Liberal Hypocrisy Exposed

The facts speak for themselves.

 

Your only solution to problems is war.

I can hardly think of a better reason why you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

 

Think about all the butt hurt liberals with all their money have been searching the world over to get something , anything on Trump . For over 2 years And what did they find ? A locker room tape ? Stormy Daniels? Donald Trump should wear a halo ! Can you imagine if they spent 3 weeks looking into dems . Wow.

 

Mueller hasn't played his cards yet. We don't know what he's found.

But there have sure been a lot of indictments and he is working his way through the food chain.

How many times have Kushner and Sessions had to modify sworn statements regarding meetings with Russians or other questionable activities, that they forgot to cite? Dozens!

You have to be an idiot to not see a problem here.

 

You should probably know this but: "A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false. An opinion is an expression of a person's feelings that cannot be proven."

 

Can't address the thread topic, eh? I must have hit the nail right on the head.

 

Ideally, the mere existence of an armed populace would prevent that from happening. But assuming it did happen, the next step would be guerrilla warfare.

 

Not necessarily the military. Domestic law enforcement has become an army in its own right.

 

That was conventional warfare.

 

No, it's not a strawman. I have been listening to this kind of talk from liberals continuously since Trump was elected. A former head of the CIA has accused Trump of being a "puppet" of Putin; the FBI is conducting an investigation into Russian "collusion", which implies some kind of treachery on Trump's part; the other day a Democrat politician called Trump a "psycho" who is ripping the country apart; examples abound, so don't bother denying it.

 

And I'm fairly confident the military personnel that was ordered to quell the public would fire on their family and friends and obey an illegal order. My guess whoever gives that order it would be his last.

 

Another evasion.

I'm on fire today.

 

So not only are you evading the thread topic, you are proving my point with your rantings against Trump.

You truly believe Trump is some kind of traitorous criminal, yet you are probably the same kind of person who would dismiss the idea of an armed populace as a check against tyranny.

How do you reconcile these totally contradictory viewpoints?

 

You never know.

Americans fought Americans during the revolution and during the civil war.

Americans are increasingly divided and hateful towards one another.

Liberals and neocon Republicans are basically trying to give everyone the impression that Trump is a traitor who conspired with a foreign power to manipulate democracy.

Who knows what the future holds?

 

This would be the same Trump who was King of the Birthers ... a guy who accused the then President of treachery. That's rich.

 

By the way, if the most powerful government in human history is headed by an "incompetent, narcissistic jerk", then what sorts of implications does that have with respect to the necessity of an armed populace?

 

Sometimes it was - but just as often it was war of snipers and tree to tree fighting in small groups.

But historically, the number of insurgencies that have been put down by the established government outnumbers the succesful
revolutions.

 

I am not commenting on the validity or consistency of these accusations. I am commenting on the manifest hypocrisy of someone who claims the US government is in the hands of a racist, insane traitor yet scoffs at the idea of needing an armed populace to guard against government tyranny. My explanation in the opening post was rather straightforward and easy to understand, so I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble addressing the topic.

 

Make a lot more sense to vote him out of office or impeach him than declare civil war.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent -
Isaac Asimov.

 

On net, the conflict was conventional. The vast majority of the key battles were fought almost entirely using conventional forces and strategies. At the end of the war, there were a group of confederate officers who wanted to keep the war going in the form of a guerrilla war but Lee said no.

You got some data to back that up? Not saying you're wrong, but I have no idea if that's true. Just in the past few decades, unconventional forces have managed to withstand the US military in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Kind of blows a big hole in your narrative, doesn't it? Or we could just reference our own revolution, which was fought against the most powerful empire in the world at the time.

But let's assume what you say is true: So what? What sort of person would meekly submit to tyranny just because resistance has a relatively low probability of success? You have to at least try, right?

 

I don't agree that the US civilian population could or would resist the government.

 

You think people would basically take up arms against the police and military? US civilians would drop their cushy lives and become freedom fighter/terrorists?

What would happen when the police and military bring out the heavy equipment? Armored vehicles, drones, tanks, air strikes, etc.? How do people with rifles and hand guns fight against drones and tanks?

 

Except Trump-haters have been telling everyone that Trump conspired with a foreign power to manipulate the election. According to them, the democratic process itself is in question. Unless Trump is removed from the Presidency, he will just use his nefarious, criminal connections to steal another election, right?

I generally agree. I am a big opponent of violence. That is why statists hate me so much, because their statist religion is based on massive violence. That said, there are some instances where violence is totally justified: Self-defense being the most obvious example.

 

So your objection to the armed populace concept is not based on the far-fetched nature of government tyranny in America, but on the practicality of the resistance effort itself?

 

I am actually not anti-second amendment. I do think guns should be harder to get. Which may require an amendment to the constitution or may just require some new laws. I think licensure/registration, training, etc would do a great deal to curb gun violence in this country.

On the other hand I don't believe that the privately owned firearms in this country would stand a match to the US military or even a local SWAT Team.

I also don't think we will see a tyrannical despot take over the US in my lifetime. Efforts to remove presidents have been made in the past and the Military said nope. I trust that our civilian military would do the right thing.