His other answer about Washington D.C. was pretty flimsy too, but I wanted to concentrate on this one.I think you are correct, "It can't happen here." But the reason for that is that the most likely victims are those that happen to own firearms. The ownership of firearms changes your attitude and your relationship with your government. With that attitude change and the presence of firearms in the hands of the most likely victims those most inclined to commit genocide are severely discouraged from doing so. You might challenge my assertion that the most likely victims are those with firearms but look at all the great genocides committed within a population (not across cultures such as whites against American Indians or the Japanese against the Chinese). All of them that I can think of were committed by leftists and other statists upon those that resisted their authority. Gun owners, as a group, are more self reliant and oppose the big government involvement associated with leftist governments. Just look at the violent rhetoric and actions of the anti-gun people in this country. There are far more people advocating that gun owners kill each other, themselves, and their children than the other way around.
You claim it "won't happen here"? You are correct but you don't understand the real reason. It is because the gun owners won't let it happen. We regard the protection of innocent life as a responsibility of gun ownership. The lefists regard genocide as just part of the cost of achieving and maintaining power.
He said, "You might challenge my assertion that the most likely victims are those with firearms." Yes I might indeed. This sounds like more than paranoia. This sounds like paranoia and egocentrism. It's not uncommon for the gun rights extremist, like Joe, to think the world revolves around him.
He said, "You claim it "won't happen here"? You are correct but you don't understand the real reason. It is because the gun owners won't let it happen."
Aside from the comical condescension, what he apparently believes is pretty funny too. Imagine the federal government with the largest military spending ever known to man, coming after the gun owners. Those gun owners, banding together perhaps someplace in Idaho to make a stand, would fight off the stealth bombers, nuclear and chemical weapons, all guided by the most advanced satellites. These intrepid warriors would emerge from the ashes free and victorious.
That's Joe's vision, and not only Joe's. Thousands read his blog every day.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I think it is next to impossible for genocide to happen here even without the second amendment- but impossible with it. Mike's argument about nukes and stealth bombers is even more fantastical. Whatever happens, the government wouldn't nuke itself or do anything else to destroy its own infastructure. It is the equivalent of "murder-suicide" in that nobody wins.
ReplyDelete"Those gun owners, banding together perhaps someplace in Idaho to make a stand, would fight off the stealth bombers, nuclear and chemical weapons, all guided by the most advanced satellites."
ReplyDeleteI must have slept in on that day of the Waco standoff. I don't remember any of that being used.
Joe is right to an extent. Bureaucrats won't move against gun owners, but it's out of fear of a vast army of gun owners en masses rising up in defense.
It's out of the fear of that one lone man or woman who knows that it only takes one bullet to forever change the course of politics. For the most part, politicians are spineless critters who only value one thing more than reelection: Their hide.
"Imagine the federal government with the largest military spending ever known to man, coming after the gun owners. Those gun owners, banding together perhaps someplace in Idaho to make a stand, would fight off the stealth bombers, nuclear and chemical weapons, all guided by the most advanced satellites. These intrepid warriors would emerge from the ashes free and victorious."
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that if the federal government decided to go after gun owners they would murder everyone in the country?
And we are the paranoid ones?
I don't know of any gun owner who thinks the feds would murder 300,000,000 people including their own families, friends, neighbors, old classmates and old professors, old roommates, and everyone else in an attempt to target gun owners. I see many non-gun owners talking about this as though it is how the government would proceed, by murdering everyone, yet they at the same time claim that it's not even a possibility...but should it happen, we are all going to die.
"That's Joe's vision, and not only Joe's. Thousands read his blog every day. "
ReplyDeleteUm, no, that's your strawman. Joe's vision and his readers visions are very different from your paranoid irrational delusions.
Odd.
ReplyDeleteMost gunloons are also highly anti-semitic, anti-gay and anti-minority. They also tend to have a liking for authoritarian regimes and a fondness for the Third Reich.
But let's suppose, to entertain dishonest Joe Huffman's delusion, that the US Govt sought to eliminate he and his fellow gunloons. It's kind of insulting to believe our military are somehow going to be defeated by a bunch of fat, middle-aged gun kooks.
Given the fact it was a right wing Govt that instituted the Patriot Act and initiated such actions as detainment without warrant and torture---does dishonest Joe Huffman really think he has a big friend there?
Gunloons exist because they pay off GOPers. When your "friedship" relies on continuous bribes and payoffs---you have to realize their allegiance can be bought by other interests.
Those gun owners, banding together perhaps someplace in Idaho to make a stand, would fight off the stealth bombers, nuclear and chemical weapons, all guided by the most advanced satellites.
ReplyDeleteExactly--after all, we've seen how easily that huge, ultra-modern military pacified Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Oh, wait . . .
Most gunloons are also highly anti-semitic, anti-gay and anti-minority. They also tend to have a liking for authoritarian regimes and a fondness for the Third Reich.
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of utter crap.
Most gun folk are firm believers in the Constitution, the basis of American Society. There might be small groups who have counter cultural ideals but to claim that this constitutes the majority is utter bullshit.
One of the stronger voices in the anti gun control community is JPFO, which is Jews for the preservation of firearm ownership. This group is absolutely dedicated to the ideal of preventing another Holocaust and is championed by most Second Amendment supporting groups as one of the most articulate and valued participants in the debate.
Most Second Amendment groups are vocal and strident supporters of Israel and it's Right to exist. Hardly Anti Semitic.
The race card issue here is flatly denied as almost all early gun control legislation was racially motivated and even the term Saturday Night Special was based on racial issues. Calling us racist only shows the weakness of your character.
The very nature of the Second Amendment and it's position as a "kill switch"'against authoritarianism and tyranny makes the rest of the comment laughable. It clearly shows
A lack of understanding of the issue as well as a lack of education in the basics of American Civics. That you would include such an antithetical position in your rant is evidentiary of a inability to discuss the issues of gun control in a rational manner.
Finally, it is the pro gun control side which offers up it's selves, it's sons and daughters, and it's grandchildren to service in the American Armed Forces at a rate many many times higher than the lefties who would rather appease the forces of totalitarianism and oppression in the world rather than standing for freedom and liberty. Your statement is disgusting and an affront to all that is good and strong about America.
TS is right. The chances of genocide are next to impossible. And he's right that my "stealth bombers and nuclear weapons" is totally fantastical.
ReplyDeleteMy point, which Zorro seems to deny, is that in any confrontation with the federal government, the citizen gun owners would be so out-gunned that they'd lose. Waco and Ruby Ridge proved it. The losers in those battles used everything at their disposal. The feds used, what, a tiny fraction?
Waco and Ruby Ridge proved it.
ReplyDeleteWaco and Ruby Ridge "proved" (for those who needed proof of something so obvious) that sitting in place and waiting for the government's overwhelming firepower is the quick route to wherever you think you're destined to go when you die.
That's not how a guerrilla insurgency is fought. Hell--it's not even how an unsuccessful one is fought (no one, after all, refers to those massacres as insurgencies).
Insurgents strike, and either run for the hills, or blend into the general populace, before the government's overwhelming force can be brought to bear.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou assume that the American Soldier would quickly obey an illegal order and turn their gun and arms on the American people. That to has been recently proven wrong in various countries. Also remember we would be facing National Guard, not the US Military, unless they changed the laws of where the US military could be utilized. The National Guard, would have their hands full, as they are mostly made up of weekend warriors making some extra cash. The NG would already NOT want to be there.
And yes, I think the Bloombergs and Shulmers of the world want to tract my guns. I can only come up with one reason that they would? To come after me for them. Why would a database help in crime fighting? Criminals generally don't buy their guns in legal gun shops like I do!
Mike, If the nation goes to that level of turmoil, and I for one do not see it getting there unless something drastic were to happen, it will not be one hundred and seven agents, police, and marshals against a man, wife, and children.
ReplyDeleteRuby ridge was the excesses of stupidity brought to light. It was a screw up of the highest order and the Government got away with murder.
If there were to become a conflict at home please look at the recent Balkans issues to see what a few irregulars armed and determined can do to disrupt an entire society.
Zorroy, You're a regular Green Mountain Boy, spearheading the insurgency in your mind like the heroes of yesteryear. I remember well the fascination with which I read those stories as a pre-adolescent dreamer. Then, unlike you, I grew up.
ReplyDeleteThen, unlike you, I grew up.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the insurgents in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, who have prevailed, or eventually will prevail, in the face of U.S. military might, are still afflicted with adolescent "dreams."
It's all part of the delusion, taken to the extreme, of justifying a sickness of paranoia and a glorification of guns and gun violence.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who owns a gun for self protection lives in fear of others, namely of strangers who would invade their home, however unlikely that is. Combine that with extreme anti-authoritarianism, and you get a paranoia of home invaders who are part of our government. It's a small step from there to hording of weapons and militia-style training in preparation for that big day which will never come, when small armies of jackbooted military would come tromping into overweight, white men's homes to take away their weapons with no other reason than because the government "fears" those men.
Give me a break.
You got it, Baldr.
ReplyDeleteZorroy, Have you ever heard the theory, conspiracy theory, I admit, that the US didn't really want to win those wars, still doesn't in the case of Afghanistan? The theory goes that perpetual war is the goal, thereby spending weapons and money, justifying the obscene military spending and enriching all those involved in the MIC (military industrial complex).
I don't think you really believe in the possibility of war with the government like Joe Huffman does. I think you just like to argue.
Zorroy, Have you ever heard the theory, conspiracy theory, I admit, that the US didn't really want to win those wars, still doesn't in the case of Afghanistan? The theory goes that perpetual war is the goal, thereby spending weapons and money, justifying the obscene military spending and enriching all those involved in the MIC (military industrial complex).
ReplyDeleteI've heard it, and dismissed it as bullshit. We don't need to pour blood and trillions into Afghanistan and Iraq, for most of a decade (and counting), in order to come up with plenty of justification for enormous military spending. If we could "win" in those places, we would.
I don't think you really believe in the possibility of war with the government like Joe Huffman does.
I believe that good fences make good neighbors, and that an armed, vigilant, and strong-willed citizenry is a good deterrence to the excessively authoritarian ambitions of a would-be tyrant.
"an armed, vigilant, and strong-willed citizenry is a good deterrence to the excessively authoritarian ambitions of a would-be tyrant."
ReplyDeletehahahahahahahahaha
You've been hangin' out on Sipsey Street too much. Or were you talking in hypotheticals? Are you just talking general rules? Or do you really think that's what's happening in the US, in which case you're suffering from grandiose fantasy syndrome (GFS)?
Or do you really think that's what's happening in the US, in which case you're suffering from grandiose fantasy syndrome (GFS)?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you share my appreciation for irony, but if you do, you'll like this: it would seem that CSGV's Josh Horwitz (and that other dipshit, Casey Anderson) disagree with you, and agree with me, in their "Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea" book:
Recognize Insurrectionism as a threat to the entire progressive movement. Too many political progressives assume that the gun rights movement can be co-opted or simply ignored. Progressives fail to understand that the Insurrectionist idea is part and parcel of a broader reactionary worldview. Unless progressives recognize that the Insurrectionist premise of the modern gun rights movement is fundamentally hostile to the progressive project and its values, the "conservative" movement will use gun rights as a building block for orgnaizing and propagandizing.
In other words, without even engaging in actual insurrection, we "Insurrectionists" (to the CSGV, just thinking about resistance to governmental authority is enough to become labeled an "Insurrectionist"--no insurrection required), we're thwarting the "progressive" agenda. By virtue of our belief in our ability and responsibility to secure our own freedom, we are already frustrating the soft tyranny of the "progressive" left.
Purty fucking cool, eh?