School shooting at taft high school in california

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Ultratwinkie:

The Plunk:

Smagmuck_:

You're making an over-assumption. The Supreme Court of the US ruled that the Second Amendment covers small arms, and small arms only. With the rare exception to larger weapons.

Then citizen firepower will never be on par with the government.

A strawman? Really? C'mon, be realistic here.

Am I not entitled to make outlandish claims to prove a point?

Military guns don't exist. There are just guns, and unless its a .50 cal sniper or an automatic, they use the same guns.

Even then, the military has easy to ransack armories. A smart rebellion will take over those first, since they are often not that protected and have parked tanks and howitzers in the front yard.

So now the rebellion has guns, tanks, and howitzers. All while the government struggles to field them because of no supply lines since America' infrastructure is old an falling apart or so open ambushes will be common.

The vast majority of rebels will have no idea how to use that sort of equipment. While they're fiddling around trying to turn the tank on, the government will be preparing one of their many ways to blow up the entire rebel base without losing a single man.

Blablahb:
My statement is correct, as you need a firearm and thus be a gun owner, to shoot someone with a firearm. You can't shoot someone with your bare hands remember?

What are competition shooters then?

Do they perpetrate gun crime because of a chosen sport they partake in?

Blablahb:
Just because we argue over the internet doesn't mean we asociate mate, sorry.

Which is a good thing because I would never associate myself with a criminal like you. How many co-workers have you assaulted today?

Nope, that was krabbi krabong. It has nothing to do with muai boran except it borrowed a few unarmed techniques from it

And you tell me that I need to learn my history. They were both developed by the Siamese military for combat.

It is an entirely different sport, with a different scoring system, different distinct style and own region of spreading.

Same movements.

Gun owners still perpetrate 100% of all gun crime however

Nope. You do not have to own a gun to perpetrate a gun crime.

and more than a few are motivated by questionable things like racism or paranoid delusions.

So you have moved off of all. Progress.

There's a lot more crazy gunmen than that there's Badr Hari's out there however, so I'm safe, how about you?

Actually I am very safe. Combat sports where people beat each other up for fun vs shooting sports where you and your opponents do not even converse that much (at least until after the match). If anything, I can say that your chosen sport has far more bullies and people who love violence. My sport has more thinkers and intellectuals. It is no surprise then that you are more likely to be struck by lightning in Texas than killed in a crime by a CHL. On the other hand in 100% of your matches you are assaulting a person. So much for your morality.

farson135:
Same movements.

You really should read up on the rulesets of both sports, before attempting to outsmart someone who practises both. Elbows strikes aren't allowed, neither are throws.

This isn't getting you anywhere, and the personal attacks show that you're desperate and have no arguments to defend gun violence against my point of introducing laws and regulations to prevent gun violence.

farson135:
Nope. You do not have to own a gun to perpetrate a gun crime.

This is getting silly, but still I look forward to evidence how you shoot someone with bare hands.

Untill that time however, people with guns, gun owners, perpetrate 100% of all gun crime.

Smagmuck_:
What are competition shooters then?
Do they perpetrate gun crime because of a chosen sport they partake in?

Depends who they're aiming at doesn't it? If they're glad they have a gun so they can also shoot at whomever incurs their displeasure, like burglars, people who ask for money, people who carry tools, people who raise their voice or suspicious looking black people and a few other groups that are regarded as valid targets for deadly violence by many gun owners (hope nobody does the fake outrage routine again and makes me quote that list of gun owners again), they're definately a danger to society. How else can you classify a person who buys a firearm with the express intent of using it to kill others with?

At the same time, a sports shooter could also be subject to a total gun ban, including safe storage regulations at a gunclub itself. In that case the risk is minimal because they can't acces their weapon for any use, outside of the range.

One thing is sure though, unregulated guns and gun owners are a danger. There's a pile of 30.000+ corpses each year in the US alone that testifies to that.

Blablahb:
This is getting silly, but still I look forward to evidence how you shoot someone with bare hands.

Untill that time however, people with guns, gun owners, perpetrate 100% of all gun crime.

People with baseball bats perpetrate 100% of baseball bat crime.

People with cars perpetrate 100% of vehicular homicides.

People with hands perpetrate 100% of simple assaults.

That is an incredibly weak argument. Until you can bring a statistic that states that a significant amount of gun owners commit gun crime you have no ground to stand on.

Blablahb:
Depends who they're aiming at doesn't it? If they're glad they have a gun so they can also shoot at whomever incurs their displeasure, like burglars, people who ask for money, people who carry tools, people who raise their voice or suspicious looking black people and a few other groups that are regarded as valid targets for deadly violence by many gun owners (hope nobody does the fake outrage routine again and makes me quote that list of gun owners again), they're definately a danger to society. How else can you classify a person who buys a firearm with the express intent of using it to kill others with?

At the same time, a sports shooter could also be subject to a total gun ban, including safe storage regulations at a gunclub itself. In that case the risk is minimal because they can't acces their weapon for any use, outside of the range.

One thing is sure though, unregulated guns and gun owners are a danger. There's a pile of 30.000+ corpses each year in the US alone that testifies to that.

Jon Snow why do you think so poorly of people? What you fail to realize is that gun owners in America is really just about anyone. It can be that old guy down the street who is always reading the paper on his porch. It can be that cute girl at work who always wears those short skirts. (you know what I mean) It can be that guy at the hotdog stand who always puts a whole lot of relish on. Owning a Gun in the US is an incredibly normal thing. Its not like gun owners are one little sect of society; they are basically one out of every 3.

These people are just normal folks. They aren't buying weapons so they can blow away the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Avon guy when they wake them up at 7 AM. They buy them for sport, for hunting, for collecting, for investment, and for self defense. Now, what does this last term mean? It means they will use their firearm when they are threatened. No one pulls a gun for someone bumping into them roughly on the street or because their coworker is being a particularly large asshole today. They use it when explicit threats of force are relieved. Often times they never even fire the weapon. Simply brandishing it dissuades would-be assailants. In the odd case where a gun trained on them doesn't do the trick and they fight it almost always ends in favor of the person defending their self .

Blablahb:
One thing is sure though, unregulated guns and gun owners are a danger. There's a pile of 30.000+ corpses each year in the US alone that testifies to that.

I already told you that was only partially true, and you ignored it. Which wasn't shocking in the slightest.

But go ahead, keep discriminating against 80 million+ people.

Blablahb:
You really should read up on the rulesets of both sports, before attempting to outsmart someone who practises both. Elbows strikes aren't allowed, neither are throws.

In kickboxing? Elbows are. You are talking about specific rules from your particular league not general kickboxing. As for throwing, that is legal in some forms of kickboxing but it is illegal in Muay Thai.

Perhaps you should actually learn the damn rules before you attack someone who studies the forms of the various martial/combat arts.

This isn't getting you anywhere, and the personal attacks show that you're desperate and have no arguments to defend gun violence against my point of introducing laws and regulations to prevent gun violence.

An accusation of personal attacks from a white guy who uses the word nigger to attack a group of people that include non-whites. That is rich.

You are right, this is not getting us anywhere. You believe that you are perfectly moral despite the fact that in your own words, you associate with criminals. You also use racist terms. Plus, you have admitted on this site to punching your co-worker in the face over what you KNEW was a joke.

I have told you before Blablahb, no matter what you think it is not the 1600s anymore. If you want to claim the moral high ground you have to occupy it first.

This is getting silly, but still I look forward to evidence how you shoot someone with bare hands.

So in your world simple possession equals ownership. You live in a fucked up world.

Also, how do you own something that is illegal? You don't.

farson135:

You are right, this is not getting us anywhere. You believe that you are perfectly moral despite the fact that in your own words, you associate with criminals. You also use racist terms. Plus, you have admitted on this site to punching your co-worker in the face over what you KNEW was a joke.

Wait, he did that?!

Holy SHEEP, and he has the gall to call me violent!

I swear, hearing him wag his finger at me for legitimately using a firearm to save my freaking LIFE, and yet I'm the only one out of the two of us who hasn't assaulted a fucking co-worker.

GunsmithKitten:

farson135:

You are right, this is not getting us anywhere. You believe that you are perfectly moral despite the fact that in your own words, you associate with criminals. You also use racist terms. Plus, you have admitted on this site to punching your co-worker in the face over what you KNEW was a joke.

Wait, he did that?!

Holy SHEEP, and he has the gall to call me violent!

I swear, hearing him wag his finger at me for legitimately using a firearm to save my freaking LIFE, and yet I'm the only one out of the two of us who hasn't assaulted a fucking co-worker.

Well here is the funny thing, he claims that it was in self defense (the guy was pointing a "gun" at him). At the same time he stated that he knew the gun was fake and yet he punched the guy anyway.

So he attacks us for legal self defense and yet he admitted on this forum to assaulting a man over a joke. The guy was an idiot for doing that but if Blablahb is so great then shouldn't he have turned the other cheek? He knew it was not a real gun yet he claims to have punched that man in self defense. Got to love that.

The Plunk:

Ultratwinkie:

The Plunk:

Then citizen firepower will never be on par with the government.

Am I not entitled to make outlandish claims to prove a point?

Military guns don't exist. There are just guns, and unless its a .50 cal sniper or an automatic, they use the same guns.

Even then, the military has easy to ransack armories. A smart rebellion will take over those first, since they are often not that protected and have parked tanks and howitzers in the front yard.

So now the rebellion has guns, tanks, and howitzers. All while the government struggles to field them because of no supply lines since America' infrastructure is old an falling apart or so open ambushes will be common.

The vast majority of rebels will have no idea how to use that sort of equipment. While they're fiddling around trying to turn the tank on, the government will be preparing one of their many ways to blow up the entire rebel base without losing a single man.

1. And that requires soldiers, you can't tell a soldier to shoot his own family and expect loyalty. This isn't Africa and your aren't Kony.

2. Besides, tanks are relatively simple. You only need 4 guys. 1 driver, 1 tank commander, 1 gunner, and a loader. How to run it isn't exactly rocket science, once you see the inside it becomes obvious how everything works and where everything is.

This is assuming oil can be found. With America's infrastructure in shambles tanks will be hard to field along with air support. However, military bases would have anti tank and AA equipment. Not to mention the possibility of .50 cal rifles, which will level the playing field very fast because no armor will be able to protect the military.

The abrams is a King Tiger at best. Sure it may be "big and bad" but its an over engineered logistical joke.

3. the US military sucks ass at guerrilla warfare. Every single time the military fights a guerrilla war, it loses. The military strategy is always predictable, and always assumes its enemies are a standing army. Its been known since Vietnam.

The US military's mentality is as outdated now as 100+ man musket barrages in the age of rifled percussion cap rifles. All this "standing army" crap may have had uses in the cold war, but in the modern age the US might as well be fielding musket regiments.

The military isn't hard to beat, or kept up to date with the changing world. Sure their toys have gotten better but as we learned from the Germans, fancy toys don't win shit if you can't use them. This is why it generally considered "if war ever comes to American soil, we lose." Its been known for a while that any war here will have absolutely no way to fight back since the infrastructure will be gone anyway. Going through cities? Lots of ambush points there from buildings, bridges, etc.

4. Whats stopping inevitable outside help? Cartels field heavy weaponry on par with the US special forces. Even some gangs have some of those weapons. What stopping the gun runners from selling? Whats stopping any foreign power from declaring war on America too? Or helping the rebels?

If a country has gone into rebellion, its for an issue that will piss off a large section of the population. A modern leadership going into a open rebellion now is already doomed.

farson135:

GunsmithKitten:

farson135:

You are right, this is not getting us anywhere. You believe that you are perfectly moral despite the fact that in your own words, you associate with criminals. You also use racist terms. Plus, you have admitted on this site to punching your co-worker in the face over what you KNEW was a joke.

Wait, he did that?!

Holy SHEEP, and he has the gall to call me violent!

I swear, hearing him wag his finger at me for legitimately using a firearm to save my freaking LIFE, and yet I'm the only one out of the two of us who hasn't assaulted a fucking co-worker.

Well here is the funny thing, he claims that it was in self defense (the guy was pointing a "gun" at him). At the same time he stated that he knew the gun was fake and yet he punched the guy anyway.

So he attacks us for legal self defense and yet he admitted on this forum to assaulting a man over a joke. The guy was an idiot for doing that but if Blablahb is so great then shouldn't he have turned the other cheek? He knew it was not a real gun yet he claims to have punched that man in self defense. Got to love that.

Yea, ain't it funny? He talks crap to me, yet he's done more damage to another human being than I ever have. he actually harmed someone over a joke, yet I was in legitimate danger and the perp didn't even get touched except for the police cuffing him. Takes some king kong sized cajhones to talk his crap knowing that.

farson135:

Well here is the funny thing, he claims that it was in self defense (the guy was pointing a "gun" at him). At the same time he stated that he knew the gun was fake and yet he punched the guy anyway.

So he attacks us for legal self defense and yet he admitted on this forum to assaulting a man over a joke. The guy was an idiot for doing that but if Blablahb is so great then shouldn't he have turned the other cheek? He knew it was not a real gun yet he claims to have punched that man in self defense. Got to love that.

Not to defend blab but i agree with his actions. Having seen people playing around and treating firearms unresponsibly always grates me and Ive hit someone for pointing an unloaded shotgun at me. Firearms are tools not toys.

Blabs 100% firearm crimes are by owners claims are clearly false however unless im mistaken its not mantatory to report stolen firearms in the us. If that is the case the registered owners should be classed as a accomplice for failing to secure their tools and/or aiding a criminal.

Semes:
Not to defend blab but i agree with his actions. Having seen people playing around and treating firearms unresponsibly always grates me and Ive hit someone for pointing an unloaded shotgun at me. Firearms are tools not toys.

It was not a real gun. I never would have punched a person for pointing a pop gun at me.

Also, the point is that Blab thinks that he is a moral person. Yet he continues to do things that are in contrast to what he believes is moral. He assaults a person over a joke and attacks me because I would be willing to shoot a person if I felt my life was in credible danger. He implies that I am a racist and then uses racist terms. He says that I just want to shoot people. Then he says that he practices a martial art that was derived from a combat art that was used in combat.

As I told him, if he wants to claim the moral high ground he needs to occupy it first.

Blabs 100% firearm crimes are by owners claims are clearly false however unless im mistaken its not mantatory to report stolen firearms in the us.

It is not.

If that is the case the registered owners should be classed as a accomplice for failing to secure their tools and/or aiding a criminal.

Why?

There are few "registered" gun owners in the US.

Beyond that, how do they catch a criminal that stole a gun? Most likely they catch him when he commits another crime. So the theft is just added to the list of charges. Except for the fact that criminals rarely use those guns. Why? Because they do not want to have another charge added onto whatever crime they are already committing. So they usually sell the guns. Also, gun owners typically do report the guns missing, if they know about it. I do not do a daily inventory of my firearms. If one were to go missing, depending on which one, I might not figure it out for a week or more. Sorry, but I do not dig out my hunting rifle every day. I take it out just prior to hunting season to sight it in, I use it, then it stays in the safe until next year.

As for failing to secure our tools, what do you want us to do? Not everybody has the money or space to buy a decked out gun safe (and even that is not 100% secure). I store my guns in a gun locker. If they have a hammer and a crowbar they can get in (eventually). Why should I be punished further?

Question to all the gun owners out there.

I still have no idea why one'd refuse to report a stolen firearm to the authorities. I mean, you'd likely report anything else if it was stolen, wouldn't you? Why not a firearm too? Or is just the "mandatory" part that rustles your jimmies, since it makes you feel coerced into doing...what you'd do anyway, if you're a sensible person?

Or well, a sensible person who takes issues with stuff being stolen from them, at least. If you don't care about your property being stolen, I could see you wouldn't want to be forced to report - but if you don't care about your stuff, you'll have a hard time convincing me you need a firearm to defend yourselves from people who want to steal it.

So hm, if a law was passed that would make it mandatory to report a case of stolen property to the authorities, who'd take issues with that, seriously?

farson135:

Why?

There are few "registered" gun owners in the US.

Id admit I posted without full researching but the more I read it into the stranger it sounds. You dont have to have a record of purchase, transfer or the possession of civilian firearms. I thought all firearms made or imported into the US had to have a serial number, why bother if they arent being used to register them to their owners?

So the theft is just added to the list of charges. Except for the fact that criminals rarely use those guns. Why? Because they do not want to have another charge added onto whatever crime they are already committing. So they usually sell the guns.

Who buys a hot gun? Seriously who would buy a stolen firearm?

Also, gun owners typically do report the guns missing, if they know about it. I do not do a daily inventory of my firearms. If one were to go missing, depending on which one, I might not figure it out for a week or more. Sorry, but I do not dig out my hunting rifle every day. I take it out just prior to hunting season to sight it in, I use it, then it stays in the safe until next year.

How safe can your safe be if its located somewhere were you wouldnt notice it being broken into? I assume you dont keep your rifle in a rarely used shed at the edge of your property. If that were the case i would find it highly irresponsible.

As for failing to secure our tools, what do you want us to do? Not everybody has the money or space to buy a decked out gun safe (and even that is not 100% secure). I store my guns in a gun locker. If they have a hammer and a crowbar they can get in (eventually). Why should I be punished further?

Proper storage of firearms is one of the requirements to gain a licence in many countries. This is something I fully agree with and I cant really see a valid argument against it. A lockable gun cabinet, bolted to a load bearing wall, in a location that you will notice if its been tampered with should be secure enough unless your house gets ransacked. Although a quick google shows that you are getting ripped off badly by the price of a gun safe. A cabinet capable of holding 10 rifles/shotguns and built in ammo lockbox is $375 in the UK.

Ultratwinkie:

2. Besides, tanks are relatively simple. You only need 4 guys. 1 driver, 1 tank commander, 1 gunner, and a loader. How to run it isn't exactly rocket science, once you see the inside it becomes obvious how everything works and where everything is.

I don't know whether or not you have any sort of experience in tank operation. I don't, but I'm pretty sure that you're talking out of your arse.

3. the US military sucks ass at guerrilla warfare. Every single time the military fights a guerrilla war, it loses. The military strategy is always predictable, and always assumes its enemies are a standing army. Its been known since Vietnam.

There's a big difference between fighting in an unmapped, hostile territory like Vietnam and a country that the government has probably mapped out inch-by-inch.

There's also a big difference between fighting rebels that have spent their entire lives fighting for survival, and fighting against a bunch of morbidly obese rednecks shouting "THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGEEIN!"

If a country has gone into rebellion, its for an issue that will piss off a large section of the population. A modern leadership going into a open rebellion now is already doomed.

Then why do you need guns?

Semes:
Id admit I posted without full researching but the more I read it into the stranger it sounds. You dont have to have a record of purchase, transfer or the possession of civilian firearms. I thought all firearms made or imported into the US had to have a serial number, why bother if they arent being used to register them to their owners?

No, you have to record at least the first purchase of a firearm and you have to report the transfer if you do it through an FFL. That is where the serial number comes in.

Who buys a hot gun? Seriously who would buy a stolen firearm?

Mostly pawn shops. How do they know the difference? Really the only time pawn shop owners even know that a gun is stolen is when gun owners get on to web sites like thehighroad.org and report it.

How safe can your safe be if its located somewhere were you wouldnt notice it being broken into? I assume you dont keep your rifle in a rarely used shed at the edge of your property. If that were the case i would find it highly irresponsible.

It is in my bedroom. However, it would be possible for someone to break into my gun locker in such a way as to make it unlikely that I would notice it immediately. If they can close the door then I probably will not notice immediately. If they figure out how to open the electronic lock then they could just take the gun and then close the door.

Proper storage of firearms is one of the requirements to gain a licence in many countries. This is something I fully agree with and I cant really see a valid argument against it. A lockable gun cabinet, bolted to a load bearing wall, in a location that you will notice if its been tampered with should be secure enough unless your house gets ransacked.

What about those of us in apartments? I cannot bolt my gun locker to anything. I weight it down with some left over rebar but that is about the best I can do.

As for "proper" storage. The question I have to ask is what IS proper storage? Personally, I do not bother putting my black powder firearms in my gun locker. There is not enough room and frankly I doubt a criminal is going to steal one of them. I also do not put the gun on my nightstand in the locker because I need it where I can easily get it. I do not put firearms I leave out for cleaning in my gun locker (for obvious reasons). I do not put my great-Grandfathers shotgun in the locker, I put it on my wall (it doesn't work anyway). I have many firearms that I just stick a gun lock on them and put them away, mostly because they are not valuable enough to waste the space in my gun locker.

Vegosiux:
So hm, if a law was passed that would make it mandatory to report a case of stolen property to the authorities, who'd take issues with that, seriously?

I would because I do not like the idea that I could be jailed because (this happened to a friend of mine) I forgot to report that my gun was stolen because I was too busy reporting the fact that the truck it happened to be in was stolen. Or to use my example, I may not notice immediately that one of my guns was stolen. Hell, if my house is broken into I am not going to be focusing on whether they stole one of my $100 Mosin Nagants. I will be checking for my real valuables.

Most people do report stolen guns. However, there are always extenuating circumstances.

The Plunk:

Ultratwinkie:

2. Besides, tanks are relatively simple. You only need 4 guys. 1 driver, 1 tank commander, 1 gunner, and a loader. How to run it isn't exactly rocket science, once you see the inside it becomes obvious how everything works and where everything is.

I don't know whether or not you have any sort of experience in tank operation. I don't, but I'm pretty sure that you're talking out of your arse.

3. the US military sucks ass at guerrilla warfare. Every single time the military fights a guerrilla war, it loses. The military strategy is always predictable, and always assumes its enemies are a standing army. Its been known since Vietnam.

There's a big difference between fighting in an unmapped, hostile territory like Vietnam and a country that the government has probably mapped out inch-by-inch.

There's also a big difference between fighting rebels that have spent their entire lives fighting for survival, and fighting against a bunch of morbidly obese rednecks shouting "THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGEEIN!"

If a country has gone into rebellion, its for an issue that will piss off a large section of the population. A modern leadership going into a open rebellion now is already doomed.

Then why do you need guns?

1. Maps are not gonna help you. Maps are not updated 100% like its a damn video game. Maps only tell you what roads, rails, and highways there are, not if they are destroyed or set up for ambushes.

America's infrastructure is a death trap for anyone trying to get supplies anywhere in a war situation.

2. These strategies are basic fighting strategy to anyone. People aren't stupid.

3. Yes I seen the inside of tanks and how they are driven, and they are not like operating the death star. Driving a tank is much like driving a car in a dentist's chair, the commander has a turret to see around the tank, and the gunner/loader just puts shells into the barrel. Driving it is like driving using handlebars instead of a wheel.
There are even pedals for the driver, like a car.

Not rocket science. This stuff becomes stuff you can figure out on your own if you even put a modicum of effort in.

Not like the M1 will be useful to anyone in a civil war scenario.

4. Because guns give the populace a chance and helps with recruitment. Without guns, there is no rebellion. Would you join a rebellion where your weapon was a kitchen knife and nothing else even against 1960s second hand Russian equipment?

No, so the guns are there to prove this can go somewhere. That's why you need guns.

Ultratwinkie:

4. Because guns give the populace a chance and helps with recruitment. Without guns, there is no rebellion. Would you join a rebellion where your weapon was a kitchen knife and nothing else even against 1960s second hand Russian equipment?

Again with the rebellion. Who would you (Americans) put in charge after the rebellion, and why aren't you voting for them now? Or rather, why wouldn't you try endorsing and voting for people you'd trust to lead your nation better? Because it's too much effort to do something the easy way rather than blow the place to hell and back and then deal with decades of fallout?

See, the point of citizen's rebellion is usually to put someone else in power after the government is deposed, and with a lot less waste of resources, life and infrastructure, you can do that through the official channels, at least if you believe yourself to be a democratic nation. Now that is, unless you're actively talking about the end of USA as one country.

But hey, don't let me tell you how to do stuff, if you think the only way to fight against "tyrannical government" is to blast yourself into the stone age, go ahead...but we all know that when 4 years are up, you're still going to be voting for the same people, and you'll still be whining about how fucked up the system is and how it's too hard to change it and how you need to have your boomsticks ready, because one day...ONE DAY!

Okay, enough ranting.

Vegosiux:

Ultratwinkie:

4. Because guns give the populace a chance and helps with recruitment. Without guns, there is no rebellion. Would you join a rebellion where your weapon was a kitchen knife and nothing else even against 1960s second hand Russian equipment?

Again with the rebellion. Who would you (Americans) put in charge after the rebellion, and why aren't you voting for them now? Or rather, why wouldn't you try endorsing and voting for people you'd trust to lead your nation better? Because it's too much effort to do something the easy way rather than blow the place to hell and back and then deal with decades of fallout?

See, the point of citizen's rebellion is usually to put someone else in power after the government is deposed, and with a lot less waste of resources, life and infrastructure, you can do that through the official channels, at least if you believe yourself to be a democratic nation.

But hey, don't let me tell you how to do stuff, if you think the only way to fight against "tyrannical government" is to blast yourself into the stone age, go ahead...but we all know that when 4 years are up, you're still going to be voting for the same people, and you'll still be whining about how fucked up the system is and how it's too hard to change it and how you need to have your boomsticks ready, because one day...ONE DAY!

Okay, enough ranting.

He is saying rebellions can't happen in the modern world. That somehow rebellion are "obsolete" because "the US army is so bad ass."

My argument is that they aren't. rebellions are just as viable as they were in 1776, all you you need is to think and actually put up a strategy. Not run around with a 9mm like a street gang. Rebellions are the kind of thing that spells out the death of any regime that pisses off people enough to start one.

This scenario assumes "official channels" are off the table. Its an inherently dystopian scenario.

Rebellions are far from obsolete, all you have to do is do some basic strategic thinking and suddenly the odds are in your favor.

Ultratwinkie:

This scenario assumes "official channels" are off the table. Its an inherently dystopian scenario.

As long as we're clear about that. Just remember that if it's an actually dystopian scenario, you don't get to be the "Leaders of the free world" anymore.

Contrary to popular belief, the government is not an outside force, but rather the result of what kind of society and values a nation has, at least in the parts of the world that has at least some democratic history, which USA is part of.

Or put more simply, if USA slips into an Orwellian dystopia, it's not the government's fault, because the government is of the people. You don't vote for Cthulhu versus Mephistopheles, you vote for your fellow countrypeople and all.

So yeah, I can understand the viability of a rebellion in a dystopian scenario, but you have to have seriously screwed up somewhere along the road as a people if that's how far downhill things go for you at any time.

Vegosiux:

Ultratwinkie:

This scenario assumes "official channels" are off the table. Its an inherently dystopian scenario.

As long as we're clear about that. Just remember that if it's an actually dystopian scenario, you don't get to be the "Leaders of the free world" anymore.

Contrary to popular belief, the government is not an outside force, but rather the result of what kind of society and values a nation has, at least in the parts of the world that has at least some democratic history, which USA is part of.

Or put more simply, if USA slips into an Orwellian dystopia, it's not the government's fault, because the government is of the people. You don't vote for Cthulhu versus Mephistopheles, you vote for your fellow countrypeople and all.

So yeah, I can understand the viability of a rebellion in a dystopian scenario, but you have to have seriously screwed up somewhere along the road as a people if that's how far downhill things go for you at any time.

Yes, and when countrymen devolve into fanatics that's when democracy dies.

Political polarization is the biggest threat facing America. So unless people stop treating parties like religions straight from the word of god, it can go down a dystopian route at any time. Just like Chile did.

Polarization kills democracies. It has before, and it will again. So I don't see a dystopian future being far fetched when politics devolve into pseudo-religious crap. Because fanaticism is only a stone's throw away from killing each other.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked