The First Shots of the Second American Revolution have been fired

page: 22
107
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Now here is why it's a problem, and why just leaving the guns alone at this point won't settle it down. Because the gun issue is so much clearer, it has served to shed light on the intentions that all of the other abuses are leading up to. People are seeing how the chain of events build up one upon the other, how each lays the foundation for the next in an ever tightening noose, and from that they can project where the events are leading to, whose neck the noose is tightening on. They're not going to just let the guns issue settle the entire thing now, because they can see the rest much better, and they don't like what they are seeing.


That's the best post of the thread and there is precedent to back it up.

In 1862 Lincoln issued a proclamaation suspending the constitutional provision of Writ of Habeas Corpus "in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission." usgovinfo.about.com...

What were those damn yankees thinking? They had their guns pointed in the wrong direction.

In 1933 FDR confiscated the gold by executive order. "Whoever willfully violates any provision of this Executive Order or these regulation or of any rule, regulation or license issued there under may be fined not more than $10,000, or,if a natural person may be imprisoned for not more than ten years or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in any such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both." www.the-privateer.com...

No revolt. What were people thinking?

Nothing good came of these proclamations, but some are still content to buckle under more confiscatory proclamations and edicts. What are they thinking?




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 



Things like road rage happen! Perhaps the way certain people talk, trying to sound tough, gives the idea that they do not control their anger? I have noticed that on this site, for example, people will spurt some very hostile stuff and not even see any need to apologize, or make any effort in the future to channel their hostility into diplomatic forms. That is uncivilized behavior. I don't know. I am limited in knowing the sources of their conclusions.


What causes road rage? It certainly isn't guns, its people being locked together in traffic with no way to escape, or being cut off (or hit) by a reckless idiot who doesn't seem to understand or care that he's operating a deadly tool.

Matter of fact, that locked together mentality is what causes most uncivilized behavior and rage. Even with family, we probably all have certain relatives that we love at a distance but can't be trusted alone together in a room for very long before a fight (generally verbal) breaks out.

Elbow room is the answer. Choice is the answer. But what does our civilized society do but lock people together who would generally prefer to be unlocked from the matrix. City streets, grade schools, middle schools, high schools, college campuses, market places, work places, its all the same, people being jammed into tight spaces ~ where all the shootings happen.

That's why country people nail up "no trespassing" signs and stay out of the city where they'd have to listen to rap music blaring from the car stuck next to them in rush hour traffic. They cherish their peace and quiet and keep a rifle or two on the wall above the mantel to keep it that way.

Solve the elbow room problem and you'll be a hero(ine?)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
If you think that the individual states are going to do any better at governing themselves than Washington DC, then you have misplaced your faith in such things, I'm afraid.

Politicians in individual states are just as corrupt as those in Washington DC, and just as easily bought by the special interest groups.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
If you think that the individual states are going to do any better at governing themselves than Washington DC, then you have misplaced your faith in such things, I'm afraid.

Politicians in individual states are just as corrupt as those in Washington DC, and just as easily bought by the special interest groups.



Yes, but they live next door!

It's not as easy to screw someone over when you live in the same neighborhood.


Politics in inherently corrupt but you must admit that we have better odds keeping tabs on them and holding them accountable at the state and local level than thousands of miles away in DC.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
If you think that the individual states are going to do any better at governing themselves than Washington DC, then you have misplaced your faith in such things, I'm afraid.

Politicians in individual states are just as corrupt as those in Washington DC, and just as easily bought by the special interest groups.



That's probably all true, BUT when an individual state goes tits-up due to poor decision making on the part of it's governing body, it need not affect the rest of us other than as an object lesson in what NOT to do. When the Federal government does it, it crashed down on ALL of us.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


What makes some people able to handle big cities and close quarters with others? Why is that for some people "hell is others" and for others, hell is loneliness? Is it characteristics we are born with or without? Nature? Nurture? Cultural education that values individualism or social conscience?

This is a whole other question to delve into, and it is an interesting one. But in this conversation, I didn't mean to go into "why" this is the case, only point to a probable outcome of such an event.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


That's not what I said. I said a) I do not have any guns, and b)not all weapons fire a bullet or draw blood. Both are true, but neither equates to firearms being unnecessary as defensive tools. I also do not drive nor have a car, but that doesn't mean I think no one else should, or that they are useless.


You said "to answer your question"- my question asked about firearms in particular (guns) and whether those could defeat the American military- I didn't mean to misinterpret your answer, I am sorry if you felt I did. It was not, in fact an answer to my question then.



Simple question: are these people who are "not planning" a civil war armed right now, or are they not?


Some are, some are not. I do not know for all of them. I know two of them have a gun for sure. They were both willing to go through whatever checks and controls would be enforced -but they are both people with no criminal record, no mental illness, etc. The others I don't know, never asked.
But I imagine that if things continue to heat up this way, more and more talk of revolution happens and no gun control is put into effect, they would feel forced to get some for self defense. If gun control was put into effect, they would feel less threatened.
It's one thing to know there are crazy violent people outside your door screaming that they are going to start attacking, another to know they are armed.





Now here is why it's a problem, and why just leaving the guns alone at this point won't settle it down. Because the gun issue is so much clearer, it has served to shed light on the intentions that all of the other abuses are leading up to. People are seeing how the chain of events build up one upon the other, how each lays the foundation for the next in an ever tightening noose, and from that they can project where the events are leading to, whose neck the noose is tightening on. They're not going to just let the guns issue settle the entire thing now, because they can see the rest much better, and they don't like what they are seeing.


I understand they see things this way and that is why I do not buy the assertion that there will be no more danger if everyone is allowed to keep their guns. The danger will continue to grow for those who have seen these changes as moves in a positive direction.
I personally think the Obamacare plan is a mistake, but probably not for the reasons you do. But like I said, I don't want to make this discussion about you and me- nor even a judgement on which side of the country is "right" or "wrong" (in my mind there is none).

The problem seems to me that the country is simpy split in what they want it to be, and I find that a flammable situation right now, and if it blows up, I think it is the people who will get hurt the most- civilians hurting civilians. The government, the US military, is not going to suffer much. They've been built up to a strength meant to scare the whole world at this point! Sometimes our most formidable oppressors are our own defenses- we put up walls to protect ourselves and they make us prisoners.

It would be like an overcrowded rat cage.
edit on 6-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by frazzle
 


What makes some people able to handle big cities and close quarters with others? Why is that for some people "hell is others" and for others, hell is loneliness? Is it characteristics we are born with or without? Nature? Nurture? Cultural education that values individualism or social conscience?

This is a whole other question to delve into, and it is an interesting one. But in this conversation, I didn't mean to go into "why" this is the case, only point to a probable outcome of such an event.


I guess the easy answer is that we are not all the same. There is nothing worse than being lonely in a crowd.

Hope I'm not going too far off topic here, but as far back as the 1920's small family farmers have been agressively pushed off the land and into urban areas. Although booms and busts in the economy and the resulting foreclosures were mainly responsible for it, there was also tremendous social pressure on rural kids in public schools who were openly mocked by townies for being "dumb farmers". We lived in the country and although the only animals on our land were cats and dogs and bears and such, my sister often declared she would NEVER be a farmer because of the way some of her friends took such a mental beating in school. And it wasn't just from the other kids, teachers and counselors also got in a shot now and then, urging farm kids to aspire to be doctors or lawyers so they could be RICH and never have to get their hands dirty again. ROTFLMAO.

On my last couple of trips back to the midwest it was most depressing to see hundreds of acres of soy beans and corn etc. for mile after mile on big agra farms surrounding the occasional abandoned farm house rotting off its foundations.

So long to strong extended families and neighborhood pie socials, hello to GMO foods and plastic people.

TBH, I pity today's city kids who have never known the joy of dipping their toes in the old swimmin' hole. If it isn't built of concrete and steel its an alien creature. So yeah, many have adapted. Whether or not they're happy in their concrete jungles and whether or not they can survive the coming ****storm is another issue. The storm is coming, either way.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

You said "to answer your question"- my question asked about firearms in particular (guns) and whether those could defeat the American military- I didn't mean to misinterpret your answer, I am sorry if you felt I did. It was not, in fact an answer to my question then.


I suppose it is me who should be apologizing for misinterpretation of the question, then. What I read was this:



So they would also support the government using it's forces to control these uncivilized parts of the population... which is where we circle back to the question of- can you defeat your government with these arms you have?
Against their many other forms of weaponry and technology?


I think it was the specific use of the word "arms" that threw me. There are a lot more sorts of "arms" than just firearms. Compound that with the use of "weaponry" and "technology" by the supposed opposition, and perhaps you can see where I went wrong.

The FIREarms in the possession of the people are but a single component of the overall picture, but a vital one. Would they alone do it? No, but they are integral to the overall scenario. The question should perhaps more properly be phrase not as "can you do it with (just) your guns?", and be more along the lines of "can you do it WITHOUT the guns?"




Simple question: are these people who are "not planning" a civil war armed right now, or are they not?


Some are, some are not. I do not know for all of them. I know two of them have a gun for sure. They were both willing to go through whatever checks and controls would be enforced -but they are both people with no criminal record, no mental illness, etc. The others I don't know, never asked.
But I imagine that if things continue to heat up this way, more and more talk of revolution happens and no gun control is put into effect, they would feel forced to get some for self defense. If gun control was put into effect, they would feel less threatened.
It's one thing to know there are crazy violent people outside your door screaming that they are going to start attacking, another to know they are armed.


Ah. So if the fearless Leader outlaws their guns, they would of course turn them in, post haste, right? After that, what are they really going to do against the "crazy violent people outside their doors" who elected NOT to give up their guns, but revolt instead? They can't very well go to war against the rebellion with the guns they just gave up, can they? Pitchforks, perhaps?






I understand they see things this way and that is why I do not buy the assertion that there will be no more danger if everyone is allowed to keep their guns. The danger will continue to grow for those who have seen these changes as moves in a positive direction.
I personally think the Obamacare plan is a mistake, but probably not for the reasons you do. But like I said, I don't want to make this discussion about you and me- nor even a judgement on which side of the country is "right" or "wrong" (in my mind there is none).


Well, you see then! There is a basis for rapport, an avenue towards communication. As long as talking is still open, violence is far less likely. There wouldn't be any "danger" to them if there were no unilateral edicts issued against the other side. If they feel "threatened", I submit it's because they know, deep down, that they have unjustifiably pissed off their opposition, and left no opening for dialog. It may be a win of sorts for them, but it's not a permanent or a secure one. There IS NO "right" or "wrong", there is only consensus, which will not be found either with unilateral edicts or open warfare. Open war IS, however, a frequent response throughout history to unilateral edicts when there is no way out.



The problem seems to me that the country is simpy split in what they want it to be, and I find that a flammable situation right now, and if it blows up, I think it is the people who will get hurt the most- civilians hurting civilians. The government, the US military, is not going to suffer much. They've been built up to a strength meant to scare the whole world at this point! Sometimes our most formidable oppressors are our own defenses- we put up walls to protect ourselves and they make us prisoners.

It would be like an overcrowded rat cage.


There is no doubt that if it blows, it's the people who will be hurt the most. That's the way it always works out. The entire government could be obliterated, and it would STILL be the people who are hurt the most. That's why I think it would be a good idea to immediately halt all efforts to make one half the slaves of the other half.

That didn't work out too well last time.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I think the reality is that the people are much more united than it seems. The two-party system has devolved into a situation where the two parties take opposite sides of any issue just to be different more than any real conviction.

The politicians are the problem. Not the people. And I dont believe that the people have anything to fear from the military, the military will not be called out to fire on the public and I seriously believe they would refuse.

The country is much better off than the politicians and the media keep trying to scare people into believing it is.

The strength of the country is the people.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I understand. I am a born and raised city girl. But at the age of two, I used to get out at four AM and could only be found blocks away, naked, in the middle of a cow pasture, standing amongst the cows. Now, I cannot understand how there was a dairy farm in Los Angeles! There surely isn't anymore. But I always wanted to live in the country, despite the values I was surrounded with, which dictate that intellectual skill and careers are superior.

I now live in a rural area, with lots of animals, work with livestock, have everything I need to live independantly if necessary, and am very happy. The contact with the earth and physical effort fulfils me.

But I must admit that part of this desire was born from two things- being highly independantly natured- I don't trust anyone. If they aren't bad willed (few are) they are just plain dumb... or they could be just human and prone to mistakes, and I'd rather be subject to my OWN mistakes so I can at least learn from them and maybe do better next time. In short, I have some social handicaps when it comes to interdependance.

I'm also extremely sensitive, and get overstimulated easily. That can be helpful when I need to pick up on subtle changes in an animal, or the weather, but painful in a crowd.
But my husband is different, and somehow he is more at home with others, is able to trust, and really is at his best amongst lots of people.
This is why I said, we might not all be the same- some can handle the traffic jam, for example. Hubby most often has about two friends with him and they socialize during the jam and have fun!

Did my education make me so independant? Or was it genetic? I am not sure. But it often makes me wonder if our american values might be turning out more and more independant minded people, which would account for our lack of solidarity as a nation. (or people who get overstimulated and start shooting people....)
edit on 7-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Ah. So if the fearless Leader outlaws their guns, they would of course turn them in, post haste, right? After that, what are they really going to do against the "crazy violent people outside their doors" who elected NOT to give up their guns, but revolt instead? They can't very well go to war against the rebellion with the guns they just gave up, can they? Pitchforks, perhaps?


Yes, of course, they have said they would give them up if it became law- they are not criminals. I know one of those two people have a gun only because it belonged to his father, is an antique, and has sentimental value (he has never used it) but he said once that he would give it up if necessary.
But what they want is gun control- limitations, not total banning of all firearms. They'd like people to be responsible with firearms, and not leave them available to their troubled teens and clumsy toddlers, not be packing if they have been hospitalized for schizophrenia, etc.

But in the case of a revolt and the people currently calling themselves "lawful citizens" decide to be instead criminals, yes, they would have problems defending themselves and their homes, and many of them would be killed by the rebels. This is what I called sad. The guns would be used for killing ordinary citizens, not "government".




Well, you see then! There is a basis for rapport, an avenue towards communication. As long as talking is still open, violence is far less likely. There wouldn't be any "danger" to them if there were no unilateral edicts issued against the other side. If they feel "threatened", I submit it's because they know, deep down, that they have unjustifiably pissed off their opposition, and left no opening for dialog. It may be a win of sorts for them, but it's not a permanent or a secure one. There IS NO "right" or "wrong", there is only consensus, which will not be found either with unilateral edicts or open warfare. Open war IS, however, a frequent response throughout history to unilateral edicts when there is no way out.



No, I do not see it as you do. They know the other half of the people are pissed off, and do not want the same thing. They do not see it as "unjustifiable". They feel there is good reason to make changes in the country.

I cannot see the proposed solutions as "unilateral". We have used the Obamacare as example of a controversial subject- one problem I see with it is that it is an attempt to mix universal healthcare with capitalism. Making it obligatory to have insurance, with companies that work for profit! This attempt to please the other side is one of the (many) big mistakes.




There is no doubt that if it blows, it's the people who will be hurt the most. That's the way it always works out.
The entire government could be obliterated, and it would STILL be the people who are hurt the most. That's why I think it would be a good idea to immediately halt all efforts to make one half the slaves of the other half.

That didn't work out too well last time.



I doubt seriously that the entire government will be obliterated. Not by the same conservatives who felt it most important to put tax money into that governments military.
Not by people with guns. ....Maybe another government with some technology, like the capability to do a high altitude EMP attack or something, but not a bunch of people with guns. The bunch of people with guns will kill a bunch of people on their street, in their town, for a while, until the government decides the rats have killed enough of their own and it is time to stop them.

It is true that in a democracy, the majority tends to win decisions, and the minority can feel "oppressed" because things are not going the direction they wanted.
What did our anscestors do that was effective against that? They left the country. They founded another one, or they joined one that had a structure closer to their own preferences.

Just sayin'. That is what I noticed in my history studies as a kid. That is what worked for them. The "fighting and killing your countrymen in the area your natal land" wasn't so successful an idea.....
edit on 7-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


Obamacare is unconstitutional, the "assault weapons" ban is unconstitutional. it's just that simple.

..though if you need me to explain it to you, i will gladly do so...



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


....and that has what to do with my assertion that was made in this thread, and opposed, that I think a revolution would end up killing more civilians than anything else, becoming closer to a civil war instead, and being a very sad event.....???

I didn't challenge whether any of those things was right, wrong, good, bad (constitutional or not) and am starting to feel like all this stupid arguing with me because of that one simple opinion is just trying to distract people from registering that very simple, strong, and thought provoking possibility. Trying to lose it in all the bullcrap and nit picking!!

I am american. The republicans, the democrats, the conservative, the liberals... they are ALL MY COUNTRYMEN!
YOU AMERICANS IN THIS THREAD ARE MY BROTHERS!!!!!

None of you have a life that holds more value than the other. No matter what the Constitution says (or the Bible, or the Coran, or the Bhagavad Vita, or whatever other friggin' book or written work says )

-and you are treating me condescendingly without reason and I STILL say-

It will be sad if you and your neighbor kill each other. Sad and stupid.
edit on 7-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by Daedalus
 


....and that has what to do with my assertion that was made in this thread, and opposed, that I think a revolution would end up killing more civilians than anything else, becoming closer to a civil war instead, and being a very sad event.....???

I didn't challenge whether any of those things was right, wrong, good, bad (constitutional or not) and am starting to feel like all this stupid arguing with me because of that one simple opinion is just trying to distract people from registering that very simple, strong, and thought provoking possibility. Trying to lose it in all the bullcrap and nit picking!!

I am american. The republicans, the democrats, the conservative, the liberals... they are ALL MY COUNTRYMEN!
YOU AMERICANS IN THIS THREAD ARE MY BROTHERS!!!!!

None of you have a life that holds more value than the other. No matter what the Constitution says (or the Bible, or the Coran, or the Bhagavad Vita, or whatever other friggin' book or written work says )

-and you are treating me condescendingly without reason and I STILL say-

It will be sad if you and your neighbor kill each other. Sad and stupid.
edit on 7-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)


I don't believe it's nitpicking..i'm pointing out faults in your argument...

the people are mad over things like obamacare, and the proposed gun ban...just look at new york....

your argument is that you think a revolution would kill more civilians than anything else....talk about that, instead of trying to justify and explain away the catalysts that have the ability to spark a violent revolution..

People are mad about them BECAUSE they're unconstitutional, and the people know it.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
be careful seabag ,you might be labeled al-Qaeda and end up in Guantanamo Bay



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus


I don't believe it's nitpicking..i'm pointing out faults in your argument...

the people are mad over things like obamacare, and the proposed gun ban...just look at new york....

your argument is that you think a revolution would kill more civilians than anything else....talk about that, instead of trying to justify and explain away the catalysts that have the ability to spark a violent revolution..

People are mad about them BECAUSE they're unconstitutional, and the people know it.


Fault in my argument? Where? Even those that started out picking eventually agree- the situation is flammable, even if this one issue of gun control has a positive outcome, it most likely will not calm the situation. You, I, and these others agree on that point.

Yes, people are mad... and the other people know it... I see you agree with me on this as well.


I know the stance on the second amendment and I have discussed my personal opinion on that in threads dedicated to that topic (of which there are many). I did not share that here because it is not the topic.
The topic here is the possibility of a revolution in the USA. What did you want to explain to me on that subject???



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by frazzle
 


I understand. I am a born and raised city girl. But at the age of two, I used to get out at four AM and could only be found blocks away, naked, in the middle of a cow pasture, standing amongst the cows. Now, I cannot understand how there was a dairy farm in Los Angeles! There surely isn't anymore. But I always wanted to live in the country, despite the values I was surrounded with, which dictate that intellectual skill and careers are superior.

I now live in a rural area, with lots of animals, work with livestock, have everything I need to live independantly if necessary, and am very happy. The contact with the earth and physical effort fulfils me.

But I must admit that part of this desire was born from two things- being highly independantly natured- I don't trust anyone. If they aren't bad willed (few are) they are just plain dumb... or they could be just human and prone to mistakes, and I'd rather be subject to my OWN mistakes so I can at least learn from them and maybe do better next time. In short, I have some social handicaps when it comes to interdependance.
---
Did my education make me so independant? Or was it genetic? I am not sure. But it often makes me wonder if our american values might be turning out more and more independant minded people, which would account for our lack of solidarity as a nation. (or people who get overstimulated and start shooting people....)
edit on 7-2-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)


Well there you go, at the tender age of two you already knew cows were nicer than most two leggeds. And you got the choice to spend most of your time with the former. I think you already know how lucky you are, lots of people never get to make that choice and those are the ones you need to watch out for because they’re becoming dissatisfied with their “assigned roles” in life. OTOH, many people don’t know what they WOULD do if they got to choose because they’ve been robotized to plug along one unhappy step after another so they stay immersed in the petty distractions that are provided for them.

That’s why the whole cows analogy is so interesting. Many millions of cows aren’t treated as well as yours, they’re branded, have their ears notched (ownership), are bought and sold, trucked from pillar to post, crammed into knee deep in sh*t filled holding pens and they remain docile right through the shoots and into the slaughtering pen. Why is that? Well, its because they’re cattle and don’t have enough sense to realize that they could gang up on the owners and kick the sh*t out of any who use them badly.

So back to your convo with nenothtu. In old Europe, the people were mainly unarmed and helpless before the church and/or the state, just like cattle (chattel), and many did not CHOOSE to pack their bags and take untold risks to come to the new world, they were plucked off the streets and hauled out of Newgate prison (et al), chained and shipped here to serve the needs of their “new” masters, as indentured slaves.

Key point, they were unarmed and defenseless against the press gangs, even to protect their own children from “kid nab” (the original term for it). They simply disappeared.

Yes, some immigrants did risk everything to break away from the old structure. Why did they do that? No, it wasn’t for “better structure”, the early comers didn’t WANT structure, just the independence to live and die by their own skills and on their own terms. Unfortunately it wasn’t long before said structure was forced on them to an ever increasing degree until people today are once again being treated as cattle to be branded and sent through the shoots at the whim of the “owners”.

But it isn’t working out that well for the owners this time around because there is a growing number of old breakaway mossbacks out in the brush who see what happens to recalcitrant little bulls in the school yard pens who are soon separated out and dosed with drugs to make them docile and to make them believe that the sweet green grass on the other side of the fence is a trick, an illusion. They believe it so well that if someone opened the gate they’d huddle together until someone hit them with a cattle prod.

Thing is, the mossbacks are armed and promising to defend themselves AND the young bulls which is a scary proposition for the owners who see their high lifestyles being threatened. Oddly enough it also frightens many of the residents of the holding pens who know that if the status quo is maintained, someone will come around every morning and throw them a flake of hay and maybe some grain. Well, at least that’s what happens until the little beefies have been fattened enough to be served up as a sacrifice in another one of the owner’s bloody foreign wars of conquest.

We need more hat and fewer cattle.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by Daedalus


I don't believe it's nitpicking..i'm pointing out faults in your argument...

the people are mad over things like obamacare, and the proposed gun ban...just look at new york....

your argument is that you think a revolution would kill more civilians than anything else....talk about that, instead of trying to justify and explain away the catalysts that have the ability to spark a violent revolution..

People are mad about them BECAUSE they're unconstitutional, and the people know it.


Fault in my argument? Where? Even those that started out picking eventually agree- the situation is flammable, even if this one issue of gun control has a positive outcome, it most likely will not calm the situation. You, I, and these others agree on that point.

Yes, people are mad... and the other people know it... I see you agree with me on this as well.


I know the stance on the second amendment and I have discussed my personal opinion on that in threads dedicated to that topic (of which there are many). I did not share that here because it is not the topic.
The topic here is the possibility of a revolution in the USA. What did you want to explain to me on that subject???


the reasons behind the potential revolution.....

don't take this the wrong way, but you are infuriating sometimes, lol

people are mad about the bull# healthcare legislation, people are MORE mad about the bull# gun legislation..

You tried to explain away both of them away as being justifiable, and potentially beneficial...THAT'S what i take exception to. i was just pointing out that they're wrong, counter to what you were saying..nothing more, nothing less..



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leonidas
I think the reality is that the people are much more united than it seems. The two-party system has devolved into a situation where the two parties take opposite sides of any issue just to be different more than any real conviction.

The politicians are the problem. Not the people. And I dont believe that the people have anything to fear from the military, the military will not be called out to fire on the public and I seriously believe they would refuse.

The country is much better off than the politicians and the media keep trying to scare people into believing it is.

The strength of the country is the people.


They are getting more united, but there is still a ways to go. I'm seeing and hearing things out of people now that I would never have believed even a year ago. Liberal types rejecting gun control, that sort of thing. I reckon they are realizing that if they don't stand for my rights when they're under assault, there will be no no one left to stand when it's their turn at the chop block.

On the other hand, some, the more "progressive" types, are trenching in. I think they know what's coming, and are filling sand bags, but just can't fail to support their Fearless Leader, whether he's right or wrong. Some of those are in my own family. I'm probably gonna hate having to take them down.

When folks won't listen to the reasonable, they will have no choice but to listen to the unreasonable.

What we are seeing is most of the nation coming together with legitimate concerns, and the extremists on either tail end of the spectrum getting even more extreme.





new topics
 
107
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join