OMG, So Many Americans Have Died Since WA's First COVID Death!!!

a reply to: Nyiah

Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is it is the only answer. Basically sums it up.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DanDanDat

Maybe government should just spend less of our money so they don't have to worry about taxing so much.

If wishes were horses

a reply to: Nyiah

Killing people is a far cry as a "next step" after peaceful protest fails.

Killing people is a last resort.

When backs are against the wall and you have nothing left to lose.

I would like to think that killing people should be taken gravely, and seriously. Not as in, "They locked us in, Ima gonna shewt them" way.

a reply to: DanDanDat

How about they just cut spending by 100000% instead?

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: DanDanDat

Maybe government should just spend less of our money so they don't have to worry about taxing so much.

If wishes were horses

It's easy for government to raise taxes, it's hard to make government spend less.

No one ever said life would be easy or government would be compliant.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Nyiah

Violence is rarely the answer, but when it is it is the only answer. Basically sums it up.

Oh, I know. It just seems like we're all dancing around a bush here no one wants to admit is even in the room. If we step back a second, it's clear we're all on board with the No Violence edict, but...we're not being honest with each other, or ourselves, really. Because there's a line, there's always a line, but we don't even know what it looks like. We've all thrown out theories on what it would take for us to take another step forward, but no one's really willing to try to quantify it in an action or violation.

I think that's because none of us really have any idea if we'd really stand up to the government or not at crunch time.

a reply to: Nyiah

Well, very few on this site have ever pulled a trigger against another living human.

I spent well over 20 in the military and never fired a shot in anger or in self defense.

So even I don't know if I could actually kill someone.

I hope I never have to find out.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah

Killing people is a far cry as a "next step" after peaceful protest fails.

Killing people is a last resort.

When backs are against the wall and you have nothing left to lose.

I would like to think that killing people should be taken gravely, and seriously. Not as in, "They locked us in, Ima gonna shewt them" way.

That's the way it shouldn't work, but does, though. How long are people supposed to put up with being kicked while we're legally forced down and what would our best response be since protesting peacefully falls on deaf ears?

This is what I think us anti-lockdowns are afraid to tackle -- admitting peacefully protesting isn't exactly working in our favor, so what's next as a consideration? Are we at the locked & loaded threshold or not? Some people are saying yes, some are saying no. So who's right, and why?

a reply to: Nyiah

I would hope that there are far more steps between peaceful protest and killing people.

a reply to: Nyiah

I largely agree, but I for one would absolutely stand up to the government at crunch time. It isn't for a lack of fear, because I'd be lying if I said the prospect wasn't terrifying. I think we are on the same page here as well, just varying definitions of "when" that would be appropriate. It would have to be a matter of importance that was so undeniable that such a large portion of the population jointly said "Yes this cannot stand" similar to the the first moves in the first war of independence.

To me, there are still so many other options left before falling back on that. And I think many are expecting a modern day Paul Revere to come riding in to signal the moment which is unlikely. Frankly, its a terrifying proposition even with the mass defections government forces would see. Nobody wants to take a life or turn our beautiful United States into a war zone

Because there's a line, there's always a line, but we don't even know what it looks like.

Agreed! Part if that may be I don't *want* to know what it looks like. But ultimately, if the moment came, I'd like to think we as competent and intelligent adults with our nation's best interest at heart would know what to do. Is that just wishful thinking Nyiah?

a reply to: DBCowboy
No, shooting isn't needed, just a show of force.

Like the armed protesters in Michigan.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Nyiah

Well, very few on this site have ever pulled a trigger against another living human.

I spent well over 20 in the military and never fired a shot in anger or in self defense.

So even I don't know if I could actually kill someone.

I hope I never have to find out.

And deep down, I think this is what most like-minded folks are afraid to say. I think there's an underlying current of what most of us want done at strong odds with what most of use can actually do in crunch time. I know I can say I'm one of them. Can I pick up a weapon in the name of the Constitution if it boiled down to it? Sure, anyone can physically hold a weapon. Could I hit the broadside of a barn, let alone a person? Probably not. Could I stomach killing someone if we were to go full Civilians versus Government? Hmmmm, therein lies the conundrum. The "MAKE ME" brat within says hell yes and they'd deserve it, but the common sense introverted "Just Leave Me Be" Human in the driver's seat is going, "Yeah, I'm not so sure about that, Hoss..."


Honestly, I think we need a different discussion running alongside the Second Amendment debate, and that discussion needs to be very blunt & honest, with no denigration of people who's actual feelings fundamentally conflict with their Talk.

the internatiionalists wage fake warz, to centralize money, natural resources, and POWER.
they have hit the nail on the head with this fake world warr 3 scenario.

if you read any literature from the 1800s, you will know it was protocoled that they needed 3 world warrs to control the planet.

now they have it. they will keep dropping these fake pandemiks until they get their beloved oneworldgov.
oneworld money system.
oneworld banking system.
oneworld cattle and wealthy system.

its well played on 'their' part.
'they' are a patient people.
by deception 'they' wage war.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Nyiah

Agreed!

Part if that may be I don't *want* to know what it looks like. But ultimately, if the moment came, I'd like to think we as competent and intelligent adults with our nation's best interest at heart would know what to do. Is that just wishful thinking Nyiah?

To be very truthful...all our talk is one thing. Without competent and intelligent folks knowing what to do with their experience & knowledge to prepare, as well as teaching others where they can, it might be wishful thinking, yes.
I tried real hard to find a way to soften that, but there's just no way to sugar coat it more.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DBCowboy
No, shooting isn't needed, just a show of force.

Like the armed protesters in Michigan.

A show of force is a useful tool indeed, but sooner or later, someone irate protestor seeing nothing but blind rage is going to get an itchy finger and pull a trigger. My issue with that is what kind of contingency plan is needed to wrangle that curve ball from within? That's the kind of stuff missing from discussions that worries me.

originally posted by: Nyiah
To be very truthful...all our talk is one thing. Without competent and intelligent folks knowing what to do with their experience & knowledge to prepare, as well as teaching others where they can, it might be wishful thinking, yes.
I tried real hard to find a way to soften that, but there's just no way to sugar coat it more.

Good point. That is why I mention the militias. They are supposed to be that kind of organization.

A show of force is a useful tool indeed, but sooner or later, someone irate protestor seeing nothing but blind rage is going to get an itchy finger and pull a trigger. My issue with that is what kind of contingency plan is needed to wrangle that curve ball from within? That's the kind of stuff missing from discussions that worries me.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but aren't militias supposed to be trained and disciplined in order to pull off this type of show of force without some yahoo starting a shoot-out?

Someone pointed out that in one of the pics of those Michigan protesters it looked like a group having a go at bad cosplay.

Are militias even real?

a reply to: burdman30ott6 .
Its about time to revisit this thread . Total us deaths sit at 97,426 . Interested on what your thoughts are now , keeping in mind of course that this number would be much higher if restriction were not put in place .

a reply to: hutch622

Its about time to revisit this thread . Total us deaths sit at 97,426 . Interested on what your thoughts are now , keeping in mind of course that this number would be much higher if restriction were not put in place .

They could've been a lot less if Cuomo and Newsom hadn't forced
nursing homes to accept China virus positive patients.

a reply to: carsforkids

They could've been a lot less if Cuomo and Newsom hadn't forced
nursing homes to accept China virus positive patients.

Do you have a link for that .

a reply to: hutch622

Not a problem

a reply to: carsforkids
Your link says that they were just following federal guidelines.

Also, that 4,500 confirmed CV patients were sent to nursing homes and that here are 3,094 confirmed nursing home COVID-19 deaths. So it seems that the nursing homes had protocols in place to handle these discharged patients and they handled it well.

That does not support your claim that "they could have been a lot less if Cuomo and Newsom hadn't forced nursing homes to accept China virus positive patients."