Originally posted by Bluesma
I guess I don't trust them as much as you. It sounds to me like some of them are not real good at thinking rationally. (have you been reading some of
their thought process here??)I also suspect that the action would cut off the distribution of things like food, water, gas... things people need to
live. This means people having to go into action to survive, and all that goes with that state.
Too much trust is a Very Bad Thing. I understand that, but one thing you CAN trust in is the proclivities of people to act in their own best
interests. Randomly shooting unarmed strangers when there are other people trying to very seriously kill you is not in your own best interest - it
wastes bullets you may need later. You're mistaken if you think I trust them to act nice - I don't. I trust them to try to survive. Random murder is
not a good survival trait. You reach a point (and of this I am CERTAIN) where your own people will shoot you, because you've become too dangerous to
Yes, I've read some of the thought processes here, and you must understand that a lot of it is nothing more than over the top rhetoric in order to try
to drive a point home, and much of it is reckless bravado. Some of it is even disinformation, people outputting plans they don't intend to follow,
just so they throw their opposition off, have them looking where there is nothing to find and wasting their time.
I don't know if you've seen it, but I have a thread here
that digs into some of the
supply and demand concerns, and demographics of the situation.
To the people that voted for Obama, they knew what he was going to do. It is not a surprise. They don't feel that these thigns were forced upon them,
they feel they chose and voted for them.
I understand that none of it was forced upon them - that they in fact begged for it. More power to them. The problem is that it was forced upon the
REST of us, with no discussion, no appeal, and no way out. What's good for them may not be good for the rest of us, and there is no Earthly reason
they can't do what they need to for themselves without throwing the same blanket over all of us. None of them has any legitimate claim at all to OUR
money or OUR decisions, any more than we have to theirs.
That brings up another point - they should take care of the power they attempt to exercise over the rest of us, because when that power is wielded by
OUR hands, they may not like what comes down the pike for THEIR own good. By setting this precedent that a minority can force control on a majority,
they may be setting up things that they are not going to like a few years down the road when it's someone else's turn at the wheel.
On the healthcare reform, it was barely mentioned to counter a claim that if the gun question was left alone, there would be no more worry about a
revolution.... I used it as an example of one of the many subjects that the people are upset about and that would continue to fuel revolt urges.
You're absolutely right, it IS but one of several problematic flash points. If some people want something, they should have it - but there is no
legitimate reason to force others to have the same thing. They are trying to set a very bad precedent, and although not a single one of them would
admit it, my stance against it is as much for them, and what THEY may find themselves forced into on down the road, as it is for me.
That goes for the rest, too - it's why I stand against nearly all of it. The precedents they are trying to set by forcing an unwilling, but large,
segment of the population into schemes that they have come up with can and WILL be turned against them at some future date. Best not to let it get
started. One day it will be the other side's schemes, and THEY will be on the receiving end.
I still doubt it would happen. I don't care what terminology you prefer, I will use whichever works for you- what term refers to "those who desire to
start a revolution". I will take back the suggestion that it is the same people who also were supporters of investing in military- in the people I
know personally, there is that correlation, but I have no other reaon to believe it is the same for all the revolutionists, and it is not an important
I suppose "revolutionist" or "rebel" ought to pretty well cover the concept. Revolutions are not dependent on a left-right paradigm. Last century,
most of the revolutions were prosecuted by the "left", now it is the "right" taking the heat, but here there are as many Democrats up in arms as there
are Republicans, and the issue has crossed party lines - perhaps for the first time in my memory. To lay all of the discontent at the feet of
"republicans" or "conservatives" (absolutely not the same thing) is to ignore an important part of the equation.
The important point of it is that the military is very advanced and strong, beyond regular firearms.
True as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Too much reliance on the technological factors ignores the human factors, and that would be a
strategic mistake. Technology fails far more often than human will, and in fact human will can MAKE technology fail - or become irrelevant.
I have seen entire armored columns halted and then trapped by rag-wearing peasants with just a little ingenuity and an implacable hatred of what those
When I try to respond to your post, it will not show half of it! So I have to copy and paste using word and this might get a little mixed up- I'll do
No problem - I do the same.
I don't know about the MSM, honestly. I am not in the US currently and the media in France isn't into this. But in what I have learned of the french
revolution, it got very bloody and people went a bit nutso in their elation. When I read some of the peoples thought patterns on this site, I don't
feel very sure that they would be very careful, nor that they would worry that much about the life of the "liberal" next to them that voted this
administration into being.
Yes, that is a good example of the "aftermath" I spoke of before. It's a factor in all successful revolutions to one extent or another, even the first
American Revolution. Several thousand "tories" were forced to flee for their lives when it was over. Most wound up in Canada and in Bermuda, as I
Help me understand how the revolutionaries are going to be discerning about how they use their weapons, I would like to feel more trusting of this.
Who exactly are these revolutionaries going to attack with their guns?
(I don't mean names of course, I mean a rough general idea of who the enemy is for them that is vulnerable to their weapons).
That's a big subject, perhaps one for another thread. I can't for example, go into the principles of guerrilla warfare here, or how guerrilla war
eventually morphs into conventional warfare over time. Generally speaking, one shoots at people who are trying to kill them, while remaining mobile
themselves. They do not shoot at people who are helping them, nor do they shoot at neutrals - shooting at someone not harming you is a very good way
to lose their potential support, and drive them to be active for the opposition. That's how you LOSE a guerrilla war. The general idea is to make the
opposition drive them to YOU, and you don't shoot at them as they come running. Instead, you welcome them.
It doesn't matter who they voted for before, it matters where they stand NOW. If they pick the wrong side to stand on, well, they'll get the same
treatment the "rebels" would get if the other side were to win. Think deeply on that - what would THEY do to the rebels? That is what they can expect
themselves. If that scares them, then I submit that they perhaps ought to re-think their position on a number of things. It speaks more to their own
mindset and urges than it does to those of the "rebels".
ETA: The rebels would be fighting the government, government agents, and such "civilians" as picked up arms against them. Everyone else would be
mostly in the clear. There is always a criminal element present that will take advantage of the general confusion and mayhem. Everyone - "liberal" and
"conservative" alike should fear them, but not make the mistake of equating them with the rebels. Successful rebellions usually execute those types of
criminals, for the good of the revolution. It helps to get the people on the side of the rebels, by making them safer, and shows that the rebels have
the interest of the people at heart more than the government does.
Note to TL/DR type folks: if you haven't read this far, and aren't reading this, then I don't care. You don't have a long enough attention span or the
patience to fight a war anyhow.
Oh look! A butterfly!
edit on 2013/2/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)