New NRA ad calls Obama hypocrite for USSS protection

[Aaron MkII]

Fuck, he knows about Wisconsin.

Aye, it's fucked up the discussion. It's hard to even talk when people are threating insurrection, even over shit that might actually help. It's the pro-gun equivilant of the other side yelling about total bans and .50cals.

[PKRudeBoy]

Yeah, obviously. Its just funny that you get people like Crackpot equating 'owning a lot of guns' to 'having the logistical backend, leadership, goals and nerve to run an insurgency', without taking that extra step into Wow That Would Be Terrible territory.

If you had a revolution to SAVE GUN OWNERSHIP FREEDOM that killed a few million people, would they count on gun-related death statistics? :V

Now, did the various Arab Spring revolutionaries come with preexisting logistical and leadership networks to overthrow their governments? I think the point is if a revolution were to happen in the US, it would be easier, considering, well, how heavily armed the country is compared to other places throughout the world. Especially since, if their was an actual revolution, you would probably see the same divisions in the military that happen most of the time with recent revolutions. It wouldn't be random gun owners against the full might of the US military, it would be drawn over partisan lines, with sections of the military backing different sides as well as citizens with their guns.

However, the chances of an actual revolution are just about zero, considering that we, as a country, are fat and happy with what we have and wouldn't be motivated enough to actually fight over things, especially since it's not like a switch would be flipped and the government would go from democracy to tyranny overnight, and without the support of the American people.

[Stark]

Are you saying overthrowing the United States of America with a group of gun nuts is easier than toppling a shaky dictator with a massive public uprising?

And sorry to be rude but the tyranny switch was flipped a while ago.

[PKRudeBoy]

Not at all, I'm saying that in a hypothetical general uprising, an armed population that is familiar with guns is a better starting place than an unarmed one. After all, around half of American households have guns. A revolution in the US would require a very different political climate, since its seems one of the only things both parties can agree on is eroding personal liberties in the name of safety, and most of us are more than happy to go along with it.

I don't think that we're quite at the tyranny level yet, at least in terms of impacting the lives of the vast majority of citizens, but i would definitely not dispute that were heading in that direction

[Stark]

Right, but unless the revolution succeeds immediately or gains military support, it needs outside support. Even many of the modern 'popular' uprisings have had military support (and in countries with conscription the issue is pretty muddy anyway). In any putative Evil America plot to steal our guns, the government will have spent years using agents provocateur to isolate the gun lobby politically and socially so that they won't enjoy the broad base of support they might otherwise have. The actions that might quickly win them the revolution (killing the president, pre-emptive strikes on loyal military bases, terror attacks to cow the population) are also those likely to prolong the revolution by radicalising people.

I mean, this sort of thing has happened dozens of times in the last two hundred years, and since America started/funded/supported/propped up the participants in many of them, you'd think the average American would have a greater understanding of the absolute horror of a modern revolution or civil war.

It might be worth it for freedom from dictators, or freedom from oppression, or to bring down a corrupt government... but just to keep your guns? Just to fulfil paranoid power fantasies?

[Spoonist]

Arg, ninjad by Stark.. well...

Not at all, I'm saying that in a hypothetical general uprising, an armed population that is familiar with guns is a better starting place than an unarmed one. After all, around half of American households have guns.

Actually I think that doesn't help at all. For an uprising to be successful you need foreign support or a major backing from the armed forces. This since you need a whole new level of weapons to take on any army.
This should have been taught in american history class if you weren't so jingoist. Back when you did have a huge popular uprising vs the british, the weapons on both sides were much closer than the ones today and still the armed militias like the minutemen was a huge disappointment and failure to the contemporary leaders like Washington et al. Hence why the colonies needed the french to win the war for them.
Today the US has the most powerful military force in history with vast technological superiority to any existing vigilante movement currently in the US. So even suggesting they could make a dent when they couldn't back when the civilian and military arms were much more similar is a huge mistake, it would be a slaughter. What would militias do against tanks, helicopters and gunships? Then we haven't even brought in the airforce. "Come back here and I'll bleed on you" comes to mind. Heck, I think that a popular uprising could be crushed with police+home guard units alone.
At most you could use urban guerilla warfare to minimize the military from establishing forward bases inside the cities. At most. But I really don't think that such would prove a challenge to an army with experience from Afghanistan where everyone and his uncle owns a reliable kalashnikov plus you had military grade missiles and artillery in all warlord armories.
Think about it, most mexican druglords could field better arms and equipment than a popular uprising in the US, that is telling a lot.

Now if you could actually have a popular uprising of republicans of all kinds then maybe you could get some generals to go along and get some decent troops to back you up, but even then it would be silly.

So no, an armed population means diddlysquat in general and especially so in the US. Look at Saddam, how many popular uprisings did he crush? About 5 if I remember correctly and one of them was after the US had wiped out most of his frontiline troops.

And also, what is up with this meme that US has much more weapons to use in an armed popular uprising than most countries? Lots and lots of the US stats are for handguns and small calibre weapons. Stuff that is nearly useless in a fight against a military force. Yes, if you bring along a gun nut with 10 AKs or come prepared like the Waco dudes then you are bringing a punch, but a typical 1 rifle 2 pistols then dude most countries are at or past that level. Even the ones with much harsher gun control is at that level.
The trend is clear
http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearm ... e-2012.pdf
americans are nowadays rather purchasing a self defense weapon ie handgun, than they are shotguns or rifles.
And contrary to popular belief the number of machine guns among the uS population is miniscule compared to most of former soviet, or balkans, or the middle east, or most of africa.
So no the US citizens are not armed enough for armed resistance.

[PKRudeBoy]

I agree completely that it would absolutely not be worth a revolution to keeps guns, but it would be rather difficult to isolate gun owners as a group, since they do make up 40-45% of American households, including large numbers of LEO's, veterans, and current members of the military. What the US military, intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies are willing to do to a bunch of brown people overseas, they would be much less willing to do to their buddies, considering that the second biggest predictor of firearms ownership after location is military service.

I agree completely that if some random vigilante movement revolted they would get stomped, or even that a massive popular revolt would be crushed if it didn't have military support, but if the split is between gun owners and non gun owners, I think you would see large chunks of the military on the gun owners side, considering that the regions of the country that are opposed to gun control also happen to be the regions that are over-represented in the military.

[Serafina]

If you have the military on your side of the hypothetical revolution, you win because of that military support, not the guys with the handguns.

[Stark]

Yeah I misspoke there; obviously not all gun owners are soldiers for the revolution. A lot would depend on the exact circumstances or the Evil Govt Plot To Take Our Guns, and I guess its possible that some sizable proportion of gun owners could resist it. I just don't think most of those people would be significant in a revolutionary or civil disobedience context. Maybe its more useful to speculate on whether the predatory gun revolution plotters would be best served to wait for another war/financial crisis/social wedge issue to launch their crusade, or maybe they just need to create a radical ring of generals at the highest level.

Actually, maybe the very nature of the gun issue (as opposed to other social issues, like poverty, conscription, whatever) is that it is inherently violent. Could gun owning radicals have a peaceful, non-violent, non-threatening sit-in? Could they peacefully oppose a tyrannical government? Or in the end, is it all about fantasies of violence and power - the need constantly remind oneself that the government better do what you want... OR ELSE DUN DUN DUN? In the context of support etc, the radicals on both sides need to play politics to be relevant, and its only the gun radicals that constantly harp on about how they would plunge the country into chaos and kill millions and perpetrate heinous crimes just so they can feel good about themselves. As an outsider, maybe this is as difficult for me to understand as the whole 'probable cause' + 'wiretap lol' dissonance.

EDIT - lol thanks serafina

[PKRudeBoy]

Fair enough, but the way people earlier in the thread were talking it's RAAAR!FREEDOMPATRIOTMILITIA! VS MONOLITHICGOVERNMENTOPPRESSORS, when its a lot more nuanced then that.

But back on topic, blatant lies by the NRA, since they were claiming that these were 11 armed guards employed by the school in addition to the Secret Service detail that his kids get as required by law, which is blatantly untrue. Apparently they consider Breitbart a reliable source, when all he did was count the security department of the school, and decided that all of them were armed.

[The Kernel]

And sorry to be rude but the tyranny switch was flipped a while ago.

If you honestly believe that then you need to give your head a shake.

[Aaron MkII]

And sorry to be rude but the tyranny switch was flipped a while ago.

If you honestly believe that then you need to give your head a shake.

And what would the US have to look like before you considered it to have a tyrannical government?

[The Kernel]

And what would the US have to look like before you considered it to have a tyrannical government?

Oh please I'm not going to play that game. If you want to declare the US a tyranny the burden of the argument is on you--I'm not going to shoot down a non-existent argument.

[Stark]

Isn't that... what you just tried to do? Maybe it doesn't count as tyranny when you kill your own people without trial but aren't in the third world.

The article about the NRA fictionalising/not fact-checking is pretty funny, because regardless of whether people repeat it, its already a part of their mindset. Putting an idea in someone's head is a lot easier than getting it out again, and the laughable attack on 'elitism' in America (a country with actual factual elites) will probably shape ideas regardless of how dishonest it is/was.

[The Kernel]

Isn't that... what you just tried to do? Maybe it doesn't count as tyranny when you kill your own people without trial but aren't in the third world.

That's your argument for painting the US as a tyranny? What a thoughtful and well reasoned thesis.

[Simon_Jester]

And sorry to be rude but the tyranny switch was flipped a while ago.

Tyranny is when the government stops caring what the people want and just does its own thing, enforcing its will by violence.

The US tyrannizes other countries, being imperialistic. It does not tyrannize its own population. That's why it's true, what people rather cynically note: the "keep guns for fear of tyranny" crowd doesn't care about Predator drones blowing up people in outher countries. Sure, those foreigners get tyrannized. But they, the American voters, do not experience this tyranny.

At least, they don't experience it unless they decide to travel to Yemen and spend a few years buddying up with the local guerillas. Something almost no Americans would have any desire to do anyway.

Is there a legal and civil rights issue here? Sure, I agree. Do I think it means "I live in a tyranny?" No, because I don't think that realistically the policies which Obama is using to blow up an American citizen in Yemen are actually going to get used on his domestic political opposition. Nor would the next president do the same.

We're in far more danger from tyranny of the soft power: redistricting to make political change impossible, corruption in high office, that sort of thing.

[Aaron MkII]

And what would the US have to look like before you considered it to have a tyrannical government?

Oh please I'm not going to play that game. If you want to declare the US a tyranny the burden of the argument is on you--I'm not going to shoot down a non-existent argument.

Then don't piss and moan if your not willing to discuss what your complaining about.

Edit: see this could have been an opportunity to explore what you think tyranny might look like in your nation. And what, if anything might be done about it.

[Stark]

Tyranny is when the government stops caring what the people want and just does its own thing, enforcing its will by violence.

I know you like to make shit up, but please. Do we have to draw a table with the things the American government now does that dictators do? Regardless, its the most tyrannical element thing that people (like you) have been trained to accept the hilarious abuses and powers because you invented a definition that means you don't have to engage with the idea. If you keep pushing that benchmark away, you'll never get there. But remember all that stuff in history class about people welcoming or not even noticing the system of oppression being put in place, because its exercised on others? Oh, it'd only be a tyranny if political change was impossible and the political system was corrupt?

Well PHEW! You're safe.

Right?

[The Kernel]

Then don't piss and moan if your not willing to discuss what your complaining about.

Edit: see this could have been an opportunity to explore what you think tyranny might look like in your nation. And what, if anything might be done about it.

Let me get this straight: you want ME to prove that the US government is NOT a regime of tyranny? In addition to not understanding burden of proof you also seem to not be able to comprehend the impossibility of proving a negative.

[The Kernel]

Tyranny is when the government stops caring what the people want and just does its own thing, enforcing its will by violence.

I know you like to make shit up, but please. Do we have to draw a table with the things the American government now does that dictators do? Regardless, its the most tyrannical element thing that people (like you) have been trained to accept the hilarious abuses and powers because you invented a definition that means you don't have to engage with the idea. If you keep pushing that benchmark away, you'll never get there. But remember all that stuff in history class about people welcoming or not even noticing the system of oppression being put in place, because its exercised on others? Oh, it'd only be a tyranny if political change was impossible and the political system was corrupt?

Well PHEW! You're safe.

Right?

Wow, so by that logic no matter what anyone says they must be delusional and you must be right! Brilliant!

Fuck off and crawl back into the shallow end of the gene pool.

[Stark]

Wow, so by that logic no matter what anyone says they must be delusional and you must be right! Brilliant!

Can you explain this to me? Narrow definition + acceptance of abuse = ??? Are you (or he) aware that even in oppressive governments leaders must satisfy power brokers and structures and they don't just do 'their own thing'?

If good old Simple Simon wants to accept everything that his government has done in the last decade as not oppressive, that's really his decision. Its just a pretty strange one.

Not as funny as you, though, Klever Kernel. You'll always be special.

[Aaron MkII]

Then don't piss and moan if your not willing to discuss what your complaining about.

Edit: see this could have been an opportunity to explore what you think tyranny might look like in your nation. And what, if anything might be done about it.

Let me get this straight: you want ME to prove that the US government is NOT a regime of tyranny? In addition to not understanding burden of proof you also seem to not be able to comprehend the impossibility of proving a negative.

No, that's not what I want at all. Try reading it without looking for conflict.

See, I'm not looking for an argument, nor do I care about establishing whether America is a police state right now. I'm curious as to when you as an American say "ok this would be tyranny" and what Americans could do to avoid that.

[The Kernel]

Can you explain this to me? Narrow definition + acceptance of abuse = ???

Moron the very definition of tyranny is the consolidation of power within a single person or political group. When the US has the equivalent of the Night of Long Knives rather than an open election where the country was near evenly divided you can crawl back from under your bridge and start talking about tyranny.

[Stark]

No, that's not what I want at all. Try reading it without looking for conflict.

See, I'm not looking for an argument, nor do I care about establishing whether America is a police state right now. I'm curious as to when you as an American say "ok this would be tyranny" and what Americans could do to avoid that.

You're wasting your time, dude. He literally says it's not 'tyranny' or 'tyrannical' unless you're killing heaps of a minority in some kind of state-sanctioned ... Hang on, let me start over. The idea that people can dismiss (and be unable to even discuss) their nation's oppressive policies and movements is pretty clearly doing nothing but helping the growth of that oppression or tyranny.

Oh, I got one I hear is good. 'Hyperbole, obviously'.

[The Kernel]

No, that's not what I want at all. Try reading it without looking for conflict.

See, I'm not looking for an argument, nor do I care about establishing whether America is a police state right now. I'm curious as to when you as an American say "ok this would be tyranny" and what Americans could do to avoid that.

When there are major clamp downs on free speech perhaps? When political discourse becomes entirely one dimensional? When people stay silent for fear of political persecution?

Perhaps you can show me a historical example of a country with unrestricted free speech and elections which you consider a tyranny and explain how the US is a parallel to that? Of course you won't be able to do that since free speech and elections is completely antithetical to the existence of a tyrannical government.