~30% of Americans advocate armed apostasy

[petros]

Seriously, do you think small arms are going to stand up to the US military?

Yup! A-Stan has dragged on for 11+ years with a cost in the hundred$ of Billion$ and it is all small arms and IEDs.

Go down to a public firing range sometime and check out crowd. Better odds of meeting a hottie there than your local pub that's for sure.

Bit of bullsh*t there, methinks!

Nope!

People from every cross-section of society have simply had enough of loss of freedoms, loss of rights, loss of privileges, financial devastation, librarians, illegal aliens, gangs, hosebags, racists, the Amish, jealousy, nigga nigga yo-yos, bad al Qaeda, good al Qaeda, Jews, Sasquatches, poverty, homeopaths, loss of privacy, Muzzies, Mexicans, corruption, Chinamen, debutants, urban encroachment, the Green scam, evangelicals and oppression.


I have other concerns.

With Solar Max supposedly peaking in Sept, we could easily lose the power grid and telecomm to a solar flare. In fact, kiss all electronics and electrical devices good bye. Repair could take anywhere from 6 months to 3 years.

Even neighbours, friends and family will be killing each other for a half rotten potato. There is only 72hrs worth of food for all of North America, after that it's pure anarchy.

Don't expect there to be any help from police, military or Gov. They'll all be just as screwed as you are.

The only vehicles that will still run are ones with points in the distributor along with a genny instead of an alternator and diesels that have old school injectors that aren't electrically controlled.

Whoever isn't armed will be the first ones killed or exploited.

I'd rather be an armed proficient hunter than be savagely murdered or have to suck cock for a handful of grain.

Don't come to the countryside looking for food. I don't know any or of any farmer who isn't armed.

I don't need any other reason than a solar flare to be armed, skilled and stocked up with ammo.

How about you?

 

[Cliffy]

With Solar Max supposedly peaking in Sept, we could easily lose the power grid and telecomm to a solar flare. In fact, kiss all electronics and electrical devices good bye. Repair could take anywhere from 6 months to 3 years.

Even neighbours, friends and family will be killing each other for a half rotten potato. There is only 72hrs worth of food for all of North America, after that it's pure anarchy.

Don't expect there to be any help from police, military or Gov. They'll all be just as screwed as you are.

Sounds like the zombie apocalypse. I've been expecting something like this for over 40 years. It is why I moved to the bush in '72.

Best investment anybody can make for the future is tools, hand tools in particular. Propane can be stored for much longer than gas. That is why I live in a camping trailer - cooking, heat and refrigeration. I am very lucky being where I am. I can hide up here in the woods until everybody in town either kills each other off or runs away. Last time we had a power out, Overwaitea was bare in 2 days. Most "bushmen" around here never get out of the 4X4s or off their quads. They would have heart attacks trying to get into the mountains. Almost nobody know what a supermarket for all kinds of food the wilderness is and you cannot survive on meat alone.

 

[petros]

Almost nobody know what a supermarket for all kinds of food the wilderness is and you cannot survive on meat alone.

GOUT!!!

I have oodles of grain and oil seed. I don't need meat that goes bad in hours.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Crazies!

Curious comment, why do you consider it crazy?

 

[Machjo]

The problem is that that 30% are the ones armed to the teeth and just hoping for a chance to use those arms!

Any excuse for a party... er... I mean, a good rebellion to defend our right to shoot people... er... I mean... stand up for our right to bear arms.

Seriously, do you think small arms are going to stand up to the US military? I chuckle when NRA nuts think they are a bulwark against government persecution against their ever evolving rights.

Seemed to work in ASfghanistan. And in this case it's even worse; immagine an expensive military fighting against the very people it relies on to fund it. It would run out of cash and gas pretty quickly.

 

[darkbeaver]

Seriously, do you think small arms are going to stand up to the US military? I chuckle when NRA nuts think they are a bulwark against government persecution against their ever evolving rights.

How long do you think the airforce will strafe Mr & Mrs Burbs ? Lots of people have stood up to the US military. I think Americans would do as well. I hope they don't have to, but, these election things don't seem to be working.

Curious comment, why do you consider it crazy?

He thinks the corporations can do a better job if government would just stay out of bizzness. It's just a tiny little economic and social disaster why would people think they need to help themselves. Look there's some green shoots over there. Science is close to the cure.

 

[Tonington]

Curious comment, why do you consider it crazy?

Because advocating armed rebellion is a surefire way to ensure you lose some liberties. Violence against Police Officers? Or maybe some army base? Or maybe assassinations of political leaders? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's just like the anarachists who show up to peaceful rallies to stir $hit. Plenty of people write and speak out against loss of liberty. If you become violent, and there are lots of people who have, you're going to actually lose those freedoms, one way or another. Once you can justify violence against the government, it becomes pretty easy to justify greater acts of terrorism. Timothy McVeigh is a great example.

Inviting something you claim to be against fits my definition of crazy. It may be closer to stupidity, but I'll stick with crazy. The people who end up being hurt most won't even be the ones most responsible. That is also fitting of the moniker crazy.

I don't think it's crazy to make note of loss of liberties. One of Obama's lasting legacies will surely be the normalization of military strikes on American citizens. What's also crazy is the way some US liberals are willing to look the other way because it's not something being done by Bush/Cheney.

ETA: I'd like to know, for those who don't think this is crazy, what sort of violence they feel is justified. Blowing up buildings? Firing at cops? What exactly is justified?

 

[WLDB]

Before of after the French were crushed?

In a way. Louis XVI's government was replaced by a number of governments which were much worse than his. The next 30 years or so were pretty tough for the average French citizen - assuming they survived that long.

The US military is a hell of a lot better trained and equipped than the French military at the time or the British one during the American revolution. At that time enough people with muskets were a fairly even match. The US government/military has an air force, drones and pretty powerful warheads. The civilians in a potential armed rebellion wouldnt stand a chance against that kind of firepower. The armed forces would have to either in whole or in part switch to the side of the rebels for them to have a chance.

How long do you think the airforce will strafe Mr & Mrs Burbs ? Lots of people have stood up to the US military. I think Americans would do as well.

They didnt do all that well during the Civil War. Half the country rebelled in that as well as a pretty good chunk of the army and still lost. Caused a lot of damage, killed a lot of people and lasted nearly five years but they still in the end lost. I doubt a bunch of civilians with their own stockpiles of weapons will stand a better chance than the Confederacy.

 

[Colpy]

In a way. Louis XVI's government was replaced by a number of governments which were much worse than his. The next 30 years or so were pretty tough for the average French citizen - assuming they survived that long.

The US military is a hell of a lot better trained and equipped than the French military at the time or the British one during the American revolution. At that time enough people with muskets were a fairly even match. The US government/military has an air force, drones and pretty powerful warheads. The civilians in a potential armed rebellion wouldnt stand a chance against that kind of firepower. The armed forces would have to either in whole or in part switch to the side of the rebels for them to have a chance.




They didnt do all that well during the Civil War. Half the country rebelled in that as well as a pretty good chunk of the army and still lost. Caused a lot of damage, killed a lot of people and lasted nearly five years but they still in the end lost. I doubt a bunch of civilians with their own stockpiles of weapons will stand a better chance than the Confederacy.

First of all, let me say that under current conditions in the USA, the idea of armed rebellion is crazy. The USA is still a democracy, and any "rebellion" should be along the lines of the people getting politically involved, and taking the political parties back from the elites.

Now, if there were cause for rebellion, much of the military would desert. Secondly, you use small arms to get better arms. Thirdly, Syria has an air force....not doing them a lot of good.

But it would be oh such a blood bath.

And it is not going to happen.

So stand down.

But keep your AR 15s handy.

 

[Machjo]

In a way. Louis XVI's government was replaced by a number of governments which were much worse than his. The next 30 years or so were pretty tough for the average French citizen - assuming they survived that long.

The US military is a hell of a lot better trained and equipped than the French military at the time or the British one during the American revolution. At that time enough people with muskets were a fairly even match. The US government/military has an air force, drones and pretty powerful warheads. The civilians in a potential armed rebellion wouldnt stand a chance against that kind of firepower. The armed forces would have to either in whole or in part switch to the side of the rebels for them to have a chance.




They didnt do all that well during the Civil War. Half the country rebelled in that as well as a pretty good chunk of the army and still lost. Caused a lot of damage, killed a lot of people and lasted nearly five years but they still in the end lost. I doubt a bunch of civilians with their own stockpiles of weapons will stand a better chance than the Confederacy.

But that expensive airforce and the drones are dependent on the taxes of the people they're fighting. Money would dry up quickly.

 

[darkbeaver]

In a way. Louis XVI's government was replaced by a number of governments which were much worse than his. The next 30 years or so were pretty tough for the average French citizen - assuming they survived that long.

The US military is a hell of a lot better trained and equipped than the French military at the time or the British one during the American revolution. At that time enough people with muskets were a fairly even match. The US government/military has an air force, drones and pretty powerful warheads. The civilians in a potential armed rebellion wouldnt stand a chance against that kind of firepower. The armed forces would have to either in whole or in part switch to the side of the rebels for them to have a chance.




They didnt do all that well during the Civil War. Half the country rebelled in that as well as a pretty good chunk of the army and still lost. Caused a lot of damage, killed a lot of people and lasted nearly five years but they still in the end lost. I doubt a bunch of civilians with their own stockpiles of weapons will stand a better chance than the Confederacy.

Interesting that you bring up that Civil war. Rothschild banks funded both sides and in the end they were the only winners.

First of all, let me say that under current conditions in the USA, the idea of armed rebellion is crazy. The USA is still a democracy, and any "rebellion" should be along the lines of the people getting politically involved, and taking the political parties back from the elites.

Now, if there were cause for rebellion, much of the military would desert. Secondly, you use small arms to get better arms. Thirdly, Syria has an air force....not doing them a lot of good.

But it would be oh such a blood bath.

And it is not going to happen.

So stand down.

But keep your AR 15s handy.

it's not a democracy Colpy it's a bankrupt republic. There is no democracy run by bankers, never was never will be.

 

[petros]

It was a Republic.

 

[coldstream]

About the same per centage that 'believes' in UFOs.

Basicly there are about of third of Americans who've never, allegorically, come out of the hills of Kentucky.. still take sides with the Hatfields or McCoys. Trying to organize a revolution around these hillbillies would be a bit of task... and you can only imagine the country they'd set up it they had any success. :roll:

 

[Machjo]

About the same per centage that 'believes' in UFOs.

Basicly there are about of third of Americans who've never, allegorically, come out of the hills of Kentucky.. still take sides with the Hatfields or McCoys. Trying to organize a revolution around these hillbillies would be a bit of task... and you can only imagine the country they'd set up it they had any success. :roll:

I believe that any flying object I can't identify is a UFO too. Is that not what UFO means?

 

[EagleSmack]

I was referencing the twenty dollarCDN bet I made with you six or seven posts back. If you are considering just giving me some instead of the bet that's fine as well. How much can I have? I need new teeth and glasses and the car is getting drafty and I also need an expensive operation to make me look young and beautiful again. Should I look in my mailbox in the morning?

Did you say... lets bet... and I ignored the silliness... but you think there is actually a bet?

 

[Sons of Liberty]

Because advocating armed rebellion is a surefire way to ensure you lose some liberties. Violence against Police Officers? Or maybe some army base? Or maybe assassinations of political leaders? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's just like the anarachists who show up to peaceful rallies to stir $hit. Plenty of people write and speak out against loss of liberty. If you become violent, and there are lots of people who have, you're going to actually lose those freedoms, one way or another. Once you can justify violence against the government, it becomes pretty easy to justify greater acts of terrorism. Timothy McVeigh is a great example.

You're all over the map, an armed rebellion is not comparable with terrorism. Terrorism is a group of people trying to instill fear unto the population, an armed rebellion is an overthrow and/or replacement of government, you know, the whole Revolution of 1776 thing.

Inviting something you claim to be against fits my definition of crazy. It may be closer to stupidity, but I'll stick with crazy. The people who end up being hurt most won't even be the ones most responsible. That is also fitting of the moniker crazy.

I suppose you're of the opinion that governments "do good"?

I don't think it's crazy to make note of loss of liberties. One of Obama's lasting legacies will surely be the normalization of military strikes on American citizens. What's also crazy is the way some US liberals are willing to look the other way because it's not something being done by Bush/Cheney.

The whole idea of armed rebellion is to gain liberties.

ETA: I'd like to know, for those who don't think this is crazy, what sort of violence they feel is justified. Blowing up buildings? Firing at cops? What exactly is justified?

Anything it takes.

Maybe this will help;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

[petros]

Pointing out reality to one of the most narrow minded people on the board is silly.

 

[JLM]

Pointing out reality to one of the most narrow minded people on the board is silly.

You got that right, Petros!

 

[Tonington]

You're all over the map, an armed rebellion is not comparable with terrorism.

Try reading slower. I never said it was. What I said is that once you can justify acts of armed rebellion that it becomes easy to justify greater acts of terrorism. Do you actually disagree with that?

Terrorism is a group of people trying to instill fear unto the population, an armed rebellion is an overthrow and/or replacement of government, you know, the whole Revolution of 1776 thing.

Talk about being all over the map. The 'whole Revolution of 1776 thing' was because an unelected king was acting as a tyrant, since then you have gained the right to choose your own government. Not comparable at all.

I suppose you're of the opinion that governments "do good"?

I suppose you're of the opinion that governments "do bad"? No, I tend to think it's somewhere between those two polar opposites.

The whole idea of armed rebellion is to gain liberties.

The whole idea of an armed rebellion is to attempt to take control. The why and how aren't set in stone.

Anything it takes.

Maybe this will help;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Coward. That's not an answer. As you should already know, you change your various levels of government all the time.

So, what is a justified target for an armed rebellion? Do you have a real answer? Who or what is a legitimate target if you feel your liberties are being destroyed?

I'll say again, when you can elect a different government, justifying an armed rebellion is crazy.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Coward. That's not an answer. As you should already know, you change your various levels of government all the time.

You are correct, sir.

So, what is a justified target for an armed rebellion? Do you have a real answer? Who or what is a legitimate target if you feel your liberties are being destroyed?

The "justified target" is anyone who doesn't believe in Son's extremist views.

I'll say again, when you can elect a different government, justifying an armed rebellion is crazy.

Yep. It's the last resort of people who see their worldview slipping away. First step is to dehumanize the majority of the population (e.g., by calling them "dupes" or "shills" or "sheeple"). That makes murdering them easier. Next, you pick a time of social or economic turmoil and appeal to "patriotism" (another word for nationalism). Then you overthrow a democratically elected government and install your tyrants. Finally, control the press so that you can pump out, 24/7, the notion that your tyrants are democrats and the democratically-elected government that a minority overthrew are the tyrants.

Next thing you know, it's 1984. Which is what Sons and his ilk want.