Liberal Hypocrisy Exposed

Yet hillary paid Russians.

 

I don't accept your premise that armed resistance to tyranny necessitates "terrorism". One can resist without targeting noncombatants. One could even resist without fighting if they were clever.

In any case, I would argue that the police are already at war with Americans. They have said so themselves: That's why they call it a WAR on drugs. Except you cannot wage "war" against an inanimate object, only other humans. So the war is actually a war on Americans by the government. And resistance to this war is widespread and varied. Some resistance is violent but most is not. I have argued that resistance to gun bans and confiscation would take on a similar appearance. Indeed, the failed experiment with registration in Connecticut already proves as much. Residents of Connecticut were just like, "Nope, not registering." And that was that. Firm but simple noncompliance backed up by threat of arms.

By not identifying themselves as hostiles. By blending in with the civilian population. By waging "information warfare". Any use of drones and tanks would be severely limited in America anyway. Even tyrannical governments require a base of support.

 

I became confused. I thought I was reading a thread started by logical1.

 

Right, so you don't question the armed populace narrative (i.e. a check on tyranny) because government tyranny is so unthinkable, but because any resistance to such tyranny would be futile. Correct?

Why not?

Most of the rank-and-file people would do the right thing. They are just "regular" people. But the highest levels within government are all filled with people who have massive ambition and a fascination with power.

 

I'm not sure what to make of that.

 

Sometimes my typing is faster than my brain. Sorry.

 

No problem.

Any thoughts on the thread topic?

 

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. It's all perspective.

Registration does not inherently lead to confiscation that's a slippery slope fallacy. If there were say a constitutional amendment requiring registration but protecting gun rights there is very little chance of confiscation. Given the difficulty of amending the constitution this is all pretty much dead in the water anyhow.

OK, so they do all the things you are talking about successfully. Now how do they overthrow the government? That's not going to happen and that's my point. You may be able to have pockets of resistance, but anything organized and large would be easier to shut down. The US police force alone has access to armored vehicles and military grade weapons. It would be practically impossible for civilians to wage any sort of war against the police. You also have to assume that a large percentage of the population would be on board with the new gov. I would say maybe 30-50%. That would mean that a lot of people would actively work against these civilians and their attempts to fight back.

 

I think both of those things are true. A totalitarian take over in the US is not likely. Resistance of the civilian population would be futile.

History tells us the Military would not be on board with overthrowing a president/tearing up the constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

 

Really I don't. I'm pissed that the puppets in Washington don't have enough back bone to take trump out of office if for nothing else dereliction of duty and even treason. However, I'm (hopefully) confident that they would get off their asses and do something before things reached a 'boiling point'.

 

I agree. But one can avoid using terrorism as it is defined and still resist tyranny. The two practices are not inextricable.

Since when has the government let a little thing like the amendment process stop them from doing what they want to do?

And it would be a slippery slope fallacy if there weren't historical evidence of the connection between registration of arms and their confiscation. Theoretically, the two can remain separate, yet historically they have tended to merge as one. Historical evidence trumps abstract theory. Registration should be seen as an incremental step towards confiscation.

I don't know what you mean by "overthrow" the government. I don't even know why you keep bringing it up specifically, as my original point does not hinge on such a scenario. I am merely talking about generalized armed resistance. That could take many forms and produce varied results.

Anyway, why do you keep bringing up their big shiny weapon systems? The entire point of guerrilla warfare is to negate the technological advantage of a conventional foe. Ever heard of Vietnam? A bunch of rice farmers with rifles and homemade bombs versus jet fighters, helicopters, tanks, etc.

 

You are romanticizing insurgencies. They tend to decimate civilian populations - they almost always involve terrorism. If they are successful, they tend to set up governments that are even worse than those they overthrew (Cuba, Soviet Union, Mao's Revolution, Napoleon's little mess, Taliban, Libya, South Africa, The first French Revolution) or they devolve into long term guerrilla battles that just feed off the civilians and keep any progress from happening.

The American Revolution was one of the few that really worked - and that was only because the British weren't that committed to preventing it.

So whenever I see people posting about "armed revolution" I immediately know they have their rose-colored glasses strapped way too tight.

 

You funny dude. Go ahead, take on the U.S. military....bring all your friends.

 

Okay, but at least you are consistent. You aren't going around like some people and claiming that Trump is a racist, fascist tyrant-traitor. This thread is directed at those people.

"The military" is not a monolithic entity. And Smedley Butler was an exceptional person in the right place, at the right time. Relying on luck is not a good way to protect a republic. And I'm sure you've read Butler's "War Is a Racket" essay? He basically says the US government is under the control of war profiteers.

 

I'm not going to give you some kind of twisted fantasy battle blueprint. It is quite acceptable to assume that a militarized force that represents less than 1 percent of the population could not maintain control over an armed 99 percent, no matter the difference in the scale of arms. This reality was actually outlined in the federalist papers as part of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.

 

Both the right and left are hypocritical. One example of this is state's rights.

 

Here's the problem - you honestly think that 99% of Americans are going to take up arms against the government? That truly IS a twisted fantasy.

 

I was in the US military. Trust me when I say, most Marines are not liberals. Do not make the mistake of thinking the US military is somehow on your side, rooting for Hillary Clinton to become president.

Anyway, I never said anything about taking on anyone. I am pointing out the glaring hypocrisy of gun-grabbing Trump-haters. Predictably, several liberals have tried to evade the point I was making. You are just the latest one to do so.

 

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. - Madison

 

I don't see the hypocrisy, as a pro-gun liberal. But I'm not pro-gun because I have fantasies about a bunch of hillbillies with grandpas shotgun, or even preppers with AR-15s, being a serious threat against a real modern military. I'm pro-gun because I haven't seen evidence that strong gun control is effective policy.

I don't know that Trump is any more complicated than being a narcissist with no principles and a profound level of retardation on what constitutes effective policy. But I guess that makes him perfectly representative of America as a whole. We got the horrible leader we deserve and our country should be ashamed.

The fact that he has no principles would explain why he would defend Russia, as they have promoted his interests, with or without his "collusion." Though whenever he says it, it makes me think of a toddler defensively claiming he has not pooped his diaper despite the obvious smell all around him.

 

Wait, what did he do that was good?

 

It's his fantasy, not mine, and there is no problem. The people are the 1st branch of government. They secure this authority with the right to bear arms. No one needs to be shot in order for that authority to be recognized, but without the arms no recognition needs to be given.

We don't have to use nuclear weapons in order for our enemies to respect the fact that we have them.

 

How is pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump-haters "romanticizing insurgencies"? Why do liberals always try to distract from the point being made?

Whether you believe an insurgency would pan out disastrously or swimmingly is neither here nor there. It's just speculation anyway. The POINT is that many liberals have been claiming loudly and often that Trump is one of the most evilest and worst people in the world. Well, if that's the case, then how can these SAME liberals turn around and scoff at the idea of an armed populace being needed as a guard against tyranny? You keep trying to change the subject by shifting the discussion to the mechanics of such resistance. That is irrelevant to my argument.

 

Whose fantasy?

 

If the US government has been hijacked by a traitor, as you claim, then doesn't that prove how important it is to have an armed populace?