What would the government need to do for you to pick up a gun and fight against it?

[Jekyll's Guest]

Kind of a split off from THIS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176752) thread.

We hear a lot about guns being used to protect our freedoms in America. What would be the breaking point for you, personally, when social conditioning to obey would be overcome to the point where you'd rise up in guerrilla war against the U.S. government?


As someone quite unashamedly self interested, it would probably have to involve a direct threat to the life and/or liberty of my family.

How about you?

(Also, as a sub-question, are you the type who could see themselves starting something and blazing a rebel trail, or would you wait for mob opinion to turn and join in?)

[-Axiom-]

Fail to uphold existing laws.
Fail to serve the people.
Ignore the law of the land (Constitution).
Increase taxation instead of cutting spending.
Fail to protect the country from domestic threats.
Actively destroy and deindustrialize our economy.
Attempt to confiscate legally owned and obtained firearms.



We are almost there.

[Skeptic]

As someone quite unashamedly self interested, it would probably have to involve a direct threat to the life and/or liberty of my family.

The problem with your -- very natural and understandable -- attitude is still best exemplified by pastor Niemoller's famous confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...). As his confession shows, this "self-interest" is in fact the surest way to defeat. You might buy some little time, but you would be making sure that when they do come to get you, and they will, nobody will help you.

Even if you were a totally self-interested German, caring nothing at all about the Jews, it would still be -- paradoxically -- your safest option to go on the street in 1938 and forcefully resist the SA's pogrom against the Jews in Kristallnacht, since if Hitler were to be removed with such mob violence, countless Germans would have saved their lives instead of losing them in the coming conflagration of WWII.

[Jekyll's Guest]

The problem with this -- very natural and understandable -- attitude is still best exemplified by pastor Niemoller's famous confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...).

I'm aware that it gets trotted out with regularity, but it's hardly always true now is it?

Apartheid South Africa didn't start rounding up left handed people, or gingers.

From a purely rational, self interested position, risking your life over changes that could happen isn't very smart.

Sure, fight for an ideal, or empathy for the plight of others, but not under the assumption that bigotry or persecution must inherently run across all borders.

Abolitionists before the civil war are a great example here. They risked their lives because they felt all people should be free, not because they thought Alabama was going to round them up and make them pick cotton.

The take-up-arms point would, for me, have to be before that. At least I hope I would have the guts. I might shirk and wait till they come to get me personally, buying time. But if I do shirk, I already lost, since by then it would be too late.

As long as some people have the guts/motivation/lunacy to start an uprising, turning up late may not mean too late. After all, we wouldn't hear of people joining a popular uprising unless others had already risen and made it popular :)

[Jekyll's Guest]

Fail to uphold existing laws.
Fail to serve the people.
Ignore the law of the land (Constitution).
Increase taxation instead of cutting spending.
Fail to protect the country from domestic threats.
Actively destroy and deindustrialize our economy.
Attempt to confiscate legally owned and obtained firearms.



We are almost there.

Thank you for your response.

Can you think of any specific tipping point?

Legalizing illegals?

Gun controls?

Collapse of the American auto industry?

[Dancing David]

The overturning of habeas corpus, the overturning of the amendments(1-10, in particular, and the 14th) without a constitutional amendment, the abrogation of separation of powers.

[Jekyll's Guest]

So you would not lift a finger to protest against the prosecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany, had you lived there? Hey, it's no skin off your nose (if you aren't Jewish, that is).

Hmm, you seem to like adding bits to your posts without saying you're editing.

Firstly, this smacks of appeal to emotion. This is a skeptical forum, but such a tactic is rife. I have plenty of emotion in real life, I'm trying to be purely rational on my posts here.

In answer to your question.

Were I me, 21st century me with all my knowledge of the Holocaust and babies in ovens then I hope I would do my best to help.

Were I a German in the 30's-40's, I really don't know.

Lots of people are good at BS, sitting safe in their free country. How many of us, living in a state where the Gestapo can pick you up from the streets and make you disappear, where your children will report you to the Hitler Youth, where you are bombarded night and day by propaganda, can truly say they'd definitely pick up the shotgun and turn freedom fighter?

Hell, almost anyone who has ever been a freedom fighter/terrorist has done it out of self interest. The French resistance didn't pop up to help save the Jews, they just wanted the Germans out of France.

[Skeptic]

From a purely rational, self interested position, risking your life over changes that could happen isn't very smart.

"The coward calls the brave man rash" -- Aristotle.

[DC]

when my government violates human rights with violence on a regular basis.

[Jekyll's Guest]

"The coward calls the brave man rash" -- Aristotle.

"Bravery" and "Cowardice" do not exist. They are artificial constructs we wrap around reactions we support or dismiss.

Would me risking my family being sent to a death camp, in order to attempt to save some strangers, be "brave"?

[Skeptic]

Hmm, you seem to like adding bits to your posts without saying you're editing.

I know. I removed the first bit because it might seem to mean I am accusing you of being a Nazi, when I am not -- I am just pointing out in a reductio ad absurdum what the logical consequences of the "let's not do anything unless it concerns me personally" attitude.

Were I me, 21st century me with all my knowledge of the Holocaust and babies in ovens then I hope I would do my best to help.But by then -- and, again, in general, not just in this case -- it is typically simply too late to do anything. Courage isn't a matter of acting knowing in advance all the consequences. I agree that if most Germans knew in advance the end of the 1930s pogroms would be the 1940s genocide, they would surely protest.

But that is meaningless; the question is, would you protest when the Nazis mistreated the Jews without knowing in advance that it would also rebound on you, or that it would go all the way to total extermination? By your standard, it seems that you won't.

Lots of people are good at BS, sitting safe in their free country. How many of us, living in a state where the Gestapo can pick you up from the streets and make you disappear, where your children will report you to the Hitler Youth, where you are bombarded night and day by propaganda, can truly say they'd definitely pick up the shotgun and turn freedom fighter?You have a point indeed -- although I live in Israel and am a reserve first sgt. in the IDF, so believe me, "sitting safe" is something I wish I could do. But this isn't the issue. To be sure many knew they should protest and were afraid. Others protested anyway, sometimes with extraordinary courage (read Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History for many examples of both, by the way).

My problem is that you claim, not that such behavior is cowardly but understandable, or that we need to put ourselves in their shoes before criticizing them, but that such behavior is the most smart and rational, and therefore there is nothing to criticize.

[Skeptic]

"Bravery" and "Cowardice" do not exist.

Oh, yes they do.

[Thunder]

put innocent Americans in concentration/death camps.

end freedom of speech.

install one party rule.

abolish representative democracy.

we are NO way close to such a situation.

[Leif Roar]

When I'm convinced that the government is morally bankrupt and that there is no realistic, non-violent means to oust it from power.

[Thunder]

Fail to uphold existing laws.
Fail to serve the people.
Ignore the law of the land (Constitution).
Increase taxation instead of cutting spending.
Fail to protect the country from domestic threats.
Actively destroy and deindustrialize our economy.
Attempt to confiscate legally owned and obtained firearms.



We are almost there.

BS

[Jekyll's Guest]

My problem is that you claim, not that such behavior is cowardly but understandable, or that we need to put ourselves in their shoes before criticizing them, but that such behavior is the most smart and rational, and therefore there is nothing to criticize.

Oh you can criticize, you just can't say it's not smart or rational.

Survive, keep your children alive to continue the line. Cut away all the BS and that's human nature. Cold, harsh and rational.

So yes, anyone who sat by while bad things happened is guilty of being selfish and burying their empathy in order that they and their family could survive, but nothing else. I don't buy in to the equation that doing nothing equals aiding and abetting though.

It's not like it was a matter of not calling the cops, or stepping aside to let a mugger get away. We're talking a German shoe salesman who maybe suspects the holiday camps the 'undesireables' were sent to maybe aren't as rosy as the newspaper says they are, and not picking up a rifle and deciding to mount a prison break.

Oh, yes they do.
No, they don't.

Now you say "Yes they do, times infinity".


Anyway, we're clouding a thread. I'll debate with you in another thread if you're sweet on me, but let's leave this one to others :)

[MattusMaximus]

Fail to uphold existing laws.
Fail to serve the people.
Ignore the law of the land (Constitution).
Increase taxation instead of cutting spending.
Fail to protect the country from domestic threats.
Actively destroy and deindustrialize our economy.
Attempt to confiscate legally owned and obtained firearms.

We are almost there.

:rolleyes:

If you really think it's that bad, then leave for some other country where you'll have more freedom. I think you'll be looking for quite some time.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Ladewig]

Increase taxation instead of cutting spending.

So would citizens in the 1950s, who faced a top tax rate of 91%, have been justified in shooting members of congress?


deindustrialize our economy.

I am unsure what you mean here. Can you explain how the government might deindustrialize the economy?

Attempt to confiscate legally-owned and obtained firearms.

We are almost there

Do you have some evidence to support the claim that we are almost at a point where the government will
confiscate legally-owned and obtained firearms?

[geni]

Never I'm not suicidal. You can't beat a dictatorship with guns. It's hard enough to beat a liberal democracy like that. A dictatorship though doesn't have to worry about the rules or who it hurts to get you. And if you are very lucky when they find you they will simply kill you.

Bombs are fractionaly more practicle. If you are very good indeed you may prove untraceable.

But violence resistance tends to only play into the hands of the opressor. Breaking their control of information flow does more long term damage.

[leftysergeant]

When they start turning police departments over to Balck Water type corporations, it is all over and I start teaching people to make anti-tank candles and pass out some of my rifles to faster-moving pissed off neighbors.

[MG1962]

Never I'm not suicidal. You can't beat a dictatorship with guns. It's hard enough to beat a liberal democracy like that. A dictatorship though doesn't have to worry about the rules or who it hurts to get you. And if you are very lucky when they find you they will simply kill you.

Bombs are fractionaly more practicle. If you are very good indeed you may prove untraceable.

But violence resistance tends to only play into the hands of the opressor. Breaking their control of information flow does more long term damage.

Yep my thoughts exactly. I am always inspired by a piece of footage I saw in Paris during WW2. A group of people doused a mattress in gas, waitied for a German troop carrier to drive past the building they were. Push mattress out window.....enjoy ensuring chaos

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Doesn't seem practical to get killed fighting against a force that would outmatch me and is really only the guys doing the dirty work.

Besides, I'll have moved long before then :p .

[casebro]

I.E.D.s

And assistance from the many active soldiers who would be on 'our' side.

But hmmm, we seem to be getting more and more surveillance cameras around. Going to make things tough for the freedom fighter. Hmm, ought to study up on the tactics the gangs use.

Hmmm, I wonder if low level military officers 'war game' the concept of aiding freedom fighters in their own country? Like the way Staff Officers 'war game' attacking other countries, or defend out allies? That concept might be a sign that the turning point in near? OCS teaching how to use guerrilla/small unit tactics, to defend the Constitution?

[geni]

Yep my thoughts exactly. I am always inspired by a piece of footage I saw in Paris during WW2. A group of people doused a mattress in gas, waitied for a German troop carrier to drive past the building they were. Push mattress out window.....enjoy ensuring chaos

Urban canyons. Post 1st chechen war armies appear to have caught onto that one.

[JoeB]

Suspension of the Representative Democracy.

Taking up arms over any democratically made changes is anti-democratic. The action from crossing the tipping point there would be me emigrating, not taking up arms.

[geni]

I.E.D.s

And assistance from the many active soldiers who would be on 'our' side.

But hmmm, we seem to be getting more and more surveillance cameras around. Going to make things tough for the freedom fighter. Hmm, ought to study up on the tactics the gangs use.

US gangs won't do you much good. They are used to being up against a fairly liberal goverment that has to pull it's punches. Still their recruitment and loyalty structures may be of interest.

Some of the russian gangs that hail from the caucasus might be of interest. Hezbollah may be of interest but that depends heavily on your ability to integrate with te urban poor.


Hmmm, I wonder if low level military officers 'war game' the concept of aiding freedom fighters in their own country? Like the way Staff Officers 'war game' attacking other countries, or defend out allies? That concept might be a sign that the turning point in near? OCS teaching how to use guerrilla/small unit tactics, to defend the Constitution?

Millities tend not to get civilians involved when they decide to take such steps.

[GreNME]

Fail to uphold existing laws.
Fail to serve the people.
Ignore the law of the land (Constitution).
Increase taxation instead of cutting spending.
Fail to protect the country from domestic threats.
Actively destroy and deindustrialize our economy.
Attempt to confiscate legally owned and obtained firearms.



We are almost there.

You know where it's nice this time of year?

7QDv4sYwjO0

Have fun. Enjoy the move.

[Skeptic]

Oh you can criticize, you just can't say it's not smart or rational.

But that's just my point. Cowardice is always, or nearly always, the smart and rational thing to do -- in the short term, at least -- if one only considers one's own interests. But it's still cowardice.

Survive, keep your children alive to continue the line. Cut away all the BS and that's human nature. Cold, harsh and rational.

Except that it isn't human nature. It's the cynic's caricature of human nature -- whose main point is to justify the cynic's own cowardice and egoism under the "but everybody does it!" or "see how much smarter I am than this idiot 'brave' person?" excuse.

What's more, as I said, the irony of the whole situation is that if the Germans were "irrational" and, with great risk to themselves, had stood up in 1938, they would (in the long run) have saved millions of German lives.

So yes, anyone who sat by while bad things happened is guilty of being selfish and burying their empathy in order that they and their family could survive, but nothing else.

Yes. But that's what "cowardice" means.

I don't buy in to the equation that doing nothing equals aiding and abetting though.

It's not as bad as aiding and abetting, of course, in the same way that silently watching a rape is not the same as holding the victim down. But it's still contemptible, if understandable.

We're talking a German shoe salesman who maybe suspects the holiday camps the 'undesireables' were sent to maybe aren't as rosy as the newspaper says they are, and not picking up a rifle and deciding to mount a prison break.

There were numerous speeches and declarations by the Nazis about their intent to do away with the Jews -- speeches that were received with great popular support. That is, of course, quite apart from the constant antisemitic brainwashing in the press, the schools, the radio, etc., the legal restrictions, the pogroms, etc., etc., etc.

As George Orwell said, seeing what the Nazis said about the Jews before the war, it's not at all surprising what they did to them after the war, at least in retrospect.

The "I didn't know, I swear" is more of a post-facto excuse than anything else. Perhaps they didn't know exactly what was going on, but that's quite a different thing than not knowing the Jews are being systematically expelled and robbed and dehumanized and sent to camps "in the east" for some "unknown" reason.

No, they don't.

(Shrug)

I'm speaking from personal experience. I don't mean I personally am brave or a coward, but I've known, especially in the army, people who are very brave -- and very cowardly. And I hardly need my own personal experience here anyway, since history is full of examples of both cowards and heroes.

You can say it's reducible to, say, sophisticated self-interest, or chemical reactions in the brain, or to neural dispositions. But that is like saying that, since people are made of atoms, people don't really exist and only atoms do.

I envy your avatar, by the way.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

The violation of human and/or civil rights routinely and with violence. The suspension of constitutional rights and the consolidation of all power to a single individual or group (I.E. the president or congress). Followed immediately by the government closing all legal means of retaliation or the exhaustion of all legal means without any results.

[Jekyll's Guest]

SKEPTIC:

I'd argue that terms like "bravery" and "cowardice" are so arbitrary and open to cultural interpretation as to make them practically meaningless.


A Samurai taking his life was seen as bravery by the Japanese, but to westerners suicide is a cowards way out.

During WWII Japanese officers saw surrendering allied soldiers as cowards for not killing themselves, whereas we celebrate the will to survive in a horrible POW camp despite all odds as an act of extreme bravery.

Even terms like good and evil, which we consider sacrosanct and universal, have been flexible throughout human history. I can think of no greater 'evil' than murdering a child, yet amongst Pre-Colombian societies, pillars of the community sacrificed babies and were seemingly well thought of by the populace.


(My avatar welcomes your envy, before clubbing you to death and stealing your woman. He's such a scamp! :) )

[Jekyll's Guest]

The violation of human and/or civil rights routinely and with violence. The suspension of constitutional rights and the consolidation of all power to a single individual or group (I.E. the president or congress). Followed immediately by the government closing all legal means of retaliation or the exhaustion of all legal means without any results.

Surely most oppressive governments merely turn legitimate avenues of public change in to shams, rather than outright dismantling them?

German show trials during WW2 for example. They could still tell the world "In Germany we have laws!"

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

That would fall under my final sentence.

The violation of human and/or civil rights routinely and with violence. The suspension of constitutional rights and the consolidation of all power to a single individual or group (I.E. the president or congress). Followed immediately by the government closing all legal means of retaliation or the exhaustion of all legal means without any results.

[Jekyll's Guest]

That would fall under my final sentence.

Would you necessarily realize that the legitimate avenues were kaput though? Before you were dragged off for subversion I mean.

I'd imagine the line between being a paranoid domestic terrorist and a dead subversive could be, seemingly at least, very slim.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I suppose that would depend on how they were hiding the kaputness of those avenues? It's not really a question that I can answer given this level of pure conjecture over the issue. I wouldn't be looking to start making and using I.E.D.s until I was absolutely sure I had no choice.

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you have some evidence to support the claim that we are almost at a point where the government will
confiscate legally-owned and obtained firearms?


My Google-fu seems to be weak right now as to finding the supporting evidence, but I know that it has happened already in at least two states—California and New Jersey. Laws were passed in these states banning the sale and transfer of firearms that were fraudulently classified as “assault weapons”. Those who legally owned such firearms prior to the passage of these laws were required to register them. Later, additional laws were passed making ownership of even these previously-legally-owned firearms illegal, and requiring owners to turn them over to the State. Those who had previously owned these firearms, and were stupid enough to comply with the registration requirement, had the registration records used to identify and target them if they did not voluntarily hand in their guns.

[MaGZ]

From the back cover of my dog-eared Turner Diaries.


What will you do when they come to take your guns? Earl Turner and his fellow patriots face this question and are forced underground when the U.S. government bans the private possession of firearms and stages the mass gun raids to round up suspected gun owners. The Turner Diaries is a book the FBI has labeled as a "manual of hatred" and Liberals in the news media likewise have condemned it. The Turner Diaries is the most controversial book in America. If the government had the power to ban books, they would surely ban The Turner Diaries!

[MaGZ]

Hmm, you seem to like adding bits to your posts without saying you're editing.

Firstly, this smacks of appeal to emotion. This is a skeptical forum, but such a tactic is rife. I have plenty of emotion in real life, I'm trying to be purely rational on my posts here.

In answer to your question.

Were I me, 21st century me with all my knowledge of the Holocaust and babies in ovens then I hope I would do my best to help.

Were I a German in the 30's-40's, I really don't know.

Lots of people are good at BS, sitting safe in their free country. How many of us, living in a state where the Gestapo can pick you up from the streets and make you disappear, where your children will report you to the Hitler Youth, where you are bombarded night and day by propaganda, can truly say they'd definitely pick up the shotgun and turn freedom fighter?

Hell, almost anyone who has ever been a freedom fighter/terrorist has done it out of self interest. The French resistance didn't pop up to help save the Jews, they just wanted the Germans out of France.

You must be thinking instead of Jew-ruled Bolshevik Russia.

[MaGZ]

I know. I removed the first bit because it might seem to mean I am accusing you of being a Nazi, when I am not -- I am just pointing out in a reductio ad absurdum what the logical consequences of the "let's not do anything unless it concerns me personally" attitude.

But by then -- and, again, in general, not just in this case -- it is typically simply too late to do anything. Courage isn't a matter of acting knowing in advance all the consequences. I agree that if most Germans knew in advance the end of the 1930s pogroms would be the 1940s genocide, they would surely protest.

But that is meaningless; the question is, would you protest when the Nazis mistreated the Jews without knowing in advance that it would also rebound on you, or that it would go all the way to total extermination? By your standard, it seems that you won't.

You have a point indeed -- although I live in Israel and am a reserve first sgt. in the IDF, so believe me, "sitting safe" is something I wish I could do. But this isn't the issue. To be sure many knew they should protest and were afraid. Others protested anyway, sometimes with extraordinary courage (read Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History for many examples of both, by the way).

My problem is that you claim, not that such behavior is cowardly but understandable, or that we need to put ourselves in their shoes before criticizing them, but that such behavior is the most smart and rational, and therefore there is nothing to criticize.

Today your country, Israel, killed over 15 people who were trying to aid the starving people in Gaza. I suppose we can expect you to be out in the streets this afternoon protesting.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html

Remember the Liberty!

[Chaos]

Article 20 of the Grundgesetz, the German equivalent of the constitution:


1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federation.

2) All power is derived from the people. It is executed by the people through elections, ballots and through the institutions of the executive, legislative and judiciary.

3) The legislative is bound by the constitutional order, the executive and judiciary are bound by law.

4) Against anyone who tries to abolish this order, all Germans have the right of resistance if there is no other remedy.

Part 4, in the context of the rest of the article, says it all.

[Dancing David]

Never I'm not suicidal. You can't beat a dictatorship with guns. It's hard enough to beat a liberal democracy like that. A dictatorship though doesn't have to worry about the rules or who it hurts to get you. And if you are very lucky when they find you they will simply kill you.

Bombs are fractionaly more practicle. If you are very good indeed you may prove untraceable.

But violence resistance tends to only play into the hands of the opressor. Breaking their control of information flow does more long term damage.

This gets close to it, the oppresive regimes need the tacit support of the citizens, it would take an unrealistically large police force to control a population without thier support.

The ability to distrupt the infrastructure is very high on the part of the citizens.

Controlling the means of communication, control of arms and the tacit support of the citizens, you need all three to run a dictatorship.

[Dancing David]

Would you necessarily realize that the legitimate avenues were kaput though? Before you were dragged off for subversion I mean.

I'd imagine the line between being a paranoid domestic terrorist and a dead subversive could be, seemingly at least, very slim.

But again it takes the tacit support of most of your citizens or it does not work.

[Dancing David]

My Google-fu seems to be weak right now as to finding the supporting evidence, but I know that it has happened already in at least two states—California and New Jersey. Laws were passed in these states banning the sale and transfer of firearms that were fraudulently classified as “assault weapons”. Those who legally owned such firearms prior to the passage of these laws were required to register them. Later, additional laws were passed making ownership of even these previously-legally-owned firearms illegal, and requiring owners to turn them over to the State. Those who had previously owned these firearms, and were stupid enough to comply with the registration requirement, had the registration records used to identify and target them if they did not voluntarily hand in their guns.

You find the evidence and I will read it.

I think it is not that your Google-fu is weak, you did not try! I entered 'California seizes assault rifles' and the third hit is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#Assembling_a_short_barreled_AR-15

The 2000 Assault Weapons ban in the state of California sparked a renewed interest in the AR-15 rifle. It is estimated that some 400,000 California Legal AR-15s are in existence in that state, with another 100,000 added each year.[19] There are three ways to get a legal AR-15 in California:

Registered Assault Weapon: If you owned the rifle before Jan 1, 2000 and registered it with the state, you have a Registered Assault Weapon (RAW) under CA law. No new registrations are permitted. RAW rifles can have combinations of features which are prohibited in unregistered rifles.



So NO they did NOT "Later, additional laws were passed making ownership of even these previously-legally-owned firearms illegal, and requiring owners to turn them over to the State. "

And New Jersey gives NO hits on the sate seizing assault rifles out of hand.

So you just made that up?

Or show me wrong? :)

[INRM]

Prevent me from running away from it. Given the choice of fight or flight from an overwhelmingly powerful opponent, I generally choose to run away versus fight.

[Skeptic]

Part 4, in the context of the rest of the article, says it all.

Just like the Germans to have to be explicitly told in the constitution when they can start a rebellion... :)

-- "Ve kannot start ze rebellion now! Ve have nicht paid ze rebellion tax and did nicht get ze rebellion permit! Vat shall we do?!"

-- "Das ist OK, ze Rebellion & Insurrektion ministry's offices are open until late today. I vill go there and get ze permit..."

[Cain]

Prevent me from running away from it. Given the choice of fight or flight from an overwhelmingly powerful opponent, I generally choose to run away versus fight.

Probably because you're a pussy Dem.

Fortunately, some of us still take our freedoms seriously.

The Second Amendment makes all the others possible. They try to seize mah guns, and they're in for a world of hurt. It's gonna get uglier than Chelsea Clinton.

[Jekyll's Guest]

Prevent me from running away from it. Given the choice of fight or flight from an overwhelmingly powerful opponent, I generally choose to run away versus fight.

Why do I picture Skeptic and Cain cornering you in the forum play yard and taking your lunch money now? :D

[Jekyll's Guest]

This gets close to it, the oppresive regimes need the tacit support of the citizens, it would take an unrealistically large police force to control a population without thier support.

The ability to distrupt the infrastructure is very high on the part of the citizens.

Controlling the means of communication, control of arms and the tacit support of the citizens, you need all three to run a dictatorship.

I'm in no way claiming it is, but what if the population is fat, lazy and easily cowed by shows of authoritarian force?

[Trakar]

Probably because you're a pussy Dem.

Fortunately, some of us still take our freedoms seriously.

The Second Amendment makes all the others possible. They try to seize mah guns, and they're in for a world of hurt. It's gonna get uglier than Chelsea Clinton.

I somehow missed the newsreports where you held the Bush Whitehouse under siege, how'd that work out for you?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6330

[R.Mackey]

My Google-fu seems to be weak right now as to finding the supporting evidence, but I know that it has happened already in at least two states—California and New Jersey. Laws were passed in these states banning the sale and transfer of firearms that were fraudulently classified as “assault weapons”. Those who legally owned such firearms prior to the passage of these laws were required to register them. Later, additional laws were passed making ownership of even these previously-legally-owned firearms illegal, and requiring owners to turn them over to the State. Those who had previously owned these firearms, and were stupid enough to comply with the registration requirement, had the registration records used to identify and target them if they did not voluntarily hand in their guns.

This is false. The Roberti-Roos Act of California and its follow-ons have not led to mass confiscations. I own such a rifle.

What did happen, however, is that if you legally owned and obtained such a weapon before those laws were passed and didn't register it -- either not knowing about the new requirement, not being able to pay the fee, being out-of-state, whatever -- that means your rifle is now outlawed and must be disposed of out-of-state, or modified so that it no longer fits the legal definitions laid down in the Act.

There have been registrations leading to confiscation before, but as far as I know only in New York City and Chicago. The next city to watch is San Francisco, still up for legal challenge.

Incidentally, the free market has responded, and it is now pretty easy to modify such a rifle so it is no longer subject to the Act, giving up only a tiny bit of functionality. What this proves is that such laws are really intended only for harrassment value and posturing for the voting public.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Fail to uphold existing laws.
Fail to serve the people.
Ignore the law of the land (Constitution).
Increase taxation instead of cutting spending.
Fail to protect the country from domestic threats.
Actively destroy and deindustrialize our economy.
Attempt to confiscate legally owned and obtained firearms.



We are almost there.

We're not even close.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The Second Amendment makes all the others possible. They try to seize mah guns, and they're in for a world of hurt. It's gonna get uglier than Chelsea Clinton.

You've been watching too many bad Charles Bronson movies. If the gubmit' wants to take your guns, they're not going to get into a shootout with you. They'll simply roll in an Abrams tank and flatten your house with you and your guns in it.

[Skeptic]

You've been watching too many bad Charles Bronson movies.

Are there any good Charles Bronson movies?

[Jekyll's Guest]

Are there any good Charles Bronson movies?

Once upon a time in the west?

[Ladewig]

Are there any good Charles Bronson movies?

The Dirty Dozen?

[R.Mackey]

The Magnificent Seven?

[joobie]

Are there any good Charles Bronson movies?

the great escape.

[Chaos]

Just like the Germans to have to be explicitly told in the constitution when they can start a rebellion... :)

-- "Ve kannot start ze rebellion now! Ve have nicht paid ze rebellion tax and did nicht get ze rebellion permit! Vat shall we do?!"

-- "Das ist OK, ze Rebellion & Insurrektion ministry's offices are open until late today. I vill go there and get ze permit..."

If you have anything to contribute to this thread, other than trolling, feel free to do so.

[ktesibios]

From Noon till Three?

[Jekyll's Guest]

Man, Charlie really liked number related titles.

ONCE upon a time in the west.

The dirty DOZEN.

The magnificent SEVEN.

Death Wish II.

Death Wish III

Death Wish IV.

Death Wish V....

[Trakar]

The Magnificent Seven?

Most of those where he didn't try to play a cop or a vigilante, were fairly watchable.

[INRM]

Cain,

Perhaps you forgot to read the word "overwhelmingly". Against a regular school-yard bully I'd just fight him and risk a beating.

However, if you honestly think you can take on a country like the United States with a couple handguns, you're shockingly ignorant. We have one of the most powerful militaries in the world, with highly trained military personal, and top of the line equipment. We also have drones, weapons that can be employed without risking the lives of any military personnel. There was even a proposed sniper robot that could rapidly and precisely, from the air, take out targets with the precision of a trained sniper or better in a rapid, efficient fashion.

Additionally, we have quite a lot of intelligence assets as well that could more than easily be turned on American citizens (Warrantless wiretapping, anybody remember the National Applications Office? It was disbanded, but the capability and the willingness exists for the government to use such things to monitor threats).


INRM

[Cain]

You've been watching too many bad Charles Bronson movies. If the gubmit' wants to take your guns, they're not going to get into a shootout with you.

If they allow teh gays then I'll have no problem. They can never take my guns, my freeeeeeeedooooom! See, Dems just roll over -- they like teh butthex. Real Americans don't play that though -- we fight. It's like what Ben Franklin said, "better to **** than get **********."

They'll simply roll in an Abrams tank and flatten your house with you and your guns in it.

Have a helluva time flattening my bunker. Besides, the real American soldiers would join the resistance. Bring on anyone. Yesterday I kicked a Chinaman's ass in kah-rah-tey: the irony was dericious. I was all like, that's for mah daddy... and 'nam. I will destroy Obama's army of darkness.

[johnny karate]

I call Poe's.

Also:
See, Dems just roll over -- they like teh butthex.

What is "butthex"? Sounds like a particularly nasty curse.

[Cain]

Perhaps you forgot to read the word "overwhelmingly". Against a regular school-yard bully I'd just fight him and risk a beating.

Yeah, right. All you know about fighting you've seen in B.S. Hollyweird Kah-rah-tey kid movies like the Myagi Crane Kick.

However, if you honestly think you can take on a country like the United States with a couple handguns, you're shockingly ignorant.

A COUPLE handguns. You're the one who sounds shockingly ignorant. Get a clue, man -- I ain't foolin' around.

[Chaos]

Cain,

Perhaps you forgot to read the word "overwhelmingly". Against a regular school-yard bully I'd just fight him and risk a beating.

However, if you honestly think you can take on a country like the United States with a couple handguns, you're shockingly ignorant. We have one of the most powerful militaries in the world, with highly trained military personal, and top of the line equipment. We also have drones, weapons that can be employed without risking the lives of any military personnel. There was even a proposed sniper robot that could rapidly and precisely, from the air, take out targets with the precision of a trained sniper or better in a rapid, efficient fashion.

Additionally, we have quite a lot of intelligence assets as well that could more than easily be turned on American citizens (Warrantless wiretapping, anybody remember the National Applications Office? It was disbanded, but the capability and the willingness exists for the government to use such things to monitor threats).


INRM

If the US were to really turn into some sort of fascist dictatorship - really as opposed to in the overactive imagination of a bunch of CT nutcases - do you really think "one of the most powerful militaries in the world" would support that? Soldiers are people, too, and I see no reason why they should hold freedom any less dear than anyone else.

[Jekyll's Guest]

If the US were to really turn into some sort of fascist dictatorship - really as opposed to in the overactive imagination of a bunch of CT nutcases - do you really think "one of the most powerful militaries in the world" would support that? Soldiers are people, too, and I see no reason why they should hold freedom any less dear than anyone else.

I'd imagine there would be a split. If the majority split from the government the wannabe dictatorship would fall. If the majority stuck with the government there would be purges, with some personnel going underground and forming the core of a resistance.

I wonder is things would be a clean split along the entire armed forces, or if certain branches would be more or less loyal to the government?

[Cain]

I went on stage last night for a ten minute set and ate ****. I think the problem is that I play to the back of the room. I'm tired of this nonsense; I'm gonna sell out.

[Snide]

SKEPTIC:

I'd argue that terms like "bravery" and "cowardice" are so arbitrary and open to cultural interpretation as to make them practically meaningless.


This.

If I step in front of an armed robber to take a bullet for my wife, am I brave for giving my life, or a coward for ensuring that I won't have to live without my wife?

[Snide]

I went on stage last night for a ten minute set and ate ****. I think the problem is that I play to the back of the room. I'm tired of this nonsense; I'm gonna sell out.For the record, I was enjoying it, from the back of the room of course.

[egslim]

If the US were to really turn into some sort of fascist dictatorship - really as opposed to in the overactive imagination of a bunch of CT nutcases - do you really think "one of the most powerful militaries in the world" would support that? Soldiers are people, too, and I see no reason why they should hold freedom any less dear than anyone else.
Soldiers are also trained to obey discipline - and any psychologist can tell you how effectively the "only following orders"-excuse soothes people's conscience. If the transition is gradual the armed forces will support it, especially if the new regime increases the defence budget/salaries.

Anyone living in a democratic country all their life and claiming without quantification they will fight the government if it turns fascist is either an idiot or a liar.

There is not a single example in history of a fascist country where more than a small fraction of the population formed a resistance - the majority of the people just keep their head down. None of the armchair-heroes who have never experienced living in a fascist country are any different - they just lack the imagination to realise that or don't admit it. Whether someone actually does it depends on personal circumstances and experiences.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Have a helluva time flattening my bunker. Besides, the real American soldiers would join the resistance.

No, the real American soldiers would be driving the tank.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The overturning of habeas corpus, the overturning of the amendments(1-10, in particular, and the 14th) without a constitutional amendment, the abrogation of separation of powers.

And I do hope even then it would only be after you've determined that other methods of restoring things wouldn't work AND that taking up arms has any real chance of succeeding.

[KingMerv00]

put innocent Americans in concentration/death camps.

end freedom of speech.

install one party rule.

abolish representative democracy.

we are NO way close to such a situation.

I'm no militia loon but the first one's been done before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment_camp).

[applecorped]

From the back cover of my dog-eared Turner Diaries.

Good book.

[Distracted1]

In response to the OP.
The Government would have to allow me to believe that by taking up arms against it, I would have a reasonable chance of overthrowing it. And that what replaced it would be better.
Since I have never asked myself that question before, I find myself gaining a little insight into what makes a government run from an examination of the only answer I was able to come up with.

[Nosi]

I call Poe's.

Also:


What is "butthex"? Sounds like a particularly nasty curse.

It's a less than respectful reference to anal sex.:rolleyes:

[JoeTheJuggler]

In response to the OP.
The Government would have to allow me to believe that by taking up arms against it, I would have a reasonable chance of overthrowing it. And that what replaced it would be better.

Good point--one I tried to make in my previous post, but you stated it a lot more clearly.

In reality, I'd go a lot farther than that myself. I would question my own assessment of all the facts. I would recognize that people suffering from delusions have wrongfully done violence against others that looked pretty well justified in their minds.

Not to change the topic, but this is what baffles me about many of Bush's decisions in particular. How could he be so certain when so many people were telling him that he was wrong? (I still remember him justifying his rejection of his own father's advice, saying he was following that of his "heavenly father".)

[Nosi]

I think Bush was a religious fanatic, but that's just my opinion.

[Dancing David]

Cain,

Perhaps you forgot to read the word "overwhelmingly". Against a regular school-yard bully I'd just fight him and risk a beating.

However, if you honestly think you can take on a country like the United States with a couple handguns, you're shockingly ignorant. We have one of the most powerful militaries in the world, with highly trained military personal, and top of the line equipment. We also have drones, weapons that can be employed without risking the lives of any military personnel. There was even a proposed sniper robot that could rapidly and precisely, from the air, take out targets with the precision of a trained sniper or better in a rapid, efficient fashion.

Additionally, we have quite a lot of intelligence assets as well that could more than easily be turned on American citizens (Warrantless wiretapping, anybody remember the National Applications Office? It was disbanded, but the capability and the willingness exists for the government to use such things to monitor threats).


INRM

"you're shockingly ignorant", if you think that the small military force we have would be effective against a mobilized citizenry. Iraq is a little bit smaller than the US, what would the difference be?

Do you know what operational logistics are?
1. Is the gasoline made by army personnel?
2. Is the food made by army personnel?
3. What about all the parts and weapons?

How long would the army fight its own citizenry?

[Dancing David]

And I do hope even then it would only be after you've determined that other methods of restoring things wouldn't work AND that taking up arms has any real chance of succeeding.

I don't know, I am old so I can't really say.

Taking up arms comes after the planning and organization.

[KingMerv00]

The Second Amendment makes all the others possible.


Yes, it is only the threat of armed revolution that keeps the 1st Amendment active. Congressmen are just itching to take away their own rights.

[MG1962]

There is not a single example in history of a fascist country where more than a small fraction of the population formed a resistance - the majority of the people just keep their head down. None of the armchair-heroes who have never experienced living in a fascist country are any different - they just lack the imagination to realise that or don't admit it. Whether someone actually does it depends on personal circumstances and experiences.

That is an interesting point you make. I think the argument the OP was looking for was what would bring most people out on the street. While you are correct about the size of resistence movements, there are many examples where some event, or action has tipped to populace, and they have gone onto the streets, and ultimately brought down the government.

I am thinking that is the root question being asked

[Skeptic]

If you have anything to contribute to this thread, other than trolling, feel free to do so.

Just like a German not to have a sense of humor...

:duck:

[Skeptic]

This.

If I step in front of an armed robber to take a bullet for my wife, am I brave for giving my life, or a coward for ensuring that I won't have to live without my wife?

You seriously claim you can't tell if the man who takes a bullet for his wife or a man who prefers to let his wife be killed is the braver?

[Skeptic]

SKEPTIC:

I'd argue that terms like "bravery" and "cowardice" are so arbitrary and open to cultural interpretation as to make them practically meaningless.

First of all, that's not true: the idea of bravery as self-sacrifice, help of others at risk to oneself, standing for principles when it's dangerous to do so, and so on, are rather cross-cultural.

Second, to the degree that it is true it is getting cause and effect the wrong way around. It is true that in some cultures action X is brave and in some cultures action Y is, but in both cultures, it is the brave people who do X (or Y) and the cowardly who refrain.

Bravery is a trait, a quality of the person -- it shows itself in brave actions, but those actions are not what bravery is; they are just their result. It is true that bravery is not reducible to "doing X, Y, or Z" without the cultural context, but that hardly means bravery isn't real.

Let us take, say, Nazi Germany and the USA during WWII. In Nazi Germany you needed to be brave to condemn the prosecution of the Jews; in the USA you didn't need to be particularly brave to stand up against antisemitism at the time, but you DID need to be brave to condemn discrimination against Blacks, a situation that didn't arise in Germany. (No, I am not saying segregation and the holocaust are equivalent, so don't write in, Okay?).

It would still be the case that only some people -- brave people -- would do either so, while most would not.

[Trakar]

"you're shockingly ignorant", if you think that the small military force we have would be effective against a mobilized citizenry. Iraq is a little bit smaller than the US, what would the difference be?

Do you know what operational logistics are?
1. Is the gasoline made by army personnel?
2. Is the food made by army personnel?
3. What about all the parts and weapons?

How long would the army fight its own citizenry?

big difference between talking about a "mobilized citizenry," and an individual or even various groups of individuals taking up arms against the government.

There probably is a threshold level at which "citizenry" overwhelm government forces, but its hard to imagine a situation in the US where it would be a few political figures and the military vs a unifed civilian revolt against them.

[rwguinn]

big difference between talking about a "mobilized citizenry," and an individual or even various groups of individuals taking up arms against the government.

There probably is a threshold level at which "citizenry" overwhelm government forces, but its hard to imagine a situation in the US where it would be a few political figures and the military vs a unifed civilian revolt against them.
Something you folk are all ignoring (At least, the US folk, which is the cause of the argument, since we can legally own firearms)
The Military in the US (Includes OFFICERS!) take an oath to "Uphold the Constitution". Most of them take that seriously.
How many of them would blindly take orders and follow someone who required them to go back on that oath?

[Ladewig]

Something you folk are all ignoring (At least, the US folk, which is the cause of the argument, since we can legally own firearms)
The Military in the US (Includes OFFICERS!) take an oath to "Uphold the Constitution". Most of them take that seriously.
How many of them would blindly take orders and follow someone who required them to go back on that oath?

But if a Constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment were legally passed, then they would be upholding the Constitution by rounding up the guns.

Which brings one to the real question, would the gun owners among the JREF membership take up arms against a government that did not break any laws, but instead merely passed a law that they didn't like?

[rwguinn]

But if a Constitutional amendment repealing the Second Amendment were legally passed, then they would be upholding the Constitution by rounding up the guns.

Which brings one to the real question, would the gun owners among the JREF membership take up arms against a government that did not break any laws, but instead merely passed a law that they didn't like?
Goalposts, anybody seen the goalposts?

[Ladewig]

Goalposts, anybody seen the goalposts?

Oh please! The claim being discussed was taking up arms against a government that was collecting the guns of the citizenry. Why is asking about one facet of that (collecting arms under a legal scenario) out of bounds for discussion?

[KingMerv00]

Something you folk are all ignoring (At least, the US folk, which is the cause of the argument, since we can legally own firearms)
The Military in the US (Includes OFFICERS!) take an oath to "Uphold the Constitution". Most of them take that seriously.
How many of them would blindly take orders and follow someone who required them to go back on that oath?

I think most soldiers are fine people but don't underestimate the malleability of the human psyche. All it takes is the right kind of stressor and suddenly whole groups are locked away. Again I cite Japanese internment camps.

[Jekyll's Guest]

First of all, that's not true: the idea of bravery as self-sacrifice, help of others at risk to oneself, standing for principles when it's dangerous to do so, and so on, are rather cross-cultural.

Second, to the degree that it is true it is getting cause and effect the wrong way around. It is true that in some cultures action X is brave and in some cultures action Y is, but in both cultures, it is the brave people who do X (or Y) and the cowardly who refrain.

Bravery is a trait, a quality of the person -- it shows itself in brave actions, but those actions are not what bravery is; they are just their result. It is true that bravery is not reducible to "doing X, Y, or Z" without the cultural context, but that hardly means bravery isn't real.

Let us take, say, Nazi Germany and the USA during WWII. In Nazi Germany you needed to be brave to condemn the prosecution of the Jews; in the USA you didn't need to be particularly brave to stand up against antisemitism at the time, but you DID need to be brave to condemn discrimination against Blacks, a situation that didn't arise in Germany. (No, I am not saying segregation and the holocaust are equivalent, so don't write in, Okay?).

It would still be the case that only some people -- brave people -- would do either so, while most would not.

If you're going to reply to every philosophical quandary with "they do so exist , because my personal view of reality is the universal constant", at least say "times infinity, no take backs" or "pinky swear".

It will add gravitas to your argument.

[Jekyll's Guest]

I think most soldiers are fine people but don't underestimate the malleability of the human psyche. All it takes is the right kind of stressor and suddenly whole groups are locked away. Again I cite Japanese internment camps.

I don't think we need to go back 60 years for an example of how crazy a staunch democracy can get when it's scared.

[rwguinn]

Oh please! The claim being discussed was taking up arms against a government that was collecting the guns of the citizenry. Why is asking about one facet of that (collecting arms under a legal scenario) out of bounds for discussion?
Oh, really?
The OP
Kind of a split off from THIS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176752) thread.

We hear a lot about guns being used to protect our freedoms in America. What would be the breaking point for you, personally, when social conditioning to obey would be overcome to the point where you'd rise up in guerrilla war against the U.S. government?


As someone quite unashamedly self interested, it would probably have to involve a direct threat to the life and/or liberty of my family.

How about you?

(Also, as a sub-question, are you the type who could see themselves starting something and blazing a rebel trail, or would you wait for mob opinion to turn and join in?)
My thinking follows these posts:


The overturning of habeas corpus, the overturning of the amendments(1-10, in particular, and the 14th) without a constitutional amendment, the abrogation of separation of powers.

Suspension of the Representative Democracy.

Taking up arms over any democratically made changes is anti-democratic. The action from crossing the tipping point there would be me emigrating, not taking up arms.
my emphasis

[Aoidoi]

In response to the OP.
The Government would have to allow me to believe that by taking up arms against it, I would have a reasonable chance of overthrowing it. And that what replaced it would be better.
Since I have never asked myself that question before, I find myself gaining a little insight into what makes a government run from an examination of the only answer I was able to come up with.I can see 2 situations in which I would fight the government. One is as above, where there is an insurrection that has a chance of winning and is clearly the superior choice to the status quo. More of "voting with guns" than anything.

The second is that the government becomes so intolerable that I no longer care to live under it but would rather die fighting it. Suicide by drone, so to speak. As I'm rather fond of living it would have to have reached North Korea level of repression for that to happen.

Or if they ban the internet. If they pull the plug, I'm going postal. ;)

[Ladewig]

removed by poster

[Jekyll's Guest]

As I'm rather fond of living it would have to have reached North Korea level of repression for that to happen.

Aww, but you get your own, only semi-shared, rice bowl!

Or if they ban the internet. If they pull the plug, I'm going postal. ;)

I can see it now.

"Lvl 32 accountant LFG!"

"You trained the secret police on to us, you f$%#ing noob!"

"Teh army has mad skillz, their teamz are stacked!"

[KingMerv00]

Aww, but you get your own, only semi-shared, rice bowl!

But no rice.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Something you folk are all ignoring (At least, the US folk, which is the cause of the argument, since we can legally own firearms)
The Military in the US (Includes OFFICERS!) take an oath to "Uphold the Constitution". Most of them take that seriously.
How many of them would blindly take orders and follow someone who required them to go back on that oath?

Uphold whose interpretation of the Constitution?

[Jekyll's Guest]

But no rice.

Your bourgeois, capitalist brainwashing has given you unrealistic expectations.

[Chaos]

Just like a German not to have a sense of humor...

:duck:

You know, I could say, "just like a Jew, not to have anything to contribute but racist crap", but then, unlike you I do not feel the urge to spout racist crap.

[MikeMangum]

That is an interesting point you make. I think the argument the OP was looking for was what would bring most people out on the street. While you are correct about the size of resistence movements, there are many examples where some event, or action has tipped to populace, and they have gone onto the streets, and ultimately brought down the government.

I am thinking that is the root question being asked

This is more complicated than just government action. It is also strongly influenced by perception of what other people in society are willing to do, perceptions of the chances of success, and perceptions of the likely reaction of the government. There were alot of mass uprisings in the 20th century (and some in the 21st) that display this. Tienenmen Square grew quickly when the Chinese government seemed to allow it to happen and as word of it spread, but as soon as the government started killing large numbers of those involved, it evaporated. The Orange Revolution, the Velvet Revolution, the Cedar Revolution, etc. are at the other end of that spectrum.

[Trakar]

Something you folk are all ignoring (At least, the US folk, which is the cause of the argument, since we can legally own firearms)
The Military in the US (Includes OFFICERS!) take an oath to "Uphold the Constitution". Most of them take that seriously.
How many of them would blindly take orders and follow someone who required them to go back on that oath?

officer's oath - ]"I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."


enlisted oath - "I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."


The reasoning you present presumes that the given officers consider their orders to be violations of the constitution. Virtually every fringe political element in the US considers their particular interpretation and understanding of the constitution to be correct and all others to be misguided or wrong. As intelligent as they are, very few of our nation's military officers are also constitutional lawyers, it generally is not their duty to debate and decide which policies and orders are constitutional. If there were general and broad rebellion and insurrection against a particular set of public policies, then I suspect that there would be a representative segment of the officer corps who would resist what they consider counter to their interpretation of the Constitution.

[rwguinn]

We all know that the Military, especially the Officers, having only been through one of the most intense and comprehensive college educations available (If they graduated from one of the Academies), or 4 years of college or equivalent (ROTC, OCS) are considerably stupider than anyone who graduated from Berkley, Harvard, Yale, or a cow college, even.
I mean--they CHOSE a career where all you have to do is what somebody tells you to. They never have to deal with politics (or Politics), and never voice an opinion outside the military arena. How intelligent and knowledgeable can the be about why they exist and what they can do?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolley es:

[gnome]

I think (at least in America) before anyone tried a top-down takeover, they would be sure to hold back on overt fascism until a certain point. By the time they get out the jackboots, anyone who would actually fight back is synonymous with the domestic terrorist in popular culture. They will not see the resistance as fellow Americans and will instead allow the government to employ shocking tactics to protect them from these evil people, without thinking they may possibly be under the same boot someday.

A viable resistance has a reputation for nonviolence and indeed actively expels members that cross the line. There is at least the possibility that a violent crackdown on such an organization will outrage the citizens. If the government truly is becoming fascist, they may view the group as a tempting target and overplay their hand.

[Snide]

You seriously claim you can't tell if the man who takes a bullet for his wife or a man who prefers to let his wife be killed is the braver?You seriously cannot imagine a situation where someone allowing a loved one to be killed is being more brave?

[GreNME]

Something you folk are all ignoring (At least, the US folk, which is the cause of the argument, since we can legally own firearms)
The Military in the US (Includes OFFICERS!) take an oath to "Uphold the Constitution". Most of them take that seriously.
How many of them would blindly take orders and follow someone who required them to go back on that oath?
We all know that the Military, especially the Officers, having only been through one of the most intense and comprehensive college educations available (If they graduated from one of the Academies), or 4 years of college or equivalent (ROTC, OCS) are considerably stupider than anyone who graduated from Berkley, Harvard, Yale, or a cow college, even.
I mean--they CHOSE a career where all you have to do is what somebody tells you to. They never have to deal with politics (or Politics), and never voice an opinion outside the military arena. How intelligent and knowledgeable can the be about why they exist and what they can do?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolley es:

Dude, have you heard of the Milgram Experiment? Military folks, since they are in a constant environment of very regulated adherence to chain-of-command, would be susceptible to a large degree to the phenomenon that was observed in the Milgram Experiment. So would other occupations where there are strict chains-of-command (like police, firefighters, and workers in highly bureaucratic places). The susceptibility isn't exclusive to or even most predominant in the military (I would actually figure police or corrections officers to be more susceptible), but to dismiss the likelihood outright like you're doing is just taking things to the other ridiculous extreme.

That said...

It's a ridiculous exercise to try to posit such a thing taking root in any large degree in the US toward its own citizens. To immigrants or to some specific minority group, on the other hand, it's at least plausible (and partially demonstrable, as evidenced in what happened to many Muslims and Arab-looking folks shortly after 9/11). To the wider population there is little to no chance of such an occurrence, in part due to such sentiment not being able to build up enough steam for very long and in part because the US population's attitudes are so remarkably nationalistic that there would be little reason for the government to turn on the populace.

[Darth Rotor]

In response to the OP:

Why the hell would I tell you (or anyone) when, and why?

The element of surprise is something I learned as effective, but only if you apply it.

Beyond that, this thread reveals the usual.

DR

[GreNME]

In response to the OP:

Why the hell would I tell you (or anyone) when, and why?

The element of surprise is something I learned as effective, but only if you apply it.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/lold.jpg

Note to self: be on DR's good side when things start hitting the fan.

[Snide]

In response to the OP:

Why the hell would I tell you (or anyone) when, and why?

The element of surprise is something I learned as effective, but only if you apply it.

Beyond that, this thread reveals the usual.

DRI must be on Facebook too much...I was looking for the "like" button for this!

[negativ]

Anyone ever read Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here"? In a disturbingly plausible manner, it tells a dystopian story of the US becoming a fascist dictatorship as if the denizens of Free Republic and Democratic Underground somehow merged and decided to form a government. It incorporates many real-world events from the past 20 years or so, and authentically captures the overall mood of the US populace today.

Did I mention that it was written and published in 1935? Oh, ok. It was written and published in 1935.

[MattusMaximus]

The notion that there's something magical about the United States which means such things couldn't happen here is just downright silly.

That said, the notion that these things are happening now and therefore we are on the verge of Teh Revolution is equally silly. People who think otherwise need to stop hunkering down in their bunkers & talking to God on a two-way radio and get out a bit more :rolleyes:

[Jekyll's Guest]

The notion that there's something magical about the United States which means such things couldn't happen here is just downright silly.

That said, the notion that these things are happening now and therefore we are on the verge of Teh Revolution is equally silly. People who think otherwise need to stop hunkering down in their bunkers & talking to God on a two-way radio and get out a bit more :rolleyes:

I'd say America is definitely more resistant to dictatorship than most other nations, but still contains all the ingredients necessary.

Prohibition, McCarthyism and the Japanese-American internment show that the country has more than dipped it's toe in to tyranny on more than one occasion, but has, so far, always managed to pull back.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

In response to the OP.
The Government would have to allow me to believe that by taking up arms against it, I would have a reasonable chance of overthrowing it. And that what replaced it would be better.
Since I have never asked myself that question before, I find myself gaining a little insight into what makes a government run from an examination of the only answer I was able to come up with.

I agree.

I just finished reading "Persepolis." It's really sad because the girl talks about how her parents were educated, open minded, non fundamentalists, who took part in the reovlution overthrowing the Shah. They thought they were going to have this great, open society afterwards. Then the movement got taken over by the religious extremists, who then jailed, killed, etc many of the intellectuals/moderates who had orignially STARTED the revolution, and what they ended up with was a society even worse than the one they'd overthrown.

I may have some issues with the way the government runs things, but considering the kind of people who lean most towards militia movements and overthrowing the government, I think if a revolution were to happen, whatever we ended up with would be a thousand times worse considering the kind of people who would be constructing our new government.

Also, I would like to echo the calls of where were all you brave souls who would fight to the death to defend the constitution when Bush was in power? In fact, I didn't even see these tea party types protesting Bush, nevermind revolutionizing.

All this grand standing about protecting the constitution and fighting to the death against Obama (because we're almost there!) has nothing to do with actual tyranny and everything to do with being sore losers. You (meaning the tea party types actually threatening revolution, i.e. "we're almost there!" guy) don't want to accept the fact that a democratically elected government is doing things the you don't like, you don't accept the rule of democracy, so you think FORCING people to bend to your political ideologies is a valid method. You're nothing but a bunch of bullies who think you should be able to shoot people for not voting the way you like. It's disgusting.

*edit: of course, there are ACTUAL militia types, much different from these newer "revolutionaries." who were active under Bush, Clinton, any political party. They may be the real nut jobs, but at least they're consistant.

[BenBurch]

Fail to uphold existing laws.
Fail to serve the people.
Ignore the law of the land (Constitution).
Increase taxation instead of cutting spending.
Fail to protect the country from domestic threats.
Actively destroy and deindustrialize our economy.
Attempt to confiscate legally owned and obtained firearms.



We are almost there.

If you really believe that, Homeland Security needs to be watching you specifically.

[Kodiak]

It's the same as the classic answer for what is pornography...I'm not sure, but I'll know it when I see it.

[KingMerv00]

When they take away my bread and circuses.

[Jekyll's Guest]

It's the same as the classic answer for what is pornography...I'm not sure, but I'll know it when I see it.

Better keep checking, just to be sure...

When they take away my bread and circuses.

Call me cynical, but this is probably the eternal answer to the question for 99% of us.

[GreNME]

Anyone ever read Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here"?

Yep, and anyone who's interested can also read it right here (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html).

In a disturbingly plausible manner, it tells a dystopian story of the US becoming a fascist dictatorship as if the denizens of Free Republic and Democratic Underground somehow merged and decided to form a government. It incorporates many real-world events from the past 20 years or so, and authentically captures the overall mood of the US populace today.

Did I mention that it was written and published in 1935? Oh, ok. It was written and published in 1935.

I call complete BS. Care to cite which events of the last 20 years this anti-communist fable predicts?

What's next? Citing Orwell? What, is Sinclair Lewis the "trendy Orwell" for conspiracy theories?

[GreNME]

I just finished reading "Persepolis." It's really sad because the girl talks about how her parents were educated, open minded, non fundamentalists, who took part in the reovlution overthrowing the Shah. They thought they were going to have this great, open society afterwards. Then the movement got taken over by the religious extremists, who then jailed, killed, etc many of the intellectuals/moderates who had orignially STARTED the revolution, and what they ended up with was a society even worse than the one they'd overthrown.

Hey, thanks for the book recommend! (I know, kind of off-topic, but I think still somewhat a related parallel)

I may have some issues with the way the government runs things, but considering the kind of people who lean most towards militia movements and overthrowing the government, I think if a revolution were to happen, whatever we ended up with would be a thousand times worse considering the kind of people who would be constructing our new government.

Such a 'revolution' would be a futile exercise and incite a civil war instead of revolution.

[Thunder]

I would take up arms against my govt., if they built thousands of FEMA camps around country to imprison millions of innocent Americans accused of false charges.

:)