolution happens tomorrow. I would say a fight would come down to a benefit versus detriment argument. It would have to be so bad, that people are casually being murdered in the streets by the government anyhow.

As for the easy fight, perhaps you're right. But people always assume the military would be a unified force when fighting the populous. When fighting their own families, I think American soldiers might not be so willing to pull the trigger, and I'm guessing a number of them might join the other side, bringing military tech with them. This is all just speculation, though.


(I'll ask my question again, but in a more succinct way. I think maybe I took to long to ask it in a post before, but I think it's still important) If a government is oppressing you, and is not willing to listen to what anyone says, if you think fighting is not possible, because they're too powerful, then what do you do? What is left?

[Keith]

Is the government railroading us now? Yes. Are we really doing anything about it? No.

[robotparker]

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

All of that aside, I would like to point out that with all of the technological advantages the American military has, the mountains of Afghanistan it has been trying to clear for somewhere around ten years now is still heavily infested with the Taliban, who only wield simple explosive tech, and Ak-47's.

Well, the difference is that the Taliban is an organized, disciplined, and trained organization with a vast support network and the only home field advantage. Meanwhile, this is what passes for a "freedom fighter" in America:



Also, let's not forget that many of the militants in Afghanistan were armed and trained by the CIA during a bunch of bullshit proxy wars with Russia back in the 80s. So they're probably a little more capable than a bunch of goofy neckbeards that were trained by Call of Duty.

[Sad Onion]

Originally Posted by Keith

Is the government railroading us now? Yes. Are we really doing anything about it? No.

Well, that's what I was saying, we're not to that point. There are varying shades of gray when it comes to oppression, it's not just black and white, oppressing, or not oppressing. The threshhold of when the people decide to act would be somewhere down the road like I said, where the government is killing people in the streets, anyhow.

When a people fight for freedom en masse, it will come around the time when they don't have much else to lose. Yes, the government is railroading now, but the people still have alot to lose, so I wouldn't expect them to act any time soon.

Originally Posted by robotparker

Well, the difference is that the Taliban is an organized, disciplined, and trained organization with a vast support network and the only home field advantage. Meanwhile, this is what passes for a "freedom fighter" in America:



Also, let's not forget that many of the militants in Afghanistan were armed and trained by the CIA during a bunch of bullshit proxy wars with Russia back in the 80s. So they're probably a little more capable than a bunch of goofy neckbeards that were trained by Call of Duty.

That did make me laugh, the thought of that guy going against a trained military force. I've seen other kinds of people in the militias, but that's all up to what media you've seen. Thanks for the chuckle.

[WittyReference]

I posted a link to this last time the gun thing was debated but Sad Onion is new here.

Jason Alexander examining the militia thing and USA gun culture: TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter

"So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no."

[ghauck]

Originally Posted by Sad Onion

Lastly, I've always found it odd when people bring up the year. Greed and Hatred exist in men's hearts regardless of what the calender says. This was as true in 1000 CE as it will be in 3000 CE.

I like Sad, his posts are respectful thus I can actually make it to the end of them. This has allowed me to understand his patriotic gun philosophy even though I don't agree with it. I 2nd Lizquiz's amendment to welcome him to the forums. (See what I did there

People bring up the year because things change. When the constitution was written the leading cure for a lady in nervous breakdown was an orgasm and slap. Today we have advanced to anti-depressant drugs which dull the urge for an orgasm - how far we have come.

So, the year is important. Let's say it's 2387 and people have bullets that guarantee a kill shot from within 5km based on DNA. What if someone feels I'm going to kill them because they raped my daughter (like Scum for example) and they set their gun to my DNA in case I get close to them. Is it still a good idea for everyone to own a gun.

The thing is, it's sounds so right and proper to have an armed population to protect each other from criminals and rogue governments. My problem is that 10's of thousands of people are going to die from an idiot owning a gun while we wait for the signal to attack our rogue government.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by ghauck

I like Sad, his posts are respectful thus I can actually make it to the end of them.

That's why I keep mine short.

Lick my taint.

[Zomniac]

I see the intended reason behind the 2nd Amendment and understand that, at the time, the founders (for all their faults) wrote it to make sure that the U.S. Citizen had a recourse in case the Federal Government suddenly became as bad as, say, the rule of King George II (or, an unforeseeable, worse case).

In this day and age, however, the average U.S. Citizen in a militia (whatever definition you use) would stand very little chance against the Armed Forces. I see a revolution being a long drawn out scrap with many insurgents slowly being whittled down to nothing by a well armed, organized, and strong force.

Having said that, however, I cannot say that I could never see a Red Dawn scenario (albeit against our own government and not that of ill-intentioned invaders), where a few scrappy militias could do some damage. OR a few segments of the military siding with the public against the government (which would definitely be the best way to realize a revolution), could possibly turn the tide in favor of the revolutionists.

So far, however, every group of people, whatever their reason, who has attempted to start a revolution against the government has lost. And badly. A revolution would have to be of a considerable size (let's say, for the sake of argument and numbers, considerably more than a majority of the fighting able-bodied population) in order to stand any chance, however slim, of being successful.

A distinct possibility, however, and history bears this out, is that a major revolution would, most likely, turn into civil war, dividing the country and doing much more harm than good. And, throughout history, not all civil wars end with the right winner, only the more powerful one.

[CsisandDesist]

Originally Posted by robotparker

Well, the difference is that the Taliban is an organized, disciplined, and trained organization with a vast support network and the only home field advantage. Meanwhile, this is what passes for a "freedom fighter" in America:



Also, let's not forget that many of the militants in Afghanistan were armed and trained by the CIA during a bunch of bullshit proxy wars with Russia back in the 80s. So they're probably a little more capable than a bunch of goofy neckbeards that were trained by Call of Duty.

Fitting Room. Priceless.