Bush Redeems Himself

[mauldooku]

Again, this only has relevance if you assume that there will be such a large-scale uprising, when a much more likely scenario is the U.S. government naming those who oppose it as 'terrorists' and/or 'insurgents'. Remember, these people have to so utterly convinced in their cause that they'll leave their homes, families, lives, and jobs. And for those vigilant few who join, how will they organize into a disciplined force, capable of taking orders and fulfilling them?

Traditionally civilian insurgents learn as they go, at the expense of horrific casualties.

Agreed, but that doesn't really attack my point. I stated the unlikelihood of a major number of civilians willing to abandon everything about their former lives for a resistance movement. The horrific casualties bit doesn't really help, either. They're all volunteer, right? How long do you think they'll stick around when other people (and themselves) start getting shot?

[Petrosjko]

In which the government has the unbeatable upper hand. How will the populance react if the President/Prime Minister announced that there was a terrorist threat in the country, composed of those willing to attack our freedoms and way of life? He's got major communication channels; the rebels do not.

That would be totally dependent on the circumstances. For example, if the targeted insurgents were Christian, things get interesting. The available information distribution channel?

You're using it right now.

[mauldooku]

In which the government has the unbeatable upper hand. How will the populance react if the President/Prime Minister announced that there was a terrorist threat in the country, composed of those willing to attack our freedoms and way of life? He's got major communication channels; the rebels do not.

That would be totally dependent on the circumstances. For example, if the targeted insurgents were Christian, things get interesting.

Err...what does exactly change? Not that it'll matter. Bush'll just go on another rant about the terrorists 'not having any morals, not having any religion'.

The available information distribution channel?

You're using it right now.

TV, radio, and newspapers and incomparable as information channels: they hit nearly everyone, at roughly the same time. Spreading information on the 'net works, but it's much slower. Lots of little conspiracy/rebellion groups have their own sites. That doesn't exactly win them many followers.

[Petrosjko]

Agreed, but that doesn't really attack my point. I stated the unlikelihood of a major number of civilians willing to abandon everything about their former lives for a resistance movement. The horrific casualties bit doesn't really help, either. They're all volunteer, right? How long do you think they'll stick around when other people (and themselves) start getting shot?

Actually, if those horrific casualties are being created in the midst of a major metropolitan area, with all sorts of collateral damage involved, they're busy creating recruits.

Thing is, there are enough people out there versed in at least the basics of insurgency warfare to make this a royal mess and stage enough events to create suitably repressive responses. The major drag of insurgency is that there is no way to combat it without severe curtailing of civil liberties, and curtailing civil liberties immediately starts moving people away from the 'support the government' category.

[Stofsk]

In which the government has the unbeatable upper hand. How will the populance react if the President/Prime Minister announced that there was a terrorist threat in the country, composed of those willing to attack our freedoms and way of life? He's got major communication channels; the rebels do not.

It depends on the Pres/PM's reputation. He could be an honourable person enjoying good approval polls, and 'word on the street' being in his favour, or he could be a StalinLite for the 21st C.

For the rebels to succeed, they need to be supported by those within or without (though the goal in a revolution ultimately means being supported by those within). They would have their work cut out for them.

[Petrosjko]

Err...what does exactly change? Not that it'll matter. Bush'll just go on another rant about the terrorists 'not having any morals, not having any religion'.

That changes things because it taps into the red states and their inherent distrust of the government. It changes things because it involves a group that already has a persecution complex they're always looking to justify. It creates a body of recruits and a support network that the government will have to be brutal in repressing.

TV, radio, and newspapers and incomparable as information channels: they hit nearly everyone, at roughly the same time. Spreading information on the 'net works, but it's much slower. Lots of little conspiracy/rebellion groups have their own sites. That doesn't exactly win them many followers.

It's another case of the government having the biggest guns, but not being able to squelch the small ones. Furthermore, the net can be used to create a dueling propaganda situation, where the official state reports of actions are continually countered by reports from online.

"A terrorist safehouse was assaulted today in Omaha, blah blah blah, minimal casualties, blah blah blah." is your state news report.

"Bullshit. Here's the images of the firebombing and massacre." is your net counter-report.

Part of what the insurgents would be looking for is to create sufficient doubt in state reports as to render them discredited. Part of the 'hearts and minds' strategy.

[Predator]

Wrong, nuclear weapons do not kill indiscriminately if you wish to kill everyone in the target zone.

You seem to be claiming that a weapon is only a valid in self defence if the environment ensures it will not harm other people. However, virtually no environment perfectly ensures that the use of a weapon will not cause unintended harm to some other. As I mentioned, your walls had better be thick if you intend to use an assault rifle in self defence. An M249 Saw would be disastrous if used in a crowded apartment building.

Which is part of the reason why I don't agree that Grenade Launchers and the like should be made legal. Assault rifles are a red-herring: they are both obviously a superior choice to pistols and can be applied in many situations in which the threat to bystanders is minimal at best.

Ok - so it's about the degree of risk? That's good - but, where do you draw the line and why? You claim that the line should be drawn after assault rifles but before grenade launchers. Why there? If someone else thinks that the line should be drawn after pistols, and before assault rifles, on what basis can you claim that your preferred delineation is the right one?

The scenario I presented - yeah, it's silly. You're right that the landowner would need to be responsible and so forth. What the example successfully illustrates is that you believe that there can be reasons for limiting the "arms" mentioned in the constitution, of weighing their ownership versus public safety, and of an obligation to choose self defence methods that are less dangerous if possible (the guards you mention). You admit that someone needs to be able to illustrate that their self defence warrants ownership of a particular weapon.

We disagree on where the line should be drawn in terms of risk to the public versus freedom to own arms. My point is that you cant use the constitution as an argument against limiting ownership of firearms while consistently disagreeing with the right to private ownership of nuclear weapons, because the constitution doesnt differentiate between different levels of firepower or risk associated with usage.

What you need is an independent argument for loosening current firearm limitations while maintaining limitations on nuclear weapon ownership. It mustnt be arbitrary, and if it's based on some risk assessment scale, or risk/benefit ratio, the point of limitation must be justified.

I think we agree that there is a scale, and there should be a limitation placed somewhere along the curve. As long as you agree with that principle, rather than basing your argument on the right to bear arms in the constitution, then I'm satisfied for now.

[Darth Wong]

Seeing as the subject has been brought up. If the citizens of the USA are allowed unrestricted access to firearms, why should they be allowed to possess military weapons? IE: M16's and the like, what possible need would a civilian have for a military or fully automatic weapon?

Jefferson always was the right to own firearms as a final check upon the possibility of a tyrannical state.

I believe I have heard this Jeffersonian idea before. However, while Jefferson was a very intelligent man, this notion of his has been made obsolete by the march of technology (note that the people in Iraq had the right to bear arms under Saddam Hussein, and it certainly didn't keep him in check).

Simply put, technological advances in the last two centuries have dramatically shifted the balance between governmental and civilian militia forces toward the government, so that civilian militias would take absolutely horrifying one-sided casualties if they tried to defy government troops.

No doubt people will point to Chechnya, Afghanistan, or Iraq as proof that civilian militias can resist government troops, but those claims massively oversimplify a complex situation. In all of those cases, the troops had no problem taking and holding the territory, but they could not root out persistent long-term insurgencies. More over, in all of those cases, the insurgents had access to heavy weapons such as HMGs, RPGs, high explosives, mortars, and in some cases, even high-tech toys such as Stinger missiles. At no point did the resistance forces in those cases defeat regular military forces with nothing but AK-47s, no matter what the romanticized versions of those conflicts look like.

Of course, some might argue that powerful military weapons should be made available to the public, to which I can only ask that you take a look around you the next time you drive on the highway, and ask yourself if these idiots should be allowed to have RPGs.

[HemlockGrey]

Every Swedish Family has a phamplet that says "TOTAL WAR- TOTAL DEFENSE" and opens thusly:

"Sweden wants to defend itself, can defend itself, and will defend itself...
We will never give up! Any announcement that resistance will cease is false."

Basically, Sweden would fight to the last man, the last bullet, and even the
last rock if the need arose.

Are you sure you don't mean the Swiss?

[Darth Wong]

"A terrorist safehouse was assaulted today in Omaha, blah blah blah, minimal casualties, blah blah blah." is your state news report.

"Bullshit. Here's the images of the firebombing and massacre." is your net counter-report.

Part of what the insurgents would be looking for is to create sufficient doubt in state reports as to render them discredited. Part of the 'hearts and minds' strategy.

Your scenario only works if the government is playing fair. If they aren't, then the people who try to publish propaganda against the government get silenced one by one, people taking photographs of combat mission areas get shot, the police can simply plant child pornography in the house of anyone the government wants to discredit, etc.

The strongest bulwark against totalitarianism is education, because military forces must be sufficiently aware of the situation and their social responsibilities to rebel against the government in order to help a civilian insurgency succeed in becoming anything more than an annoyance (or a greater threat to the citizens than the government, thus losing the "hearts and minds" battle).

[tharkûn]

Which is still under the bizzare assumption that the military will be fighting off these 'millions of gun-owners', and not a small force of people labeled as terrorists.

If a non-democratic government arises it will face a crapload of Christian fundies screaming about the end times or it will BE a crapload of Christian fundies screaming about the end times. If a coup happens in the US and it doesn't have the majority of the gun owning demographic in the back of its pocket there will be millions of gun owners. I don't think that an non-democratic government could arise in the US without the millions of gun owners on their side.

When Bill Clinton was in office the vigilent few ALREADY took up arms and were doing paramilitary training. In the prescence of a real threat there will be orders of magnitude more individuals than those pissed at Janet Reno and income tax.

Again, this only has relevance if you assume that there will be such a large-scale uprising, when a much more likely scenario is the U.S. government naming those who oppose it as 'terrorists' and/or 'insurgents'. Remember, these people have to so utterly convinced in their cause that they'll leave their homes, families, lives, and jobs. And for those vigilant few who join, how will they organize into a disciplined force, capable of taking orders and fulfilling them?

Labeling them as terrorists isn't going to do much, the American people don't trust the government they elected, let alone one that is imposed. The days of a government information monopoly in the US are dead and gone, between phones, faxes, the internet, CB's, and even pirate radio the government simply cannot shut out the truth.

Further it won't be people who leave their families, it will be entire families taking up arms. Militia groups routinely had entire families as members.

As far as a disciplined force? Um like any other force in history the idiots will die grotesquely and those who manage to survive will be capable of fighting. The first thing to happen will be a culling of those who cannot maintain the fight. Survival of the fittest applies in every conflict.

Besides which they can play merry hell as lone wolves. You are a member of the military supporting the dictator, you go out into a small town as part of a patrol. At dusk a couple of rednecks with deer rifles shoot at you. You return fire, they die and you have an uneventful night. The next day it happens again, twice. And again. Once one of them gets lucky on the first shot and takes out a member of your fireteam. Suddenly you really don't want be on patrol and you realize that it is a matter of time before you die.

Or one of the dedicated militia nuts steals a drum of explosives, wires it up to blow and then places it in a cardboard box and parks it on the curb and waits for soldiers to walk past it. Boom there goes a half dozen soldiers.

The insurgents have the advantages in guerilla warfare. They can blend into the background, they have initiative in most engagements, and they just have to demoralize. It is very hard to put such a force down. The only way to win a guerilla war is to win over the common people and have them turn on the guerillas.

Lots of little conspiracy/rebellion groups have their own sites. That doesn't exactly win them many followers.

Yes none of them have the fact that a non-democratic government is ruling over them to help their cause. Besides which you are ignoring foreign media. You can clamp down on the domestic press all you like, but in today's day and age everyone along the border can and will get broadcasts from outside the country where you have jack didly squat for control. Likewise satellite television brings the BBC to anyone who has a dish. If you lie, you will be shown to be a liar within days by the foreign media, the internet, and word of mouth.

What you need is an independent argument for loosening current firearm limitations while maintaining limitations on nuclear weapon ownership. It mustnt be arbitrary, and if it's based on some risk assessment scale, or risk/benefit ratio, the point of limitation must be justified.

The vast majority of firearms deaths are caused by cheap pistols. Nobody is going to buy a much more expensive "assualt rifle" for the explicit purpose of killing someone when far cheaper guns are availible.

As far as passionless crime goes, just about anything is better than a rifle. Rifles are big and hard to conceal, this means that the store clerk sees you coming and trips the silent alarm. This means that when you are running from the cops it is obvious you are holding a gun.

All of which culminates in the final problem, the black market. For the handful of crimes where an assualt weapon would actually be useful, the costs of the black market are sufficiently low that the criminal can acquire a far more lethal weapon regardless.

People can quite easily go on rampages with multiple legally purchased handguns, people can kill each other far more efficiently with standard deer rifles, and people can kill each other far more cheaply with handguns.

There isn't a single damn bloody crime that is precluded by banning "assualt weapons" and only a few that are even prevented. The difference between handguns, hunting rifles and "assualt weapons" is effectively nil from a societal harm standpoint. If you are going ban guns, handguns cause the most harm.

[Darth Wong]

Which is still under the bizzare assumption that the military will be fighting off these 'millions of gun-owners', and not a small force of people labeled as terrorists.

If a non-democratic government arises it will face a crapload of Christian fundies screaming about the end times or it will BE a crapload of Christian fundies screaming about the end times. If a coup happens in the US and it doesn't have the majority of the gun owning demographic in the back of its pocket there will be millions of gun owners. I don't think that an non-democratic government could arise in the US without the millions of gun owners on their side.

George Orwell would have agreed with you, since his totalitarian government co-opted religion to serve its cause. It altered the tactics used in order to gain power; it did not keep totalitarianism at bay. But even so, you are assuming that these people are fearless. Historical precedent has shown that people rarely rise up en masse, because of the little-known fact that the average guy is more concerned with daily issues such as food on the table and a roof over his head than he is with larger abstract issues. It takes a lot for Joe Average to tell his wife and kids that he's leaving the family to fend for itself while he marches off to fight for his principles.

[SecondStorm]

Every Swedish Family has a phamplet that says "TOTAL WAR- TOTAL DEFENSE" and opens thusly:

"Sweden wants to defend itself, can defend itself, and will defend itself...
We will never give up! Any announcement that resistance will cease is false."

Basically, Sweden would fight to the last man, the last bullet, and even the
last rock if the need arose.

Are you sure you don't mean the Swiss?

Im fairly certain that its Switzerland. Shep probably just got them mixed up. After all they both started with such a common letter as S. And they are both in Europe.

[Knife]

Which is part of the reason why I don't agree that Grenade Launchers and the like should be made legal. Assault rifles are a red-herring: they are both obviously a superior choice to pistols and can be applied in many situations in which the threat to bystanders is minimal at best.

Ok - so it's about the degree of risk? That's good - but, where do you draw the line and why? You claim that the line should be drawn after assault rifles but before grenade launchers. Why there? If someone else thinks that the line should be drawn after pistols, and before assault rifles, on what basis can you claim that your preferred delineation is the right one?

The scenario I presented - yeah, it's silly. You're right that the landowner would need to be responsible and so forth. What the example successfully illustrates is that you believe that there can be reasons for limiting the "arms" mentioned in the constitution, of weighing their ownership versus public safety, and of an obligation to choose self defence methods that are less dangerous if possible (the guards you mention). You admit that someone needs to be able to illustrate that their self defence warrants ownership of a particular weapon.

We disagree on where the line should be drawn in terms of risk to the public versus freedom to own arms. My point is that you cant use the constitution as an argument against limiting ownership of firearms while consistently disagreeing with the right to private ownership of nuclear weapons, because the constitution doesnt differentiate between different levels of firepower or risk associated with usage.

What you need is an independent argument for loosening current firearm limitations while maintaining limitations on nuclear weapon ownership. It mustnt be arbitrary, and if it's based on some risk assessment scale, or risk/benefit ratio, the point of limitation must be justified.

I think we agree that there is a scale, and there should be a limitation placed somewhere along the curve. As long as you agree with that principle, rather than basing your argument on the right to bear arms in the constitution, then I'm satisfied for now.[/quote]

The line in the sand, as it were, and the difference between an assult rifle and a nuke (as per earlier in the thread) is one is a point target weapon while the other is an area weapon.

If you are in a life and death situation, it is ethical to defend your self with force, so shooting your attacker who was going to shoot/stab/strangle you is fairly justifiable. But to take an area weapon and kill your attacker and the guy next to him and the girl next to him and the couple running away from everyone and ect. is not ethical.

A gernade for self defense will likely kill more than just the target (as it should because that is how its made) while a gunshoot will kill only the person that it shoots. You can come up with senario's where multiple people get killed via a gunshot but its not the intent of the shot.

Shoot into a crowd and you might kill a couple people, but every time you chuck a gernade into a crowd, a shit load of people are going down.

[tharkûn]

Your scenario only works if the government is playing fair. If they aren't, then the people who try to publish propaganda against the government get silenced one by one, people taking photographs of combat mission areas get shot, the police can simply plant child pornography in the house of anyone the government wants to discredit, etc.

Only works if the point of distribution is within the US. These days anyone with a phoneline can encrypt files, transfer them throughout the world, and have somebody in places like Canada, the UK, or Switzerland post the actual content.

Shooting photographers in combat areas only goes so far, giving your insurgents cells with cameras allows you to take pictures from your side of the conflict and to instantly distribute them. Even if you jam the cellphones over a wide area people can still carry digital phones to some compture terminal and upload them to the world.

Technology makes it easier to spread information and harder to contain it.

t even so, you are assuming that these people are fearless. Historical precedent has shown that people rarely rise up en masse, because of the little-known fact that the average guy is more concerned with daily issues such as food on the table and a roof over his head than he is with larger abstract issues. It takes a lot for Joe Average to tell his wife and kids that he's leaving the family to fend for itself while he marches off to fight for his principles.

It happened in mass in the Civil War and during WWII. You are also overlooking the indoctrination level in the US, you had thousands of individuals going into paramilitary training and borderline illegal groups over Janet Reno. If presented with orders of magnitude more oppresive government, orders of magnitude more people will resist what they view to be oppresive government.

Again I doubt there will be a chance for a non-democratic government to arise in the US with the support of the military. If one does I would stake every penny I own on it being a rightwing theocracy that the redneck fundies with guns fervently support.

[MKSheppard]

Are you sure you don't mean the Swiss?

No, tis the Swedes

[MKSheppard]

Im fairly certain that its Switzerland. Shep probably just got them mixed up. After all they both started with such a common letter as S. And they are both in Europe.

No, "Shield of Faith" specifically mentions Sweden the descirption of the booklet is direct from SoF

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't see why grenade launchers should be illegal if only appropriately underpowered ammo is available only for purchase as suitable licensed ranges. If you get your rocks off at target lobbing 40 mm at some range, who're you hurting? Its not like we're giving them HE to take home.

[Petrosjko]

Your scenario only works if the government is playing fair. If they aren't, then the people who try to publish propaganda against the government get silenced one by one, people taking photographs of combat mission areas get shot, the police can simply plant child pornography in the house of anyone the government wants to discredit, etc.

There are entirely too many people with cameras to shoot these days, and western society has some of the most obnoxiously independent journalists around. We've created a society where journalists are outraged at notions of interference with their work, let alone actions such as murdering them. Take the example of Daniel Pearl. Here's an American Jew going into a place where they like neither Americans or Jews, and the media pitched a shitfit because he got decapitated. The The Dallas Morning News ran an editorial decrying the murder of a 'neutral', not even stopping to ponder the fact that perhaps the people who did the deed might just view all Americans as enemies.

In this scenario, the trick is actually to goad them into playing dirty as much as possible, and then distributing the evidence as much as possible. The government has a lot of resources, but it can't close all the channels. Shutting down internet communication channels would lead to chaos.

The strongest bulwark against totalitarianism is education, because military forces must be sufficiently aware of the situation and their social responsibilities to rebel against the government in order to help a civilian insurgency succeed in becoming anything more than an annoyance (or a greater threat to the citizens than the government, thus losing the "hearts and minds" battle).

I'll definitely agree with you here. I don't see a scenario like the one I outlined arising in the near future precisely because I've known too many members and former members of the military who were well aware of their ultimate responsibilities. Furthermore, after the War between the States the state regiment system was abolished because it created units with strong local ties that couldn't be relied on in the case of rebellion. However, the modern system has brought a form of that back with the National Guard, which serves as another bulwark against the government dropping on our heads.

My point in arguing the scenario is because I've seen too many people who write off the potentials of civilian insurrection as 'Those idiots will get stomped flat by the military in five seconds flat.' A dedicated insurrection, win or lose, could make things very unpleasant for a good while.

[Darth Wong]

In this scenario, the trick is actually to goad them into playing dirty as much as possible, and then distributing the evidence as much as possible. The government has a lot of resources, but it can't close all the channels. Shutting down internet communication channels would lead to chaos.

Oh come on, if we accept this argument, it would be impossible for the Israelis to get away with any of the things that they do in the Occupied Territories. You underestimate the power of a good PR campaign.

The strongest bulwark against totalitarianism is education, because military forces must be sufficiently aware of the situation and their social responsibilities to rebel against the government in order to help a civilian insurgency succeed in becoming anything more than an annoyance (or a greater threat to the citizens than the government, thus losing the "hearts and minds" battle).

I'll definitely agree with you here. I don't see a scenario like the one I outlined arising in the near future precisely because I've known too many members and former members of the military who were well aware of their ultimate responsibilities. Furthermore, after the War between the States the state regiment system was abolished because it created units with strong local ties that couldn't be relied on in the case of rebellion. However, the modern system has brought a form of that back with the National Guard, which serves as another bulwark against the government dropping on our heads.

My point in arguing the scenario is because I've seen too many people who write off the potentials of civilian insurrection as 'Those idiots will get stomped flat by the military in five seconds flat.' A dedicated insurrection, win or lose, could make things very unpleasant for a good while.

Like it is in Iraq? It's costing money and time there, but the only reason they even hope to succeed is the faint hope of making the Americans leave (which they would never do on their own homeland). The very impersonal nature of a modern military is its own political excuse. It's hard to explain away a man torturing a prisoner, but a bomb falling on a house or a tank crew retaliating with excessive force? If you can't imagine ways to explain that away, you haven't been watching the news for ... well, forever.

[Edi]

If it got to the point where you needed to pull the rifle from the gunrack, look for the parts to the military to turn against that government, sit on thier ass and refuse orders or other such reactions.

I remember hearing a discussion between sailors with several Jr Officers on what the navy's responiblity was in a Civil Uprising or Civil War. Most of them decided that the navy's duty was to be nuetral and ensure that no forgein nations intervened.

Solders, Marines, Airmen and Sailors are not machines, we do not mindlessly follow orders. Sometimes some of us fuck up and follow illegal or immoral orders, they usually end up paying for that mistake. The order to open fire on US Citizens, to oppress them is not one that will be blindly followed unless things have drastically changed for the worst.

Which is exactly the point I was making. Under the current conditions, if the government turned Nazi overnight, this is true, but like Degan said, smart oppressive governments take their time by changing things little by little so that people slowly get used to restricted freedom without realizing it. By the time they wake up and go for the gunracks and there is a need for the citizenry to fight against the government, the situation would be of your much worsened variety where very likely a lot of the military would no longer be of the upstanding variety of today. We're nottalking about overnight shift here, but a slow progression.

Most people here also completely disregard the threat factor against the families of rebels. If your identity as a rebel is compromised, your family is open for retaliation, and that threat will keep a lot of people home out of fear.

Edi

[Petrosjko]

Oh come on, if we accept this argument, it would be impossible for the Israelis to get away with any of the things that they do in the Occupied Territories. You underestimate the power of a good PR campaign.

But there is a lot of reporting done on the Occupation. The reason the public ignores it by and large is because the people involved are 'fanatical suicidal ay-rabs'. Different country, different ethnicity, different religion, largely poverty-stricken? Fuck 'em, they're subhuman.

Sad attitude, but fairly prevalent.

Like it is in Iraq? It's costing money and time there, but the only reason they even hope to succeed is the faint hope of making the Americans leave (which they would never do on their own homeland). The very impersonal nature of a modern military is its own political excuse. It's hard to explain away a man torturing a prisoner, but a bomb falling on a house or a tank crew retaliating with excessive force? If you can't imagine ways to explain that away, you haven't been watching the news for ... well, forever.

Even if you marginalized and demonized domestic opposition, Americans take actions against American citizens much more seriously than they do any particular variety of 'wog'. Remember the Black Helicopter hysteria that came on during the Clinton administration? That was driven largely by three things- Waco, gun control, and a load of hysterical crap about the 'New World Order', Trilateral Commission and so on.

And how many books were published in the wake of 9/11, 'the day the world changed'? How many militias were formed in the wake of Waco? How many people in the backwoods think that terrorists might want to blow up their city hall, now? Remember the mini-broujah over the armored vehicle that got lost on the way to the parade and ended up at the protest?

Americans have gotten very used to the insulation provided by those two oceans. Therefore, events that do touch the states tend to create reactions utterly disproportionate the to actual impact of the event. Combined with a thorough and reflexive distrust of the government, a stray bomb here or there would likely cause a great deal of unfavorable sentiment to resonate throughout the public. A tank crew blasting the shit out of an apartment building in Cinncinnati because somebody tossed a molotov their way would likewise create quite a stir.

Now, to snag and address another one of your points:

But even so, you are assuming that these people are fearless. Historical precedent has shown that people rarely rise up en masse, because of the little-known fact that the average guy is more concerned with daily issues such as food on the table and a roof over his head than he is with larger abstract issues. It takes a lot for Joe Average to tell his wife and kids that he's leaving the family to fend for itself while he marches off to fight for his principles.

An insurrection doesn't generally play for anything like a majority of the populace. What an insurrection requires is aid, comfort, and safe havens. Also, smart insurrectionists don't try to move the public based on principles. What they aim to do is increase public dissatisfaction with the government by provoking ever-increasingly harsh retribution for their actions, retribution that falls upon the citizens.

The core of an insurrection generally consists of people with little to lose. The ones who are already wanted and can't easily integrate back into society, people who've lost their families, and young people who don't have families.

A prime example of the public dissatisfaction principle at work would be an interview I read in the USA Today with a female suicide bomber volunteer in the Occupied Territories. Past all the rhetoric, one of her major beefs was the humiliation she regularly experienced in dealing with the security checkpoints to get into Israel proper.

[The_Last_Rebel]

A pistol for the bedroom,


A shotgun over the door,


A 30-06 for reaching out;


You don't need any more.

Sums up my thoughts on the matter.

[SecondStorm]

Im fairly certain that its Switzerland. Shep probably just got them mixed up. After all they both started with such a common letter as S. And they are both in Europe.

No, "Shield of Faith" specifically mentions Sweden the descirption of the booklet is direct from SoF

Trust me, not all Swedish families got the pamphlet you are talking about.
If someone is telling you otherwise, they are feeding you BS.

[Dark Lord of All Ewoks]

To redeme yourself, dont you have to proove yourself first. The twit has done absolutely NOTHING right! We as a country failed miserably in November, and we shall pay seriously for our ignorance and stupidity. Its about time we do what we shoulda done a couple of years ago..impeach him!