• The Democrats’ Wave Could Turn Into A Flood
    180 replies, posted
[QUOTE=catbarf;53006599]Are people still dismissing the idea of America slipping into tyranny and needing open resistance from its citizenry as a fantasy, while Trump is threatening a real honest-to-god Constitutional crisis and Democrats are calling for public resistance, with the possibility of some form of revolution being needed to reinstate Constitutional law being a small, but very real possibility? The public is gearing up to literally march on Washington and demand the removal of corrupt officials and yet the idea of a revolution is still treated like fantasy, as if a corrupt government will acquiesce to being asked nicely. A handful of Bundy jerkoffs scared off federal agents solely through force of arms while the pipeline demonstrators were subdued by riot police. The idea of guns dissuading government action and giving the people more clout has been conclusively demonstrated time and time again. I am not a single issue voter by any means but we are [I]way[/I] too far into 2017 for 'revolution could never happen' to still be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] i don't get people who think trump is a fascist and/or extremely corrupt who also want to heavily restrict guns and think an armed revolt wouldn't work, like they'd rather just roll over and get fucked if peacable actions don't work than even try to fight.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53006899]i don't get people who think trump is a fascist and/or extremely corrupt who also want to heavily restrict guns and think an armed revolt wouldn't work, like they'd rather just roll over and get fucked if peacable actions don't work than even try to fight.[/QUOTE] Yeah because lets encourage hundreds of angry people that the solution to democracy is violence. [editline]26th December 2017[/editline] That can only go well if?when Trump is impeached.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53006899]i don't get people who think trump is a fascist and/or extremely corrupt who also want to heavily restrict guns and think an armed revolt wouldn't work, like they'd rather just roll over and get fucked if peacable actions don't work than even try to fight.[/QUOTE] just because he's a kleptocratic fascist doesn't mean he's actually competent enough to have ruled out peaceful options. Trump's only powers at the moment are his (inept) politicking and the [I]passive allowance[/I] of violence on his behalf, not actually doing it himself. if you want to escalate to violence before the government does, be my guest
[QUOTE=SataniX;53007046]Yeah because lets encourage hundreds of angry people that the solution to democracy is violence. [editline]26th December 2017[/editline] That can only go well if?when Trump is impeached.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cone;53007117]just because he's a kleptocratic fascist doesn't mean he's actually competent enough to have ruled out peaceful options. Trump's only powers at the moment are his (inept) politicking and the [I]passive allowance[/I] of violence on his behalf, not actually doing it himself. if you want to escalate to violence before the government does, be my guest[/QUOTE] which is why i specifically said "if peacable don't work". if moves are made to solidify power and erode democracy even more, and all peacable options have been exhausted, what else is there to do besides fighting or giving in? i'm not saying "revolution NOW!", i'm saying removing cards from your own hand because you don't need them now is short-sighted and stupid.
[QUOTE=Toybasher;53006875][video=youtube;ffI-tWh37UY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY[/video] [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/30/federal-court-enjoins-california-large-capacity-magazine-confiscation/?utm_term=.c81d7d1e4cad[/URL] California passed a law that would have required "high" capacity magazines be turned in. Ones that were grandfathered earlier. [URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/11/jerry-brown-vetoes-gun-control-legislation/?utm_term=.5b0809b6afef[/URL] Governor of California veto'd a bill that would have banned ALL semi-automatic rifles without fixed magazines, although it would have had a grandfather clause. [URL]http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article187082303.html[/URL] Hawaii orders medical marijuana users to turn firearms in. [URL]http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/pro-gun_advocates_angry_over_n.html[/URL] NJ lawmakers overheard mentioning confiscation through a hot microphone. Also, "ever" is a long time. I'm just saying when I hear remarks like "you're paranoid" "It'll never happen." or "it never happened" I have seen plenty of evidence to document otherwise.[/QUOTE] Don't forget the Coburn proposal, a [I]Republican[/I] measure which would have mandated universal background checks based on the Swiss model- but which Democrats rejected explicitly because it would not allow them to create a registry of who owns what. I'm not a single-issue voter and preserving muh guns is not at the top of my priority list, but I find it downright insulting that the Democratic Party thinks I must be too dumb to recognize incremental efforts for the long-term goal they represent, and which prominent Democratic politicians have explicitly called for time and time again. It's like if people kept shouting 'nobody's coming for your healthcare' every time the Republicans called for repealing some small part of the ACA or reducing employer coverage, while prominent Republican pundits called for an outright appeal of the ACA. Their intent was clear as day. [QUOTE=SataniX;53007046]Yeah because lets encourage hundreds of angry people that the solution to democracy is violence.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cone;53007117]doesn't mean he's actually competent enough to have ruled out peaceful options.[/QUOTE] Nobody's suggested escalating to violence before peaceful methods are exhausted. He literally said 'like they'd rather just roll over and get fucked [I]if peacable actions don't work[/I] than even try to fight'. It's just ironic that the segment of our political spectrum actively warning that democracy is in mortal danger is also the one undermining an amendment explicitly written for the situation that they say may be imminent. They've gone from saying 'it'll never happen' to essentially 'it could happen, but we won't win, so might as well not try'.
Acting out against the British Empire I'm sure was thought of as foolhardy back in the late 1700s, during the American Revolution, but they did it anyway. You shouldn't immediately consider yourself as down and out, and the battle unwinnable, just from a brief glance of things. We had allies, we had the French, we had much more knowledge of the land than our enemies. Guerrilla warfare served us well, just like it served the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war, or hell, all the insurgent groups we see fighting in the middle-east in present day. If it really ever came down to an armed rebellion against the United States government, I'm sure resistance groups could find allies either locally or overseas who would be willing to help, if they just looked hard enough. Somehow though, I doubt things would ever get quite [I]that[/I] bad for something like that to happen. I would think we'd have to see a whole lot more shit go down first, than just the GOP being even bigger turds than usual.
[QUOTE=catbarf;53007269]Nobody's suggested escalating to violence before peaceful methods are exhausted. He literally said 'like they'd rather just roll over and get fucked [I]if peacable actions don't work[/I] than even try to fight'. It's just ironic that the segment of our political spectrum actively warning that democracy is in mortal danger is also the one undermining an amendment explicitly written for the situation that they say may be imminent. They've gone from saying 'it'll never happen' to essentially 'it could happen, but we won't win, so might as well not try'.[/QUOTE] it's not that you wouldn't win, it's that you wouldn't win [I]with guns[/I]. those people are scared of Trump because he represents ignorance, hate, desperation, brazen gaslighting, apathy, and probably foreign influence too. what country would you be fighting for if all those problems were legally, quietly, and massively increased over the next four or eight or sixteen years? who would you shoot to fix the deliberate underfunding of public schools, the collapse of the coal industry, the neo-Nazi movement, the shifting of the Overton window? all the things a kleptocrat actually uses to seize power? i'm not gonna posit some stupid Deadliest Warrior hypothetical of gun owners versus the military, i don't know who would win and i honestly don't think the answer is relevant. [editline]26th December[/editline] you want guns: fine. that's a separate argument. but the most pertinent threats to modern democracy, the ones literally staring you in the face right now, are not even remotely fixable with force
[QUOTE=catbarf;53007269]Don't forget the Coburn proposal, a [I]Republican[/I] measure which would have mandated universal background checks based on the Swiss model- but which Democrats rejected explicitly because it would not allow them to create a registry of who owns what. I'm not a single-issue voter and preserving muh guns is not at the top of my priority list, but I find it downright insulting that the Democratic Party thinks I must be too dumb to recognize incremental efforts for the long-term goal they represent, and which prominent Democratic politicians have explicitly called for time and time again. It's like if people kept shouting 'nobody's coming for your healthcare' every time the Republicans called for repealing some small part of the ACA or reducing employer coverage, while prominent Republican pundits called for an outright appeal of the ACA. Their intent was clear as day. Nobody's suggested escalating to violence before peaceful methods are exhausted. He literally said 'like they'd rather just roll over and get fucked [I]if peacable actions don't work[/I] than even try to fight'. It's just ironic that the segment of our political spectrum actively warning that democracy is in mortal danger is also the one undermining an amendment explicitly written for the situation that they say may be imminent. They've gone from saying 'it'll never happen' to essentially 'it could happen, but we won't win, so might as well not try'.[/QUOTE] It feels like this: Republican country = fascist state Democratic country = nanny state The [I]best[/I] solution would be to get rid of your entire political system and restart anew. Good luck with that though
[QUOTE=SataniX;53007046]Yeah because lets encourage hundreds of angry people that the solution to democracy is violence. [editline]26th December 2017[/editline] That can only go well if?when Trump is impeached.[/QUOTE] Yeah I pretty much said this already, and the response I got was "so what you're just not going to do anything? Then why do you need guns?" When I point out the circumstances in which that kind of action would actually be justified, then it's "by that time it wouldn't matter so you should just do nothing as the country is destroyed". Honestly no answer is going to be good enough for you people, but catbarf put it in better words than I can. [QUOTE=catbarf;53006599]Are people still dismissing the idea of America slipping into tyranny and needing open resistance from its citizenry as a fantasy, while Trump is threatening a real honest-to-god Constitutional crisis and Democrats are calling for public resistance, with the possibility of some form of revolution being needed to reinstate Constitutional law being a small, but very real possibility? The public is gearing up to literally march on Washington and demand the removal of corrupt officials and yet the idea of a revolution is still treated like fantasy, as if a corrupt government will acquiesce to being asked nicely. A handful of Bundy jerkoffs scared off federal agents solely through force of arms while the pipeline demonstrators were subdued by riot police. The idea of guns dissuading government action and giving the people more clout has been conclusively demonstrated time and time again. I am not a single issue voter by any means but we are [I]way[/I] too far into 2017 for 'revolution could never happen' to still be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=catbarf;53007269]Nobody's suggested escalating to violence before peaceful methods are exhausted. He literally said 'like they'd rather just roll over and get fucked [I]if peacable actions don't work[/I] than even try to fight'. It's just ironic that the segment of our political spectrum actively warning that democracy is in mortal danger is also the one undermining an amendment explicitly written for the situation that they say may be imminent. They've gone from saying 'it'll never happen' to essentially 'it could happen, but we won't win, so might as well not try'.[/QUOTE] That second quote especially was more or less what I was trying to get at.
Honestly, if we're debating guns the solution should be that just like with driving, you should have to get a safety licence to be able to purchase fire arms. Inside this licence, you'll have to pass physical and mental exams and then have to show during a written and practice exam that you understand not only the raw power but how to respectfully wield an implement of death. I advocate for gun rights but we are far too relaxed and a lot of dumb people buy guns just to have them or worse, to make themselves feel powerful and end up hurting themselves or others. [editline]26th December 2017[/editline] This solution is taking into account our lack of political will to actually answer questions like poverty, mental illness and terrible education systems.
I'd like to go back a bit and address a few things since the argument was making me tired yesterday. [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53005386]The final check on the government? The same government that controls the largest military on Earth, right? I'd love to see that war, a contender for the shortest lived-war in the modern age. Realistically, civilians would fight back with explosives and sabotage, not guns. That's just a pipe dream, mixed with some sort of savior complex.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;53005396]Modern armed revolts don't work very well. Ask the Syrian rebels how well the war is going for them, and the Syrian army is a piece of shit compared to the US. I'm not arguing against gun control in the states, but that argument really doesn't work.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53005980]Any modern "evil" government takeover won't be militaristic, it will be through propaganda and social manipulation to get the population to accept it. It would be slow and steady. No doubt there would be mass media control and scapegoats to keep people subservient. Guns won't save you from stupid taking over the nation. Again, defending America from itself with guns is a pipe dream. It's a crazy scenario that is fantasized about for whatever reason and I don't see that fear as justification for ignoring the real, broken systems that are already killing Americans, this very moment. That NEEDS to take priority, for the time being, over fear mongering gun issues.[/QUOTE] Explosives count as arms. They aren't technically guns, but they are regulated under the same law enforcement agency (BATFE) and several explosive devices fall under the NFA as "destructive devices", and yes civilians can get them through proper licensing. But more importantly, how many revolutions, insurrections or resistance movements have actually succeeded without the use of arms? Because I'm not aware of any which exist. [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53005980]..we are still talking about how single issue voting is bad, right? That's what I'm trying to argue.[/QUOTE] Yeah and I would have voted for Bernie even though he doesn't seem to like guns. At least he seems to have priorities on fixing shit though. I'd always refuse to vote for Clinton though because does anyone here really trust Hillary "The Corporate Sellout" Clinton to actually push for better healthcare or our best interests? I don't trust that her priorities would be "fix healthcare" over "DELETE GUN" since she's the type of candidate who would run a platform based on supporting something like affordable healthcare while secretly taking money from pharmaceutical lobbyists to make sure it never succeeds. Worst case scenario would be we don't get any of the things she promised (IMO which is almost guaranteed) while she ends up succeeding in further restricting our rights. [QUOTE=Cone;53006488]by the time a despot seizes power in America it wouldn't be "their own people" that Americans would be shooting at, it would be "domestic terrorists". who do you defect to then? Cliven Bundy? it wouldn't be death squads, it would be gangs and radicals and "tragic" outbursts of violence, with the occasional ricin umbrella for flavor. who needs to operate at peak capacity when threats can be isolated and either villainized or used as controlled opposition? Russia has one of the larger illegal gun markets in the world, yet Putin is going on 17 years now. why is that?[/QUOTE] Probably because Russia is a mafia state and organized criminals basically work for him. I'd assume gunrunning would also be something he has influence over or possibly even benefits from.
The idea that an American revolution would be instantly destroyed by the Mighty USA Military(tm) is fucking ludicrous. If things get bad enough to the point where Americans are actually violently revolting against their government, what do you think the military is going to do? Just start indiscriminately bombing houses [i]in its own country[/i] of people it suspects are part of the revolution? Do you expect the members of the military to fight their own countrymen against a clearly corrupt government? Do you think that the individual states would support the military in this endeavor? Look at it this way: an American populace without guns is incapable of fighting back, and therefore don't need to be considered. An American populace with guns means you need to [b]kill a huge amount of Americans to maintain power.[/b] The military would need to effectively destroy a huge amount of its own country. They'd need to kill their family members and friends. They'd need to bomb their home towns. They'd need to fight an enemy that exists inside their own borders and they don't know who they are until they strike. How many of the members of the US military do you expect to do these things? It wouldn't go well for the US government.
[QUOTE=geel9;53009633]The idea that an American revolution would be instantly destroyed by the Mighty USA Military(tm) is fucking ludicrous. If things get bad enough to the point where Americans are actually violently revolting against their government, what do you think the military is going to do? Just start indiscriminately bombing houses [i]in its own country[/i] of people it suspects are part of the revolution? Do you expect the members of the military to fight their own countrymen against a clearly corrupt government? Do you think that the individual states would support the military in this endeavor? Look at it this way: an American populace without guns is incapable of fighting back, and therefore don't need to be considered. An American populace with guns means you need to [b]kill a huge amount of Americans to maintain power.[/b] The military would need to effectively destroy a huge amount of its own country. They'd need to kill their family members and friends. They'd need to bomb their home towns. They'd need to fight an enemy that exists inside their own borders and they don't know who they are until they strike. How many of the members of the US military do you expect to do these things? It wouldn't go well for the US government.[/QUOTE] If an american civil war or revolt broke out, every country with a naval or air capacity would be landing troops in the US to carve off their own piece. Hell the game shattered union pretty much sums this up with the nato becoming the unified forces of the EU and landing on the east coast to stabilize the country and russia biting off alaska and the west coast
[QUOTE=Sableye;53010059]If an american civil war or revolt broke out, every country with a naval or air capacity would be landing troops in the US to carve off their own piece. Hell the game shattered union pretty much sums this up with the nato becoming the unified forces of the EU and landing on the east coast to stabilize the country and russia biting off alaska and the west coast[/QUOTE] Nobody could take anything. The coast guard alone would defeat most navies. Americans might hesitate to shoot their own, but if you are coming over in a boat, enjoy meeting a unified front. Even ignoring the navies, Russia, with the entirety of its military might (sans nuclear weapons) would be unlikely to successfully attack Alaska. The Alaskan air national guard is better equipped than essentially any NATO nation. They were the first to get F-22's. Alaska is a frozen fortress. To attack the US you would need to have a navy capable of attacking across an ocean. Nobody has anything even remotely close, with the exception of the US. Even if you managed to get across the ocean, you would need to land somewhere. You aren't making an amphibious assault of US coastlines. It just isn't viable. You'd need to land in Canada (which probably still won't happen) or Mexico. From Canada you would need to push into the US through mountain ranges. Where US bases are largely already placed because, surprise, we knew that already. OR you come up through mexico. Plenty of open terrain to move a massive army. It is also home to an astonishing amount of American armored vehicles. Who would outnumber the fuck out of whatever you managed to land in Mexico. tl;dr: the US is militarily unassailable and we waste basically all of the tax dollars that we put into the US military. They don't defend freedom. The ocean defends freedom.
You don't see the GOPers panicking all that much about it, though. Makes you wonder what they're up to.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;53011579]You don't see the GOPers panicking all that much about it, though. Makes you wonder what they're up to.[/QUOTE] You're making the mistake of assuming that anyone who would still support Trump or the Tea Party GOP after 2017, when their only legislative achievement was a tax bill that shafts the middle class, has even a tenuous grasp on reality or the shaky ground on which their idols stand.
[QUOTE=archangel125;53011598]You're making the mistake of assuming that anyone who would still support Trump or the Tea Party GOP after 2017, when their only legislative achievement was a tax bill that shafts the middle class, has even a tenuous grasp on reality or the shaky ground on which their idols stand.[/QUOTE] Oh, I don't doubt that the electorate is turning on them. I'm saying the Repubs might be planning something shady.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.