a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by goobster
goobster  ·  2481 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: D.C. and Maryland to sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

    Then you have people like me, who more than anything see gun control as people control. Who see firearms as the final check against the government.

I've always found this argument hilarious. Like some dipshit with 900 rounds for his Barrett .50cal sniper rifle is actually going to be able to take out the sheer number of people and resources the gummint can throw at any problem like him.

Shit. This "guns are the last protection against the government" stance was dumb in the fucking 1980's, with the Michigan Militia, and all the US had was tanks and old crappy fighter jets.

Nah. One random unhinged loony with too much time on the Drudge Report, is the only thing guns "enable". Even if you had a force of 1000 redneck dipshits with AR-15s, they are still no match for a single Predator (which is, BTW, seventeen years old). Or the National Guard. Or any branch of the trained military.

"My gunz protect me from my gummint" is as non-sensical as the white power movement, or redneck furries.





user-inactivated  ·  2480 days ago  ·  link  ·  

No offense, but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

First, one redneck with a gun is not the situation I'm describing. I'm talking about 265 million guns, half of which are owned by 3 percent of the 242 million adults in the US. I'm talking about the guy who can literally arm a squad of guys from his basement. That's the guys I'm talking about. Not the guy with a .50 cal, who by the way probably isn't a redneck in the trailer park because that's a $10,000 gun that shoots $5 rounds. A much better example would be the field of deer rifles that can pierce bullet proof vests with Wal-Mart ammo costing 50 cents a round out of a $400 gun with a $400 mil dot scope. I'm not even an amazing shot, and I know for a fact that I've hit a deer's heart when I was amped up with adrenaline, on the spot for time, unexpecting anything, and the deer was so far away I had to check for antlers in the scope to make sure it wasn't a dog. And there are plenty of 'rednecks' who know this very common ammo can also penetrate body armor.

Second, over and over running through history are examples of lesser armed military's and guerilla groups defeating larger and more powerful millitaries. Guerilla tactics, including selected assassinations, IEDs, stick-and-moves, etc. have long been effective. You think the US military doesn't outgun the Taliban? I've spent hours in nasty planes with nasty guns overhead watching and waiting for the Taliban to do something while they just waited for us to leave. Partisans in the Spanish Civil war took out bridges, ISIS gained tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry, took over Iraqi bases and armories. It happened not some far off and long time ago, it happened last year.

These guys are already well-armed, they are more knowledgeable than you give them credit for, and they would quickly arm themselves with better equipment. As well, you discount the very real possibility that many of them either are currently, or have in the past, in easy access of military equipment. Perhaps they are in the National Guard in Kentucky where there are huge amounts of surplus tanks, or near Herlong, California where there are thousands of mothballed and ready to go M1A1s. You can't just assume that some General would have the final say over what happens with his base. He is heavily outnumbered and one Colonel in the ranks that takes forces for some rebels can completely change the balance of power.

The point is, you can start with a gun. A single bullet in the right/wrong person's hands can change the world.

goobster  ·  2480 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I love that you think the guns are the limiting factor here. Just like you say with the Taliban, the weapons don't matter, in the end. The tactics do.

And who is going to have better tactics, supply lines, equipment, money, support, water supplies, control of the air, control of the electronics in the area, etc? A dude that gave fifteen of his friends his extra AR's and MP10's?

Or people who have extensive training, experience in actual wars, and a sworn duty to protect their homeland from insurgent forces bent on destroying the Constitution?

The "guns protect me from my gummint" argument is cute, but there is no scenario in which it has the underdog winning.

And what, exactly, are they "winning"? They gonna go to DC and dismantle the government? Even when you put a total tit in the Big Chair, they can't accomplish a single thing.

This is the core problem with ALL of these movements: They define themselves as AGAINST something, not FOR anything. So once there is nothing to push against... they fall apart.

They're all shiny and triumphant when they take over a bird sanctuary in Oregon. But within two days they became the laughingstock of the world.

The Bundys, the Michigan Militia, and the others are useful clowns, to allow the police state to show their toys off, and remind the Joe The Plumber why he doesn't rise up against the state in any meaningful way. But ... a force to be reckoned with? Not by any measure.

OftenBen  ·  2480 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    there is no scenario in which it has the underdog winning.

I may be putting words in yellowoftops mouth here, but I don't think the goal of any anti-government militia is a military 'win' condition. I think the goal would be to force a high level political change when soldiers refuse to raise arms against countrymen with legitimate grievances.

goobster  ·  2479 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I got that. But that assumption is that soldiers would refuse to raise arms against insurgents who were specifically trying to undermine the Constitution, which soldiers are sworn to "...defend it from all enemies, both domestic and foreign..."

Which is why we know about the My Lai Massacre, etc: Soldiers obeying their OATH, not their orders.

I know a lot of soldiers, and worked with the peacekeeping forces from 44 different nations. They take their oath very seriously.

OftenBen  ·  2480 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    A single bullet in the right/wrong person's hands can change the world.

Gavrilo Princip, case in point.

goobster  ·  2480 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Or, more to the point, the Austro-Hungarian parliament, who was looking for a reason to attack Serbia, and had been for more than two years.

They re-branded Princip as "Serbian military" - which he wasn't, in any way shape or form - which then they used as pretext to attack Serbia, and start the war.

The bullet helped. But only because the rest of the machine had been waiting for a starter's pistol for years...

OftenBen  ·  2480 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    But only because the rest of the machine had been waiting for a starter's pistol for years...

And this is where the difference of opinion comes into play, mostly.

Some believe that there is enough dissatisfaction for there to be change, some don't.

In the current political climate I cannot in good faith rule out ANYTHING that doesn't go against the laws of physics.

kleinbl00  ·  2481 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I suggest you give this a gander. A thousand redneck dipshits with AR-15s definitely changed the way the BLM chose to approach the Bundys. Usefulness in warfare only matters if both sides want to go to war; the BATF could have annihilated the Branch Davidians but opted for perpetual standoff instead. And they've tempered since 'cuz boy howdy you get blowback out of that shit.

Yeah - a Reaper is going to make short shrift of the Montana Freemen. It's also a violation of posse comitatus that will radicalize all gun owners in a way that makes Trayvon Martin look like Rodney Dangerfield.

goobster  ·  2480 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Oh I agree totally. The tactics have changed, but the threat from dipshits with guns has not.

A Reaper is going to be used to set up a No Go Zone around a target. So instead of Waco, you have a 13th century siege. Anyone walks more than 200 yards from the building they get 300 rounds of .30 cal from the air.

And we all know who wins a stand-off. (Which is the best result any militia can hope for.)

user-inactivated  ·  2481 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    I've always found this argument hilarious. Like some dipshit with 900 rounds for his Barrett .50cal sniper rifle is actually going to be able to take out the sheer number of people and resources the gummint can throw at any problem like him.

You're looking at a fringe argument. The argument isn't about whether or not people actually expect to be able to stand up to the government with conventional firearms.

The real core of the argument is about the government respecting people's rights to own and use said firearms. Like they should respect people's rights to marry whoever, keep their lives private, practice the religions they choose for themselves, conduct free business, and on and on. When people hear about gun control, they're not thinking "OH NO! Now we can't have a revolution" what they're thinking is "I'm not being respected as an adult by my own government."

With that in mind, would you vote for someone who you think doesn't respect your values?