Our government could never become tyrannical to the point that we would need to fight them. But if someone did start a fight, they'd have to be able to outgun our nuclear arsenal (which implies that the government would be willing to use that inside CONUS).
These two lines we keep getting are not compatible with each other.
I just hope it's simply phrased enough to stick in people's brains so that they think about it.
Every time I hear the lines about how we're outgunned by the US's nuclear arsenal, I find myself wishing the person speaking would think about what they're saying, and hoping that they're just saying it out of lack of thought rather than actually supporting the idea of such a tactic.
The use of intermediate range delivery platforms to deploy neutron bombs over insubordinate regions may be an acceptable response to a potential or actual insurrection against Federal or International authorities. The use of strategic non-conventional arms would preferably be limited to Neutron Bombs, as such inflict little structural damage and do not present a persisting radiation footprint, while inflicting the desired affect of widespread population reduction. Such a described strike, coordinated by a domestic or International Strategic Command, ought to be authorized by the domestic authorities, and shall exclusively utilize domestically produced arms.
However the use of a Cheget (Football) rests solely as a endgame strategy, as it would, as a obvious side affect of the terminal depopulation of an area as a means of quelling an insurrection, remove valuable human resources who have been the beneficiary of countless billions of dollars of State recourses in the form of education, infrastructure, and other expenditures related to the keeping of livestock.
It would be beneficial to those who frequent this blog to refrain from criticizing an appropriate response to civil unrest, in order to ensure that you don't take your rightful place on the other side of the high fence, with your ragged clothes, and gaunt and filthy faces, in the line leading to the showers or the fields where you will dig holes and be greeted by young men with poles.
Koba, you seem to be heading close to some spokesman telling the media that we had to destry the village in order to save it. The russians tried to play the bad cop in Afghanistan with the indiscriminate use of antipersonnel land mines that still maim the occasional civilian there. At least outwardly, the US military attempts to hold the moral high ground in its counterinsurgency ops overseas. Not that long ago, the citizens of the US decided that letting impartial judges make decisions when there are disagreements, and for the most part abide bt their decisions. To get a large enough percentage of the population to openly illegally oppose the elected government, would truely be an indication that something needs to change. And my hope is that it would be corrected without too much bloodshed. One example of this would be prohibition. They were actually able to make a change to the constitution, and then discovered that a very large part of the population flouted the law. And resulted in another constitutional change with the major side effect being the growth of organized crime.
As you're all patting each other on the back, consider this: the ridiculous suggestion of nuclear weapons being used against US citizens is ALWAYS brought up as a response to the ridiculous pro-gun suggestion about civil war or armed resistance.
The suggestion of armed resistance is postulated as a last ditch effort against a government that has started acting violently toward its citizens and has stopped allowing itself to be held accountable in the political process--a very extreme case that we all hope never happens here, but that we seen happening around the world and down through history quite frequently.
The suggestion of Nuclear Weapons being used to suppress such an insurrection, being raised in a flippant way by gun controllers, trivializes the genocide that would be the result of such a strike.
As you're all patting each other on the back, consider this: the ridiculous suggestion of nuclear weapons being used against US citizens is ALWAYS brought up as a response to the ridiculous pro-gun suggestion about civil war or armed resistance.
Is it your position, then, that armed resistance against tyranny is not only "ridiculous," but that the ridiculousness rises to a level on a par with the notion of a government waging nuclear war on its own citizens--a notion articulated, by the way, by people who apparently support a government capable of such monstrous evil?
I cannot express how gratifying it is that I do not have to call you a countryman.
1. Koba is E.N. is Jadegold, so take the comment for what it's worth.
2. Laci has pointed to nukes as an example of why citizens could never win against their government.
3. I'd like to believe that U.S. military personnel would refuse an order to fire nuclear weapons against our own people, barring some extraordinary circumstance. But in a fight against tyranny, the choice comes down to whether you want to side with the tyrant or with good people. If you can live with yourself while siding with the tyrant, you'd better ask why you deserve to live.
The one who refers to itself under the alias "Greg Camp" insists that I am Jadegold.
It seemed an interesting idea at first, but it has become tedious.
I am not Jadegold.
If you find vaporisation by an artificial sun to be an experience that you would rather avoid, then you shouldn't disagree with your masters.
Human "suffering" is merely data transmitted upon a neurochemical server. You have no place to make disingenuous comments that the nature of such data supersedes the desires of the prevailing authorities.
E.N./Jade, you all made the error of commenting on my blog. That leaves you open to a charge of being inept in addition to one of being thoroughly contemptable.
"The suggestion of Nuclear Weapons being used to suppress such an insurrection, being raised in a flippant way by gun controllers, trivializes the genocide that would be the result of such a strike."
No, what it trivializes is your ridiculous suggestion that civil war or armed resistance is a real possibility.
1. You must believe it's a real possibility too, since you suggest that Americans could never rise against their government because the latter has nuclear weapons.
2. You also fail to see that there are many kinds of conflict that don't reach that level. Perhaps you didn't notice how irregulars in Afghanistan and Iraq made life difficult for the most advanced military in the world? Or how about recent events in Libya and Syria?
3. Then there's the question of just how many service personnel would comply with an order to attack American citizens. Fewer than you'd like to believe, I suspect.
Your side, and sometimes you, make us out to be thirsty for the blood of cops and others. The latest Lawrence O'Donnel piece you posted went on at length about this.
This comes from an emphasis of a few radical voices like the vile Kerodin, and from ignoring our actual thoughts and explanations of our views.
Interestingly, we see stories like this coming from the real world:
Citizens dipping into their personal stockpiles and loaning ammo to the local cops to help them out--citizens responding with offers of more than the cops even need at the moment.
The founders' desire for an armed populace had many purposes--people would be familiar with firearms if they were even needed to help defend against invasion, and they would be able to provide their own arms and ammo for a period until the government got its supply lines up. Additionally while the idea of deputizing citizens as members of the posse was not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, it was a practice at the time which continued afterward, and it simplified matters if those deputies could provide their own guns.
Today, we don't rely on the militia and the posse like we did back then (though there could be benefits to doing so) but here we see yet another benefit--when the supply chain is overstressed and the cops run out of ammo, the civic minded among the armed citizenry steps up and helps out.
I'm not going to listen to nearly twenty minutes of her shrieking. The fact that this can be done is a beautiful thing. Whatever makes controlling citizens harder is fine with me.
She seemed unhappy that the builders actually obeyed the law by embedding metal in the gun to comply with the undetectable firearm law. And of course, that's after getting an official license to manufacture them in the first place.
And they have been obeying the rules as evidenced by their inclusion of enough metal in the design in order to comply with the undetectable weapons law and ceasing distribution of construction data while an investigation is being conducted regarding possible violations.
How about this for a dumb stunt by the media. Some british reporters download and construct a Liberator, without the metal called for in the specs to make it detectable and then smuggle it onto the Eurostar and ride the train into France. So we have someone who comitted several felonies in two countries, and not only wrote about it but took photos of their crimes. I'm wondering why these guys arent in jail with the cops drawing lots to see who gets to do the body cavity searches.
How Mail On Sunday 'printed' first plastic gun in UK using a 3D printer- and then took it on board Eurostar without being stopped in security scandal
I don't know about that story, but wouldn't the thing be that they DIDN'T break any laws? Isn't that the point, that such a thing is NOT against the law and it should be?
It was printed in Britain and smuggled into France--I'm guessing here, but surely that's a crime of some sort.
Like Greg, even without knowing the laws of Britain and France, I find it hard to believe that sneaking an unregistered, "undetectable" pistol onto a train--a multi-national train, no less--is legal.
And legal or not, what's the difference? How would a law against that behavior make it any more difficult to do?
That's the point, the beauty of easily manufactured firearms--they defeat the scourge of gun laws.
If they weren't breaking ant laws, then why did they have to go to such lengths to smuggle it onto the train? Perhaps our resident legal expert, Laci could give us some expert advice on whether any British or French laws were broken.
Our government could never become tyrannical to the point that we would need to fight them. But if someone did start a fight, they'd have to be able to outgun our nuclear arsenal (which implies that the government would be willing to use that inside CONUS).
ReplyDeleteThese two lines we keep getting are not compatible with each other.
You have worded that vital point more succinctly than I have ever seen it worded. Well done, Tennessean.
DeleteHope you don't mind if I shamelessly plagiarize it.
Plagiarize away.
DeleteI just hope it's simply phrased enough to stick in people's brains so that they think about it.
Every time I hear the lines about how we're outgunned by the US's nuclear arsenal, I find myself wishing the person speaking would think about what they're saying, and hoping that they're just saying it out of lack of thought rather than actually supporting the idea of such a tactic.
The use of intermediate range delivery platforms to deploy neutron bombs over insubordinate regions may be an acceptable response to a potential or actual insurrection against Federal or International authorities. The use of strategic non-conventional arms would preferably be limited to Neutron Bombs, as such inflict little structural damage and do not present a persisting radiation footprint, while inflicting the desired affect of widespread population reduction. Such a described strike, coordinated by a domestic or International Strategic Command, ought to be authorized by the domestic authorities, and shall exclusively utilize domestically produced arms.
DeleteHowever the use of a Cheget (Football) rests solely as a endgame strategy, as it would, as a obvious side affect of the terminal depopulation of an area as a means of quelling an insurrection, remove valuable human resources who have been the beneficiary of countless billions of dollars of State recourses in the form of education, infrastructure, and other expenditures related to the keeping of livestock.
It would be beneficial to those who frequent this blog to refrain from criticizing an appropriate response to civil unrest, in order to ensure that you don't take your rightful place on the other side of the high fence, with your ragged clothes, and gaunt and filthy faces, in the line leading to the showers or the fields where you will dig holes and be greeted by young men with poles.
Koba, you seem to be heading close to some spokesman telling the media that we had to destry the village in order to save it. The russians tried to play the bad cop in Afghanistan with the indiscriminate use of antipersonnel land mines that still maim the occasional civilian there.
DeleteAt least outwardly, the US military attempts to hold the moral high ground in its counterinsurgency ops overseas. Not that long ago, the citizens of the US decided that letting impartial judges make decisions when there are disagreements, and for the most part abide bt their decisions. To get a large enough percentage of the population to openly illegally oppose the elected government, would truely be an indication that something needs to change. And my hope is that it would be corrected without too much bloodshed. One example of this would be prohibition. They were actually able to make a change to the constitution, and then discovered that a very large part of the population flouted the law. And resulted in another constitutional change with the major side effect being the growth of organized crime.
As you're all patting each other on the back, consider this: the ridiculous suggestion of nuclear weapons being used against US citizens is ALWAYS brought up as a response to the ridiculous pro-gun suggestion about civil war or armed resistance.
DeleteThe suggestion of armed resistance is postulated as a last ditch effort against a government that has started acting violently toward its citizens and has stopped allowing itself to be held accountable in the political process--a very extreme case that we all hope never happens here, but that we seen happening around the world and down through history quite frequently.
DeleteThe suggestion of Nuclear Weapons being used to suppress such an insurrection, being raised in a flippant way by gun controllers, trivializes the genocide that would be the result of such a strike.
As you're all patting each other on the back, consider this: the ridiculous suggestion of nuclear weapons being used against US citizens is ALWAYS brought up as a response to the ridiculous pro-gun suggestion about civil war or armed resistance.
DeleteIs it your position, then, that armed resistance against tyranny is not only "ridiculous," but that the ridiculousness rises to a level on a par with the notion of a government waging nuclear war on its own citizens--a notion articulated, by the way, by people who apparently support a government capable of such monstrous evil?
I cannot express how gratifying it is that I do not have to call you a countryman.
1. Koba is E.N. is Jadegold, so take the comment for what it's worth.
Delete2. Laci has pointed to nukes as an example of why citizens could never win against their government.
3. I'd like to believe that U.S. military personnel would refuse an order to fire nuclear weapons against our own people, barring some extraordinary circumstance. But in a fight against tyranny, the choice comes down to whether you want to side with the tyrant or with good people. If you can live with yourself while siding with the tyrant, you'd better ask why you deserve to live.
The one who refers to itself under the alias "Greg Camp" insists that I am Jadegold.
DeleteIt seemed an interesting idea at first, but it has become tedious.
I am not Jadegold.
If you find vaporisation by an artificial sun to be an experience that you would rather avoid, then you shouldn't disagree with your masters.
Human "suffering" is merely data transmitted upon a neurochemical server. You have no place to make disingenuous comments that the nature of such data supersedes the desires of the prevailing authorities.
"If you find vaporisation by an artificial sun to be an experience that you would rather avoid, then you shouldn't disagree with your masters."
DeleteSorry EN, we kicked the masters out a while back. Though there seems to be some laying about in some of the other countries.
E.N./Jade, you all made the error of commenting on my blog. That leaves you open to a charge of being inept in addition to one of being thoroughly contemptable.
DeleteEver heard of an IP scrambler? I have no idea what it gave you. It could lead you to a corn field in Nebraska or a steel mill in Kazakhstan.
DeleteIt was programmed to seek populated areas though, and probably lead you to NY, Tokyo, LA, or London.
If it landed on Rome, you would have accused me of being Mikeb, which wouldn't have been nearly as distasteful as being called Jadegold all the time.
E.N./Jade, you've been caught. Now, you're just wriggling on the hook.
Delete"The suggestion of Nuclear Weapons being used to suppress such an insurrection, being raised in a flippant way by gun controllers, trivializes the genocide that would be the result of such a strike."
DeleteNo, what it trivializes is your ridiculous suggestion that civil war or armed resistance is a real possibility.
1. You must believe it's a real possibility too, since you suggest that Americans could never rise against their government because the latter has nuclear weapons.
Delete2. You also fail to see that there are many kinds of conflict that don't reach that level. Perhaps you didn't notice how irregulars in Afghanistan and Iraq made life difficult for the most advanced military in the world? Or how about recent events in Libya and Syria?
3. Then there's the question of just how many service personnel would comply with an order to attack American citizens. Fewer than you'd like to believe, I suspect.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYour side, and sometimes you, make us out to be thirsty for the blood of cops and others. The latest Lawrence O'Donnel piece you posted went on at length about this.
This comes from an emphasis of a few radical voices like the vile Kerodin, and from ignoring our actual thoughts and explanations of our views.
Interestingly, we see stories like this coming from the real world:
http://www.northlandsnewscenter.com/news/local/Proctor-Chief-Turns-to-Citizens-During-Ammo-Shortage-206857491.html
Citizens dipping into their personal stockpiles and loaning ammo to the local cops to help them out--citizens responding with offers of more than the cops even need at the moment.
The founders' desire for an armed populace had many purposes--people would be familiar with firearms if they were even needed to help defend against invasion, and they would be able to provide their own arms and ammo for a period until the government got its supply lines up. Additionally while the idea of deputizing citizens as members of the posse was not mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, it was a practice at the time which continued afterward, and it simplified matters if those deputies could provide their own guns.
Today, we don't rely on the militia and the posse like we did back then (though there could be benefits to doing so) but here we see yet another benefit--when the supply chain is overstressed and the cops run out of ammo, the civic minded among the armed citizenry steps up and helps out.
I'm not going to listen to nearly twenty minutes of her shrieking. The fact that this can be done is a beautiful thing. Whatever makes controlling citizens harder is fine with me.
ReplyDeleteShe seemed unhappy that the builders actually obeyed the law by embedding metal in the gun to comply with the undetectable firearm law. And of course, that's after getting an official license to manufacture them in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhat official license?
DeleteWhat official license?
DeleteI assume ssgmarkcr is referring to Defense Distributed's firearm manufacturing license, issued by your favorite jackbooted thugs, the BATFE.
When Defense Distributed started their project, they applied for and recieved a license to manufacture and sell firearms. Just like Colt or Ruger has.
DeleteAnd they have been obeying the rules as evidenced by their inclusion of enough metal in the design in order to comply with the undetectable weapons law and ceasing distribution of construction data while an investigation is being conducted regarding possible violations.
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteHow about this for a dumb stunt by the media. Some british reporters download and construct a Liberator, without the metal called for in the specs to make it detectable and then smuggle it onto the Eurostar and ride the train into France. So we have someone who comitted several felonies in two countries, and not only wrote about it but took photos of their crimes. I'm wondering why these guys arent in jail with the cops drawing lots to see who gets to do the body cavity searches.
How Mail On Sunday 'printed' first plastic gun in UK using a 3D printer- and then took it on board Eurostar without being stopped in security scandal
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323158/How-Mail-On-Sunday-printed-plastic-gun-UK--took-board-Eurostar-stopped-security-scandal.html#ixzz2T7dPwEgh
Yep--gun laws don't apply to the pro-genocidal tyranny, anti-humanity lobby.
DeleteI don't know about that story, but wouldn't the thing be that they DIDN'T break any laws? Isn't that the point, that such a thing is NOT against the law and it should be?
DeleteIt was printed in Britain and smuggled into France--I'm guessing here, but surely that's a crime of some sort.
DeleteIt was printed in Britain and smuggled into France--I'm guessing here, but surely that's a crime of some sort.
DeleteLike Greg, even without knowing the laws of Britain and France, I find it hard to believe that sneaking an unregistered, "undetectable" pistol onto a train--a multi-national train, no less--is legal.
And legal or not, what's the difference? How would a law against that behavior make it any more difficult to do?
That's the point, the beauty of easily manufactured firearms--they defeat the scourge of gun laws.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls . . .
If they weren't breaking ant laws, then why did they have to go to such lengths to smuggle it onto the train? Perhaps our resident legal expert, Laci could give us some expert advice on whether any British or French laws were broken.
Delete