Operation Opportunism: Tragedies Being Used To Undermine Your Rights!

Originally posted by RealSpoke


I don't know, because we surely could not overpower the government if we wanted to with guns. The NRA has a much larger agenda, which is that of corporate gun profit. That is why there are no gun laws that will be passed anytime soon.

edit on 14-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

We may not be able to overpower the government, but the government would have a difficult time "overpowering" it's people.

Opportunity is a matter of perception,planning,timing and exploitation.
Just because one can follow through with these does not mean it is right to do so.

reply to post by beezzer


No, it really wouldn't. The majority of gun owners are not in any sort of organized militia, we have Bob in his basement that collects Ak-47's. Americans are out of shape, can't even run, can't hit moving targets and are ignorant about military tactics.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by beezzer

 

No, it really wouldn't. We do not have an organized militia of gun owners, we have Bob in his basement that collects Ak-47's. Americans are out of shape, can't even run, can't hit moving targets and are ignorant about military tactics.

While it is true that the "Bobs" or Bubba's exist, there are a surprising large population of veterans who are in shape, who quietly work and go about their business. They may belong to groups like OathKeepers or belong to smaller, less noticeable groups.

I would imagine that any attempt on the part of the government to impose decrees that fly in the face of personal freedoms would be met with surprisingly effective opposition.

(caveat; I am aware of current laws that have flown in the face of current freedoms, I'm speaking of more overt forms)

reply to post by RealSpoke


The ability to inflict damage doesn't take much more than a cause and a willingness to surrender ones life for that cause.

reply to post by beezzer


Yeah, those people are the minority.

(caveat; I am aware of current laws that have flown in the face of current freedoms, I'm speaking of more overt forms)

Like what? If the patriot and NDAA act can be passed and no one does anything about it..no one even cared.

There is no way we could win against the US government. They have bombs, drones, tanks, grenade launchers and everything else WE don't. We lose.

reply to post by RealSpoke


The problem with the government using their entire arsenal of weapons against us is three-fold:

1) In killing us by bombing they'd destroy their own infrastructure - making things much worse after they'd quelled the uprising or event.
2) World opinion matters. Video of Warthogs strafing the Baltimore suburbs wouldn't go over well with our friends and allies.
3) They don't want us dead - they want us compliant. Dead tax payers aren't profitable.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

3) They don't want us dead - they want us compliant. Dead tax payers aren't profitable.

~Heff

but apparently they still vote!
(sorry, off topic)

On topic-I hope we never see the day where this is put to the test.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Although I get your point, i just want to point out something.

A group of very determined individuals with little modern technology have held at bay the combined weight of NATO for 11 years now. They don't have any chance in the superiority category but they have other things that have evened it out to a degree. A belief in a cause and a willingness to lay down there lives for it.

I am not saying I agree with what is happening in A-stan, I have lost friends and have had others physically and mentally wounded there, it's just to point to you that the technological advantage and weapon superiority doesn't always determine the victor.

reply to post by Hefficide

1) In killing us by bombing they'd destroy their own infrastructure - making things much worse after they'd quelled the uprising or event.

They can always rebuild. Rebuilding projects give citizens jobs and would stimulate the economy after the uprising was squashed.

2) World opinion matters. Video of Warthogs strafing the Baltimore suburbs wouldn't go over well with our friends and allies.

That never stopped any other nation from slaughtering their own.

3) They don't want us dead - they want us compliant. Dead tax payers aren't profitable.

Exactly, that's why they are letting you keep guns.

Any sort of up-rising would probably not have a job in the conventional sense, as they would be on the run as terrorists. You cannot go to war with the government and pay taxes at the same time.

There is no way we could win against the US government. They have bombs, drones, tanks, grenade launchers and everything else WE don't. We lose.

reply to post by RealSpoke


We the people have all the weapons mentioned.
It is simply a matter of we the people being FED up and waking up to the realization that we the people built this show and can take ownership and leadership back when we the people see fit.

reply to post by GAOTU789


Are you talking about the "insurgents" in Iraq and such?

They surely haven't won against the western forces.

reply to post by RealSpoke

Originally posted by RealSpoke

They can always rebuild. Rebuilding projects give citizens jobs and would stimulate the economy after the uprising was squashed.

Depends upon a lot of things - including whether or not the internal conflict caused a regime change, if a resistance persisted, and if the people left around were still willing to rebuild the previous status-quo.

Originally posted by RealSpoke

That never stopped any other nation from slaughtering their own.

The US is not like a second or third world dictatorship - we market ourselves as the "shining light of democracy" and we export that commodity around the world. The US government slaughtering its own, publicly, would undermine the imperial agenda. I just don't see it happening - unless TPTB are ready to just go ahead and say "We got it wrong - everybody defer to China from now on..."

Originally posted by RealSpoke

Exactly, that's why they are letting you keep guns.

Any sort of up-rising would probably not have a job in the conventional sense, as they would be on the run as terrorists. You cannot go to war with the government and pay taxes at the same time.

The middle class are the ones who would be the most angry about gun control. These are the people with jobs and who pay the taxes. Whether or not those in power want to admit it or not... the middle class is the machinery that makes the rich - rich and the powerful - powerful.

~Heff

reply to post by deadeyedick


WE the people do not have millions of dollars to buy drones. We the people do not have missiles. We the people cannot own tanks that are not de-armed. We the people cannot buy bombs. We the people do not have nukes.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
It really isn't opportunistic.

Most people in the USA do not live in the ghetto, where most of the gun crime is. They feel removed from it, it really isn't a threat to them. They do not have to worry about getting shot if they walk to the store...as the shootings are not near them.

However, if people are randomly shooting people up in areas like Aurora (a suburb), people are going to feel threatened, because it COULD happen to them.

RealSpoke, it IS opportunistic. That IS the agenda. The areas of the greatest crime are IGNORED by the media. There might be the occasional mention of a shootout, but it's very generalized. There might be the occasional mention of a child killed in a drive-by, but it's soon gone - sometimes within minutes - to be replaced by the latest news of some reality show person or actor or other drivel... but the child is gone forever and the grief of the family is forever, too.

Others feel removed from it because they ARE removed from it BECAUSE it is not reported. Do you remember any reporter, much less many of them, going into the ghettos and onto the Reservations to show the Third World conditions? Do they show the streets and playgrounds (such as they are) riddled with thugs, cast off drug paraphernalia, prostitutes, dopeheads and trash? I don't remember any.

Then a, by comparison, RARE incident such as the Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Aurora shooting occurs and it's EVERYWHERE in the media. They USE it to MAKE people scared, to bend them to the opinion they want them to have. But, for those on the Rez and, most especially, for those in the ghettos .. it's life.

How are Americans to KNOW if they're not SHOWN? Upon whom does the moral obligation lie to show the truth? It lies upon the media. Upon those who "report." Only it is not reported. Instead, the public is fed opinions, distracted, and then, sooner or later, another nutjob does something the media can use again, like the Sikh shooting and it's all over the news again ... meanwhile, a couple of dozen children die by violence and no one is told.

The agenda IS to make people unnecessarily scared of a rare and random boogie man while ignoring the real terrors. The agenda IS to use those random acts of horror while anesthetizing the public to the true horrors.

I believe Americans would be outraged if they really KNEW what was going on. Not some stupid Hollywood version of it, but by true reportings of it. If people REALLY knew, they would demand something really be done. We can tell people about it all day long but until they SEE it, it will never be real.

As it is now, election time rolls around every 2-4 years and some politician will do something to act like s/he's interested. The far left liberals will get some token thing done - like outlawing guns in Chicago for the law-abiding while leaving them in the hands of the gangs. Presidential candidates will make the occasional foray onto a Rez and promise better conditions, but elders still freeze to death every year and people still live in hovels and the infant mortality/diabetes/teen suicide rates stay higher than anywhere else.

There is a book - "Amazing Grace" (1995 Jonathan Kozol). The author of that book was trying to bring light to the situation of the ghettos. In one part, he sees a little park in a vacant lot and he notices the teddy bears tied to tree branches. He asks his 'guide,' a very young boy if I recall correctly, why the bears are there. The little boy doesn't answer him but, instead, tells him "I saw a boy shot in the head right over there." I'm pretty sure I remember that quote exactly because it hurt my heart so much. It's a look into the conditions these people live in; the lives these children are forced to live; the medical waste burn pit that was supposed to be somewhere else, but it's there where the children see and smell the medical waste being burned. No one will really tell the author about the bears until a pastor tells him it's "Children's Park" and volunteers go there a couple of times a week to take condoms and clean needles to the addicts and how they bring their children with them. It's a book that I believe every American needs to read but, more than that, I believe every major "news" station is CHARGED to report these things to the American public. HOW are people to KNOW that life is like that if no one tells them?

On the other side of the coin, we have those folks in the ghettos and on the Rez who never see life outside except for what is shown on television. So, they think all white people are "rich" and every now and then a Black person makes good. All more lies but HOW do THEY know?

You seem to be such a smart man - how can you NOT see the agenda? How can you NOT see how they use people? How can you NOT see how they keep all of us divided, creating suspicion and distrust among us and force feeding opinion to the masses

reply to post by SeesFar

Not familiar with Wounded Knee? Really? Not with EITHER of the events that took place at Wounded Knee? If you think the one you just 'read' about was shocking, why don't you look up the first one - that outta knock your socks right off. Wonder what THEY, the first ones, might have done had they had any weaponry at all.

I am very familiar with the Wounded Knee Massacre...I wasn't not familiar with this event at Wounded Knee. I don't see why that is a problem...I don't claim to know all or claim to be a history professor. It's ok not to know things, no one knows everying...I reviewed the link I was provided and had enough to comment on it. What's not ok is to pretend to know everything, or lecture people when they openly admit to not having known about a subject.

As for the Wounded Knee Massacre...they were armed...that was the whole point...they were being disarmed. So according to your logic, and others, since they were armed...shouldn't they have been able to stop the massacre? Shouldn't the fact that they were armed prevented the United States government from diarming them???

Or is this just another example of being armed not really preventing the government from abusing their powers???

The point of the matter is that they DID stand their ground; they DID have the means to do it; they WERE standing up against tyrannical government

And what was the result?

Did the fact that they were armed and decided to stand their ground prevent the government from doing what they were intending to do anyway? Did they get the tribal President removed? Did it make their lives better after the incident?

Again...none of that happened. The fact that they had weapons and attempted to use force to get their way did not stop the government from doing anything.

So yes, this is a poor example of "being armed prevents the government from abusing their powers"...because in both Wounded Knee incidents...that did not happen.

What if they HAD had equal weaponry? Do you think they would have won then? You can bet your life they would have because it was their lives they were fighting for.

Are you advocating for equal weaponry to the United States military? Because if you are, then you are in the extreme minority.

Like I said...we have already restricted what weapons citizens can have...and as a society we are fine with that. I think you may have missed what my position is on this whole issue. I am not anti-gun ownership...I am pro-gun regulation...much more strict regulation than what we currently have.

If you (and others like you) continue to allow your own self-imposed ignorance keep you such a good citizen of the state of denial, the day will come (sooner rather than later) when you will loathe yourself for not listening and learning.

In terms of probability...very unlikely.

If our own government wants to kill us...they can...no matter how many hand guns and rifles you have. If our government wants to impose a law that we don't agree with...no amount of guns is going to overturn it.

I'm sorry, I will not live my life in fear and paranoia.

You have the right to lose all you have due to your intentional ignorance of history, but you do not have the right to take others down with you - and that's not "you" as in "Outkast Searcher" only; that's ALL of you who ignore history. History currently IS repeating itself and the only ones who do not see that are those who CHOOSE not to see it.

You have failed to provide any example where people having guns actually prevented the government from doing whatever they please.

I'm sorry, but fear propaganda will not work on me.

reply to post by RealSpoke


No but they haven't lost either. That's why I said it the way I did.

A group of very determined individuals with little modern technology have held at bay the combined weight of NATO for 11 years now.

If they held the attitude you do, the troops from our respective nations would have been home years ago and the casualties we have suffered wouldn't be anywhere near as high as they are. It may not be a win in the classical sense of uniformed warfare but there has been no surrender and the country isn't much better than it was 8-9 years ago, the insurgency hasn't been defeated and the country isn't pacified. I think that is a lot closer to a win then we could argue for our troops and they have done it with small arms, homemade bombs and not much else.

reply to post by SeesFar

Research why Russia and Japan never invaded the United States. Look deep and well beyond mainstream sources. The truth is out there, but it will be hidden, it will be challenged and it will often be cited as "myth" or "rumor" because truth is one of the things they work so diligently to hide.

If you are suggesting that countries won't invade us because the citizens are armed, then yes, that is a valid theory. Not proven...but a valid theory.

But again, this boils down to fear and paranoia...and I refuse to live life like that.


Again, you seem to be of the thinking that I am anti-gun...that is not the case...I am anti-wild west.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


You have failed to provide any example where people having guns actually prevented the government from doing whatever they please.

Just quickly off the top of my head...

The Battle of Athens

I'm not an American so I am not up on all of your histroy but that one I am aware of.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Actually OKS, the information in this post might make you think about your feelings there.

~Heff