Armed resistance

[monster_gardener]

All these spree shootings happened in gun free zones, not one in a police station or a shooting range.

Any ideas on why?

Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Mr. Perfect.

Quite Right.

Also AFAIK none in "Blue Light" Do Nut shops....

I did see one in a gun shop on "1000 ways to Die" but it did not end well for the perp who had intended to rob the jewelry store next door

Actually there was one in Detroit ...........

gaUqdIFUbxE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaUqdIFUbxE

[planctom]

I don't know if it belongs here or in the Europe thread, but even in peaceful Switzerland one mentaly disturbed man killed 3 women and wounded two man with a gun.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... 01987.html

[Mr. Perfect]

And the citzens of Kennesaw Georgia AFAIK are not required to do law enforcement, police the streets*, or do Civil War**........

Just be armed as a "vaccination" against crime and oppression.......

Some countries may need that and some countries may not. I'm beginning to think that Endovelico is wrong in saying that US citizens should be disarmed. You'd probably kill each other with knives and bats.

Get these dangerous hammers and clubs away from innocent people.

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/20 ... ear-rifles

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.
And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

[Simple Minded]

platitudes indeed.

shame its all hogsh*t from both sides, liberty from the right and care from the left.... complete and utter hogsh*it wrapped in hogsh*t then dipped in hogsh*t and then sprinkled in hogsh*t.

reality makes a mockery of platitudes and the hollow ones are starting to show. right wing individual freedom ? left wing saftey nets for all ?
hogsh*t... paranoid security state and 10's of thousands of homeless families.

on topic - its still not bad enough for chaos and if the frog boiling remains at a slow generational pace it never will be.

oh, and english spawned wasp types dont really do chaotic revolution from my vague sense of history, they tend to work with the system, thats a hot blooded euro thing.

Amen brother!!! I love you in a non-homo kind of way.

In Merika, we rarely use the term hogshit, but prefer bullshit or horseshit, no matter the meaning comes across.

Always seems to me, whenever anyone starts talking about the right or the left, or the two sides, they seem to be very sheltered, very short sighted people trying to define themselves as some sort of ideologically pure ubermench, rather than discussing or living in reality.

c'mon down to SimpleMindedStan some time and I'll buy you a brewski...

Maybe you, me, JN, and Parodite could do a take off on the famous four person beersummit that set the new standard for international problem solving.....

[Simple Minded]

Maybe you, me, JN, and Parodite could do a take off on the famous four person beersummit that set the new standard for international problem solving.....

Better yet, lets make it a block party...... kinda like a modern day Woodstock for people who know how to type....

[Demon of Undoing]

Oy. I'll keep it short and simple as to why there is no precedent or decent similarity for comparison to America in re an armed populace. Did you guys really think I hadn't heard of militias running amok in other countries or Switzerland? Seriously.

First off, the Swiss. May as well throw Israel in there too. The reason these are not good comparisons is that the armed populace in these nations are actually military- trained reservists in a nation with remarkable cohesion and, in the case of the Swiss, no significant history of actually using their weapons in the modern era. Armed Americans are overwhelmingly not military, have neither rank nor oath affixing them to same, and while they would react to an invasion with stunning alacrity, do not ( except in a small percentage of cases) keep arms with the primary goal of repeling invasion. The Americans under discussion are overwhelmingly focused inward on homegrown tyranny of a very particular type.

The militias that our liberal- than- thous are thinking of in shitty little African countries and whatnot, that are harbingers of destabilization and despair are tribal in nature, and represent a failed or stillborn state that does not posess the cohesion to be much more than another general with a different flag and retinue.

If there is a comparison to be had, and it will be a very distant one, it would be somewhere around Afghanistan. Again, however, there is a tribal element that simply does not exist. This element created in the past a jockeying of one tribe over another for power or territory or the best arena to play football on horseback with a dead goat( all worthy goals, IMHO).

Where there is a similarity to be had with them, and this is the stretch, is that those tribes which might otherwise simply shoot each other are united ( at least somewhat) by Islam. In the name of repeling the infidel, they will gladly put up with decades and generations of what may very well appear to be appalling suffering andinevitable loss- right up to the moment that the people that don't belong there finally give up and go home.

Though it's a stretch, the armed Americans under discussion are united in a similar fashion by virtue of being the last, true believers of the American civic religion. America is for them an idea and an ideal, and a massive gun grab would be the same sort of trigger for them as a Russian or American invasion was for the fellas in Southern Afghanistan. Unlike them, however, the American faithful tend to practice quite a lot( more than our police in many cases), tend to be better armed, and do not have their goals and visions clouded by internecine squabbles over who gets the goat. Instead, their intention upon kickoff will simply be to break things and kill the appropriate people that have decided to push America over the edge. I expect they will fight with similar zeal but considerably more effectiveness, what with being far better educated, having better tools, and being right in the middle of the soft logistical underbelly of their enemy, as opposed to having nothing to attack but armored regimental combat teams with air support.

There would be little need for coordination, btw. Every one of these guys fits the definition of a fifth generation actor, a superempowered individual that it will be almost impossible to really stop. By virtue of staying quiet, preparing under the radar and choosing the time and target of their own accord, just a handful could grind massive machines to a stop; and I assure you, there are far, far more than a mere handful.

[Mr. Perfect]

And it's like people think revolt is out of the realm of human capability. I mean talk about your short memories.

[Demon of Undoing]

And it's like people think revolt is out of the realm of human capability. I mean talk about your short memories.

I'm telling you, we have an entire genre of modern people that just lock up when anything tangentially related to violence comes up. It's the worst sort of taboo for them, and they abandon logic and deliberation. For instance, Sandy Hook reopened today, now called the Safest School in America. Why? Because of all the armed guards.

Are you genuflecting kidding me?

LaPierre said it and he's the worst kind of asshole. But it's exactly what anybody with any reason does in this country when something needs protecting ( leaving aside the closing of the barn doors after the horses got out- angle). Why can't we get all the politicians to forego their armed guards in favor of rolling gun- free zones? I think we all know the answer to that.

This kind of stupidity and willful ignorance is why I keep my own counsel on anything to do with the use of force, in whatever dimension it may rise.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Oy. I'll keep it short and simple as to why there is no precedent or decent similarity for comparison to America in re an armed populace. Did you guys really think I hadn't heard of militias running amok in other countries or Switzerland? Seriously.

First off, the Swiss. May as well throw Israel in there too. The reason these are not good comparisons is that the armed populace in these nations are actually military- trained reservists in a nation with remarkable cohesion and, in the case of the Swiss, no significant history of actually using their weapons in the modern era. Armed Americans are overwhelmingly not military, have neither rank nor oath affixing them to same, and while they would react to an invasion with stunning alacrity, do not ( except in a small percentage of cases) keep arms with the primary goal of repeling invasion. The Americans under discussion are overwhelmingly focused inward on homegrown tyranny of a very particular type.

The militias that our liberal- than- thous are thinking of in shitty little African countries and whatnot, that are harbingers of destabilization and despair are tribal in nature, and represent a failed or stillborn state that does not posess the cohesion to be much more than another general with a different flag and retinue.

If there is a comparison to be had, and it will be a very distant one, it would be somewhere around Afghanistan. Again, however, there is a tribal element that simply does not exist. This element created in the past a jockeying of one tribe over another for power or territory or the best arena to play football on horseback with a dead goat( all worthy goals, IMHO).

Where there is a similarity to be had with them, and this is the stretch, is that those tribes which might otherwise simply shoot each other are united ( at least somewhat) by Islam. In the name of repeling the infidel, they will gladly put up with decades and generations of what may very well appear to be appalling suffering andinevitable loss- right up to the moment that the people that don't belong there finally give up and go home.

Though it's a stretch, the armed Americans under discussion are united in a similar fashion by virtue of being the last, true believers of the American civic religion. America is for them an idea and an ideal, and a massive gun grab would be the same sort of trigger for them as a Russian or American invasion was for the fellas in Southern Afghanistan. Unlike them, however, the American faithful tend to practice quite a lot( more than our police in many cases), tend to be better armed, and do not have their goals and visions clouded by internecine squabbles over who gets the goat. Instead, their intention upon kickoff will simply be to break things and kill the appropriate people that have decided to push America over the edge. I expect they will fight with similar zeal but considerably more effectiveness, what with being far better educated, having better tools, and being right in the middle of the soft logistical underbelly of their enemy, as opposed to having nothing to attack but armored regimental combat teams with air support.

There would be little need for coordination, btw. Every one of these guys fits the definition of a fifth generation actor, a superempowered individual that it will be almost impossible to really stop. By virtue of staying quiet, preparing under the radar and choosing the time and target of their own accord, just a handful could grind massive machines to a stop; and I assure you, there are far, far more than a mere handful.

This.

I know groups of a dozen or so guys who could immobilize whole swaths of the midwest. I have little doubt you could turn Florida law enforcement into a playground by yourself. Not to mention a lot of police and military will refuse to shoot more than a couple white people at a time.

[Mr. Perfect]

The DC Sniper dude had 'em up on their chairs squealing, and he was a fruit loop. Lotsa dudes out there, ain't that fruity.

[Enki]

I think you guys underestimate the redundancy built into the American system.

Could we have domestic terrorism carried out by lone actors? Sure. Would it bring America to its knees? Only in the sense that it would increase the police state.

Sure you can turn America into a hellhole. But I don't think it would topple the government.

There its really only one way to collapse the American state. Blow up low value targets in the suburbs. People would clamor for more security, the state would provide it and go bankrupt in the process.

A friend of mine that worked for AmEx said you could kill every employee in Manhattan, destroy all the records maintained there and not stop the company from operating. Think the Fed has less redundancy than AmEx? Osama was right about how it would go down. He nearly bankrupted us. Do that again and we collapse. But the police state goes last.

[Demon of Undoing]

The point would not be to topple the government, nor bring it to its knees. That would be for the people at large to decide. The point of these actions would literally be to render the elements used to enforce such illegality inoperative. There are tons of hypotheticals and vagaries of the operational art, but an overthrow of the government is an unlikely goal. Showing the actions of it to be illegitimate and impotent are much more effective and attainable.

[Farcus]

That's worked so well with copyright law...

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

That's worked so well with copyright law...

It is working with copyright law. When was the last time you paid for a piece of software or media?

[Enki]

The point would not be to topple the government, nor bring it to its knees. That would be for the people at large to decide. The point of these actions would literally be to render the elements used to enforce such illegality inoperative. There are tons of hypotheticals and vagaries of the operational art, but an overthrow of the government is an unlikely goal. Showing the actions of it to be illegitimate and impotent are much more effective and attainable.

The actions of the government are shown to be illegitimate and impotent all the time. But people are ok with tyranny if it's against people that they think they don't like. If a Tea Partier gets abused by the cops, Liberals are not going to feel so bad. If an Occupier or a Brown person gets abused by the cops, Conservatives don't care, or in reality, they actually think it's great. They love seeing brown people and hippies get beat up by cops.

[Doc]

The point would not be to topple the government, nor bring it to its knees. That would be for the people at large to decide. The point of these actions would literally be to render the elements used to enforce such illegality inoperative. There are tons of hypotheticals and vagaries of the operational art, but an overthrow of the government is an unlikely goal. Showing the actions of it to be illegitimate and impotent are much more effective and attainable.

The actions of the government are shown to be illegitimate and impotent all the time. But people are ok with tyranny if it's against people that they think they don't like. If a Tea Partier gets abused by the cops, Liberals are not going to feel so bad. If an Occupier or a Brown person gets abused by the cops, Conservatives don't care, or in reality, they actually think it's great. They love seeing brown people and hippies get beat up by cops.

You know what I just realize Tinker? You are the most bigoted person here.

[Demon of Undoing]

The point would not be to topple the government, nor bring it to its knees. That would be for the people at large to decide. The point of these actions would literally be to render the elements used to enforce such illegality inoperative. There are tons of hypotheticals and vagaries of the operational art, but an overthrow of the government is an unlikely goal. Showing the actions of it to be illegitimate and impotent are much more effective and attainable.

The actions of the government are shown to be illegitimate and impotent all the time. But people are ok with tyranny if it's against people that they think they don't like. If a Tea Partier gets abused by the cops, Liberals are not going to feel so bad. If an Occupier or a Brown person gets abused by the cops, Conservatives don't care, or in reality, they actually think it's great. They love seeing brown people and hippies get beat up by cops.

Illegitimate, maybe. Impotent, no. When a confiscation task force is ambushed and shot to pieces, and the relief element caught in a daisy chain, people will start to wonder, just as they did when it became clear that the law wasn't getting the hooch off the streets and dying in numbers just for the privilege to fail. Had their been more dead cops, and I say this as someone who has dead cop friends, the drug war wouldn't have gone on this long. The War on Guns will see far, far more chaos, because one side will be fighting for something way more precious to them than mere money.

[Simple Minded]

The point would not be to topple the government, nor bring it to its knees. That would be for the people at large to decide. The point of these actions would literally be to render the elements used to enforce such illegality inoperative. There are tons of hypotheticals and vagaries of the operational art, but an overthrow of the government is an unlikely goal. Showing the actions of it to be illegitimate and impotent are much more effective and attainable.

The actions of the government are shown to be illegitimate and impotent all the time. But people are ok with tyranny if it's against people that they think they don't like. If a Tea Partier gets abused by the cops, Liberals are not going to feel so bad. If an Occupier or a Brown person gets abused by the cops, Conservatives don't care, or in reality, they actually think it's great. They love seeing brown people and hippies get beat up by cops.

You know what I just realize Tinker? You are the most bigoted person here.

I always have a tough time determining if Tinker is really as bigoted as his posts would indicate, or if he is just an ideological apparachick engaging in binary baiting.

I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is a political animal pursuing an agenda, and knows that he has to engage in standard political terminology of us vs. them in order to stay in the game.

Neither side seems very interested in engaging thinkers or focusing on actual problem solving. That tends to happen outside the political realm.

Politicians find that chanters are easier to recruit.

[Ibrahim]

The point would not be to topple the government, nor bring it to its knees. That would be for the people at large to decide. The point of these actions would literally be to render the elements used to enforce such illegality inoperative. There are tons of hypotheticals and vagaries of the operational art, but an overthrow of the government is an unlikely goal. Showing the actions of it to be illegitimate and impotent are much more effective and attainable.

Most of the domestic terrorists in the US had the stated motivation of either triggering the collapse of the US government, or preparing for and surviving the chaos of its collapse. While some kind of organized disobedience could work in exactly the way you described, I don't think Americans are as practiced in that kind of organization as, say, French workers who mass-strike every year just for practice/vacation.

Could we have domestic terrorism carried out by lone actors? Sure. Would it bring America to its knees? Only in the sense that it would increase the police state.

Sure you can turn America into a hellhole. But I don't think it would topple the government.

This is correct. What you'd see first is a bunch of Waco, TX scenarios taking place over a year. Would that motivate the rest of the defiant gun-owners to finally organize and coordinate? Perhaps, but it would be more likely to motivate conventional political action first.

Given what we've seen in the past decade, I don't think there is a limit to how much of a police state most Americans will tolerate, as long as it is marketed effectively to them.

[Enki]

You know what I just realize Tinker? You are the most bigoted person here.

I talk to right-wingers championing war EVERY SINGLE DAY, while calling domestic welfare evil. If that makes me 'bigotted', then so be it. Thing is, I go harder at Liberals than you ever see because you are on a message board where I go to philosophize and not involved in my actual political life. But after seeing the number of right-wingers around the net absolutely CHEERING that the NYPD put my friends in the hospital. It sours a person for sure.

And just in case you think I apply all of this animus to you, I don't. I kind of like you and like conversing with you. So I hope you don't mind dealing with a bigot.

[Enki]

Illegitimate, maybe. Impotent, no. When a confiscation task force is ambushed and shot to pieces, and the relief element caught in a daisy chain, people will start to wonder, just as they did when it became clear that the law wasn't getting the hooch off the streets and dying in numbers just for the privilege to fail. Had their been more dead cops, and I say this as someone who has dead cop friends, the drug war wouldn't have gone on this long. The War on Guns will see far, far more chaos, because one side will be fighting for something way more precious to them than mere money.

Drugs are more widely available and cheaper than ever. Doesn't seem to phase anyone enough to question the underlying assumptions of the drug war. Hell, law enforcement themselves are more open to the idea of legalization than your average citizen.

I don't think you have to worry about the war on guns. Watching the discussions on Facebook with the local New York pols, they are all obsessing about assault weapons bans, so you don't have to worry about any real political will coming together to go after guns. Even the Liberals don't think that's possible.

[Enki]

I always have a tough time determining if Tinker is really as bigoted as his posts would indicate, or if he is just an ideological apparachick engaging in binary baiting.

Hey, I hated the binaries for the longest time until I found how willing and even desirous people are of fitting into those binaries. You work with the limited palette you have. If you speak outside of the binaries, most people cannot even understand what you're saying.

I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is a political animal pursuing an agenda, and knows that he has to engage in standard political terminology of us vs. them in order to stay in the game.

That's sort of it, though my side is not what you think it is.

Neither side seems very interested in engaging thinkers or focusing on actual problem solving. That tends to happen outside the political realm.

Most of my work is outside the political realm and the work I do within the political realm is attempts to alter the way people think about things. Like when people talk about banning extended mags in assault rifles, I point out that 3D printers can make extended mags.

Politicians find that chanters are easier to recruit.

This is a profound ignorance of politics. This is 180 degrees from the truth. The really passionate activists are kept at arms length by mainstream politicians.

[Farcus]

That's worked so well with copyright law...

It is working with copyright law. When was the last time you paid for a piece of software or media?

I pay for licenses. Still beating your wife?

[Simple Minded]

I always have a tough time determining if Tinker is really as bigoted as his posts would indicate, or if he is just an ideological apparachick engaging in binary baiting.

Hey, I hated the binaries for the longest time until I found how willing and even desirous people are of fitting into those binaries. You work with the limited palette you have. If you speak outside of the binaries, most people cannot even understand what you're saying.

My point exactly, when you want to hang with the cool kids, the first thing you need to determine is if the cool kids are saying "Conservatives are racists and misogynists" or "Liberals are communists and baby killers." Then simply speak the same. I have no doubt that you are an effective salesman, because you know when to imitate the dialect to win favor and when to goad your opponents with sound bites to deflect or distract. Don't blame you a bit.

I give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is a political animal pursuing an agenda, and knows that he has to engage in standard political terminology of us vs. them in order to stay in the game.

That's sort of it, though my side is not what you think it is.

I think I read you pretty well. As I have said before very little difference between Tinkertown, Galt's Gulch, and SimpleMindedStan.

Politicians find that chanters are easier to recruit.

This is a profound ignorance of politics. This is 180 degrees from the truth. The really passionate activists are kept at arms length by mainstream politicians.

Exactly why the politicians recruit the chanters...... Put the chanters between the politicians and the activists in order to maintain the status quo.... and also create an audience whose goals you must work to attain!!! Oldest game in advertising to first create the demand, then create and sell the product to satisfy the demand.

"You need me and my party to fight the racists and misogynists!!" or "You need me and my party to fight the communists and baby killers!!"

Since most want to belong to the biggest, most powerful, most popular group, people are easy to control. When in doubt, they herd.

[Mr. Perfect]

Hey, I hated the binaries for the longest time until I found how willing and even desirous people are of fitting into those binaries.

FINALLY!

I never had the heart to tell you, back when you would go on and on about conditioned responses you never realized people voluntarily submit to the conditioning and seek it out and so was not what you made it out to be.

You work with the limited palette you have. If you speak outside of the binaries, most people cannot even understand what you're saying.

Or as I would say, speak in language people can understand. Speak to your audience. Boy are you coming around. But it took so LOOOOOONNGGG.