Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    In the somewhat fiery debate taking place around gun control at the moment one of the arguments advanced for private ownership of arms is that it prevents ( or at least deters ) tyrannical or oppressive government. Certainly this makes sense. However.....in reality does it actually work ?

    Looking at American history I'm curious as to how private ownership of firearms prevented the following ( all of which might well be considered oppressive or tyrannical actions ):

    Slavery
    Ethnic cleansing ( eg Cherokee trail of tears )
    Trail of Tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jim Crow laws
    Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Internment of Japanese Americans
    Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It's just that there seems to have been a lack of freedom loving, rifle wielding steely eyed Americans rising up and preventing these things. Which begs the question...if not for these things then when ?

  • AdamKadmon
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Lurker View Post
    A May revolution, hmm, that'd be feasible. Best time of the year to cut class/work.

    Ironically, I don't own a gun. I was never any good with the things. I leave my doors unlocked, and I count on (I'm not joking) a hand crafted katana that I watched being made. Call it...being true to myself I suppose.
    I have a few guns. Haven't shot them in a while, though, 'cause ammunition got expensive and cleaning firearms is a huge pain in the ass. I do know my way around a katana, though.

    Here's a question, if we do need to fight a revolution, how many members of USPO do you think'll end up revolutionary leaders?
    None of us! But boy, will we be having heated debates here! I mean, really heated! It'd probably go something like this:



    And, if you had to guess the politician responsible, who'd it be?
    I'm gonna go with the dark horse and say Dianne Feinstein.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lurker
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
    A thoroughly enjoyable read, sir. Thank you.

    But I can't join your February revolution. How do you feel about Mid/Late-May?
    A May revolution, hmm, that'd be feasible. Best time of the year to cut class/work.

    Ironically, I don't own a gun. I was never any good with the things. I leave my doors unlocked, and I count on (I'm not joking) a hand crafted katana that I watched being made. Call it...being true to myself I suppose.

    Here's a question, if we do need to fight a revolution, how many members of USPO do you think'll end up revolutionary leaders?

    And, if you had to guess the politician responsible, who'd it be?

    Leave a comment:


  • AdamKadmon
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Lurker View Post
    Alrighty. I read somewhere that prison riots tend to follow prison riots. So, I'm thinking same principle.

    I was talking more about rednecks rather than gun owners as a whole. And, we DO have a problem with authority. A big goddamn problem with authority.

    The canceled election I was talking about was along the lines of a president declaring themselves president for life. For every 10 really stupid rednecks, you get one who's a redneck by choice.

    You remember a few from school, overly intelligent, wholly unmotivated, constantly in trouble, good chance big time pothead, and above all else...hated those in charge. Where do you think they ended up? Some, or at least one, is living in a trailer park, armed to the teeth, preparing (as j4b put it) preparing for the big showdown for freedom. Now, we (like most everyone else) started as a Democrat because everybody was (thanks teachers union!) But, by 17, 18, we figured out that the Democrats are full of it. By 30, we figured out that the Republicans are too.

    Now, I see how my neighbors respond to me. I start talking about politics, they shut up and listen. A few have tried to debate me. If I or one of the others who don't quite fit says "lets join the rebellion" guess what's going to happen? That's right, one more trailer park full of soldiers. After all, we've been (yes, I know how bad this is going to sound) fantasizing about this for years. It's quite romantic really, and a hell of a lot more interesting than working jobs we hate to buy shit we don't need. (Half quote there, gold star for anyone who gets it ). So, yeah, a bunch of us turned on him for being in office when the economy got flushed, what do you think we'd have done if he flushed the whole constitution along with it? And, I know that this is a bit of a flip flop regarding the showdown for freedom concept, but, I think I'm going to go ahead and own that particular label. Paranoid and proud of it.

    And, I know two trailer parks who both have someone just like me.

    Bush talked about shrinking government. So, those who only listen to what a president says (most people) believed that that's exactly what he did. Think and reality can diverge occasionally.

    Well, that's where things get sticky. I have no doubt a welfare check or two has purchased a gun intended to shoot the tax collector that doesn't collect taxes from those who receive welfare. Right before the election, my retired neighbor informed me that Romney was going to kill the middle class.

    So, yet again labels fail us.

    In my little fiction, this is likely to take place in February, so more than likely.
    A thoroughly enjoyable read, sir. Thank you.

    But I can't join your February revolution. How do you feel about Mid/Late-May?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lurker
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by AdamKadmon View Post
    Yes, I know. My only point that as much as my scenario was speculation, the response to my speculative situation was even more speculative.
    Alrighty. I read somewhere that prison riots tend to follow prison riots. So, I'm thinking same principle.





    I hope you are correct. And I will defer to your expertise on rednecks, but I do not share your confidence that a canceled election would necessarily lead to a gun owner uprising. As always, context is key. That doesn't mean people won't take to the streets. The question is: Which ones?

    Likewise, I am not sure that gun owners generally have a problem with authority per se; rather, they have a problem with certain types of authority (i.e. liberal types). We talk about governmental tyranny, but chances are, many of us are defining it differently.
    I was talking more about rednecks rather than gun owners as a whole. And, we DO have a problem with authority. A big goddamn problem with authority.

    The canceled election I was talking about was along the lines of a president declaring themselves president for life. For every 10 really stupid rednecks, you get one who's a redneck by choice.

    You remember a few from school, overly intelligent, wholly unmotivated, constantly in trouble, good chance big time pothead, and above all else...hated those in charge. Where do you think they ended up? Some, or at least one, is living in a trailer park, armed to the teeth, preparing (as j4b put it) preparing for the big showdown for freedom. Now, we (like most everyone else) started as a Democrat because everybody was (thanks teachers union!) But, by 17, 18, we figured out that the Democrats are full of it. By 30, we figured out that the Republicans are too.

    Now, I see how my neighbors respond to me. I start talking about politics, they shut up and listen. A few have tried to debate me. If I or one of the others who don't quite fit says "lets join the rebellion" guess what's going to happen? That's right, one more trailer park full of soldiers. After all, we've been (yes, I know how bad this is going to sound) fantasizing about this for years. It's quite romantic really, and a hell of a lot more interesting than working jobs we hate to buy shit we don't need. (Half quote there, gold star for anyone who gets it ). So, yeah, a bunch of us turned on him for being in office when the economy got flushed, what do you think we'd have done if he flushed the whole constitution along with it? And, I know that this is a bit of a flip flop regarding the showdown for freedom concept, but, I think I'm going to go ahead and own that particular label. Paranoid and proud of it.

    And, I know two trailer parks who both have someone just like me.

    Years ago, a friend took me to a gun show where I was struck by the number of people who were displaying both anti-government and pro-Bush paraphernalia, apparently not seeing the irony. Lots of gun owners are law-and-order types who very much believe in authority and have contempt for those who don't.
    Bush talked about shrinking government. So, those who only listen to what a president says (most people) believed that that's exactly what he did. Think and reality can diverge occasionally.

    I have no statistics on this, but I doubt that most people buy guns because they are afraid of "tyranny." They buy them because they are afraid of crime (in my case, I bought my shotgun because of fear of civil unrest). And speaking of things I have no statistics on, I would be surprised if your average gun owner was less authoritarian than your average non-gun owner... and I would suspect he is more authoritarian than your average liberal. I think the difference (generally) is which authority people respect.
    Well, that's where things get sticky. I have no doubt a welfare check or two has purchased a gun intended to shoot the tax collector that doesn't collect taxes from those who receive welfare. Right before the election, my retired neighbor informed me that Romney was going to kill the middle class.

    So, yet again labels fail us.


    Depends. Will it be snowing? 'Cause I'm not gonna march in the snow.
    In my little fiction, this is likely to take place in February, so more than likely.
    Last edited by Lurker; 01-07-2013, 10:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • AdamKadmon
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Lurker View Post
    You brought up a rebellion installing Adolph Hitler 2.0. That would be the outcome.
    Yes, I know. My only point that as much as my scenario was speculation, the response to my speculative situation was even more speculative.

    Marxist idiot or not, he's still our president. The Constitution says so.


    Why am I certain such a thing would occur? Because I have faith in my fellow Americans. And faith in my fellow rednecks (who are about to start flaming me probably). We are inherently distrustful of power. Many of us have major problems with authority.

    But, the one thing we all have in common - we love our Republic. We've loved it since our dads first taught us about it. Whomever chooses to fuck with it, Republican, Democrat, Whig, or Green are going to need to deal with us.
    I hope you are correct. And I will defer to your expertise on rednecks, but I do not share your confidence that a canceled election would necessarily lead to a gun owner uprising. As always, context is key. That doesn't mean people won't take to the streets. The question is: Which ones?

    Likewise, I am not sure that gun owners generally have a problem with authority per se; rather, they have a problem with certain types of authority (i.e. liberal types). We talk about governmental tyranny, but chances are, many of us are defining it differently.

    Years ago, a friend took me to a gun show where I was struck by the number of people who were displaying both anti-government and pro-Bush paraphernalia, apparently not seeing the irony. Lots of gun owners are law-and-order types who very much believe in authority and have contempt for those who don't.

    You're right, it doesn't. But those who are adverse to tyranny often buy guns with that as their primary motivation.

    So, while guns do not lead to aversion of tyranny, aversion to tyranny does lead to gun purchases. Guns don't do much on their own. The oil would mess up your papers if it were used as a paperweight for example.
    I have no statistics on this, but I doubt that most people buy guns because they are afraid of "tyranny." They buy them because they are afraid of crime (in my case, I bought my shotgun because of fear of civil unrest). And speaking of things I have no statistics on, I would be surprised if your average gun owner was less authoritarian than your average non-gun owner... and I would suspect he is more authoritarian than your average liberal. I think the difference (generally) is which authority people respect.

    Would you march with us?
    Depends. Will it be snowing? 'Cause I'm not gonna march in the snow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lurker
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
    Well thanks for the offer, but like I mentioned in the post right above, I already have my own collection of rilfes, shotguns and handguns. Not sure why you assumed otherwise. I have been shooting and hunting since I was a kid, and if I can say so myself, I am a pretty damn good shot.


    Just because I don't believe the hysterics some people subscribe to does not mean I want to take your guns away. Not even sure why you think anyone wants to take your guns away, or how such a herculean task like that would ever be accomplished anyways, but whatever.
    The arms and ammo manufacturers have been raking in the money these past years. That's all I am saying.
    Well, this is a political forum, and as such there can be expected to be a certain disconnect from reality, and the occasional trip into fanciful speculation. There are those who want to take guns, and because the O is talking about it, they are particularly energized of late. Essentially, I looked at your frankly perjorative classification of the suspicious as a common element of a gun grabber's arguments. As I haven't read a lot of your posts, the mistake was easily made, but apparently a mistake nonetheless.

    And, while I don't see tyranny as an imminent threat, I also don't see it as impossible either. So, I'm going to keep two eyes on those in power, and if something looks funny, I'm going to speak up. A bit of healthy suspicion i believe is necessary to keep our politicians honest...ish. So, call it hysterics if you like, but if it does happen, the truly paranoid are likely to be the ones who see it coming, and perhaps the ones best able to weather the storm.

    And frankly, I'm having a lot of fun with this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • DavidSF
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
    Funny how you are talking to me as if you know what I think.

    My only point is I don't believe the US Govt is tyrannical, nor will ever be.

    And I think it is an over-hyped, exaggerated reason for citizens to stockpile guns and ammo.

    I think when people defend their 2nd amendment rights by buying as much guns and ammo as they can, they are really just benefitting the arms and ammo manufacturers, who have a vested interest in putting that message out there. I think they are using a classic salesman technique to sell people something, that is: fear. Fear the Feds will take your guns away or prohibit their sales, so buy as much as you can now. And look at how many of you are doing just that.


    Simply put, I just don't believe the 2nd amendment will be overturned.

    And I just don't believe our fellow Americans in the federal government and military will turn on the rest of us.

    And just to clarify, I am a gun owner. I keep a 9mm in my nightstand, I just bought my wife a compact handgun to carry and I have a collection of older rifles and shotguns I have accumulated over the years.
    I was just having this conversation over on Facebook.

    While I do not buy into the hysteria generated by such conversations, I am mindful of the credo that "those who do not know [understand] history are condemned to repeat it."

    I don't think the 2nd amendment will be overturned anytime soon: BUT it will be if "...enough good men do nothing" including discussing it like this. As long as those of us who understand this argument remain actively discussing it (or arguing it) like we are, those who would deprive us of any right will think twice.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jihad4Beer
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Lurker View Post
    If it does happen, those who do will stick up for those who don't. If it doesn't, it helps keep MRE companies in business. Spend your money any way you like, because we sure as shit will. And, if we're right, I'm sure one of us'd be willing to loan you a rifle and teach you how to use it.

    If it doesn't happen, great. It means that our country survived another generation.

    I'm willing to feel like an idiot for pointlessly spending money and time on my tyranny/zombie apocalypse insurance policy. I'd prefer that doesn't happen.

    But, we live in a free society. And we're keeping our guns.

    Well thanks for the offer, but like I mentioned in the post right above, I already have my own collection of rilfes, shotguns and handguns. Not sure why you assumed otherwise. I have been shooting and hunting since I was a kid, and if I can say so myself, I am a pretty damn good shot.


    Just because I don't believe the hysterics some people subscribe to does not mean I want to take your guns away. Not even sure why you think anyone wants to take your guns away, or how such a herculean task like that would ever be accomplished anyways, but whatever.

    The arms and ammo manufacturers have been raking in the money these past years. That's all I am saying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jihad4Beer
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
    ahoy Jihad4Beer,

    ye never know, matey.

    we've folks on this very board who believe that the Justice Dept be tyrannical, fer pursuein' and prosecutin' folks fer Medicare Fraud. more big government overreach, or somethin' along them lines.

    aye.

    - MeadHallPirate
    Ahoy MeadHallPirate,

    As for those who believe the sky is falling, well let's just say there's one born every minute.

    Leave a comment:


  • ericams2786
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
    It is nice, thank you. I am just an oppressed sheep living in my little 2300 sq ft prison in America, with pool, hot tub, two car attached garage. They are letting me out next week for a little vacation time in Costa Rica. I will probably get oppressed when I go through the airport scanner and take my shoes off but bah bah....I am just a sheep.

    What I should do is stay home and stockpile some canned food, guns and ammo preparing for the big showdown to protect my freedom to grow a garden in my front yard. That sounds awesome!
    You'll find out soon enough. In the mean time turn off the TV and read a book or two. Perhaps you'll learn something. Or just keep living in "it can't happen in 'Merica" land. Makes no difference to me.

    But one day you will see that you are wrong. And that day isn't very far away.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lurker
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
    It is nice, thank you. I am just an oppressed sheep living in my little 2300 sq ft prison in America, with pool, hot tub, two car attached garage. They are letting me out next week for a little vacation time in Costa Rica. I will probably get oppressed when I go through the airport scanner and take my shoes off but bah bah....I am just a sheep.

    What I should do is stay home and stockpile some canned food, guns and ammo preparing for the big showdown to protect my freedoms. That sounds awesome!
    If it does happen, those who do will stick up for those who don't. If it doesn't, it helps keep MRE companies in business. Spend your money any way you like, because we sure as shit will. And, if we're right, I'm sure one of us'd be willing to loan you a rifle and teach you how to use it.

    If it doesn't happen, great. It means that our country survived another generation.

    I'm willing to feel like an idiot for pointlessly spending money and time on my tyranny/zombie apocalypse insurance policy. I'd prefer that doesn't happen.

    But, we live in a free society. And we're keeping our guns.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jihad4Beer
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
    Funny you ignore what I post and continue with the "it can't happen here" Polly Anna crap. The US government is tyrannical in every sense of the word - it's just hard to see at times - but it is. And in the near future it will be much more so, that much I can promise you. One day you will very clearly see it - when it's too late.

    (̅_̅_̅(̅(̅_̅_̅_̅_̅_̅̅()ڪ



    I guess you don't know much about the history of the CIA.

    It must be nice to be this naive.

    It is nice, thank you. I am just an oppressed sheep living in my little 2300 sq ft prison in America, with pool, hot tub, two car attached garage. They are letting me out next week for a little vacation time in Costa Rica. I will probably get oppressed when I go through the airport scanner and take my shoes off but bah bah....I am just a sheep.

    What I should do is stay home and stockpile some canned food, guns and ammo preparing for the big showdown to protect my freedom to grow a garden in my front yard. That sounds awesome!

    Leave a comment:


  • ericams2786
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
    ahoy Jihad4Beer,

    ye never know, matey.

    we've folks on this very board who believe that the Justice Dept be tyrannical, fer pursuein' and prosecutin' folks fer Medicare Fraud. more big government overreach, or somethin' along them lines.

    aye.

    - MeadHallPirate
    I for one don't think that prosecuting people for Medicare fraud is tyrannical - to the contrary, given the situation, it is perfectly legitimate.

    What is tyrannical is the Federal government being involved in healthcare/health insurance in the first place, since it has absolutely no constitutional authority to do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lurker
    replied
    Re: Does a well armed populace prevent tyrannical government ?

    Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
    Who said we need to be saved from the next Hitler? I never once said that myself. So who did?
    He did. I believe his point is that the hypothetical rebellion could install a hypothetical despot. And I guess he's trying to say that because the rebellion might be pointless, we should disarm now.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X