Liberal Hypocrisy Exposed

Richards was the one originally asking for a detailed plan of attack. It's his fantasy of an unwinnable armed conflict with the entire police and military force.

 

No - it shows how important the Special Prosecutors role is in government. It shows how much division of power between the Courts, Legislative and Executive is important. The armed populace is such a poor, last ditch effort against tyranny, that it is almost worthless. Even more so in the days of air superiority. Look at what has happened in Syria. What started out as a "people's revolution" has gotten millions of those people killed.

 

If you're a pro-gun liberal, then you have nothing to worry about. You're good.

But I do wonder why you think an armed population is not a legitimate check on tyranny. Clearly the founders believed it was.

 

Right, thank you for reminding people of this. Anytime I broach a subject like this, there are always a few people who confuse my theorizing with actual planning of some sort and before I know it some buffoon is threatening to report me to the FBI for something I didn't even say. I just wanted to make sure we all knew what was being discussed and who actually brought it up.

 

It was never a people's revolution, unless you consider an army of foreign mercenaries and Jihadists "the people" of Syria. In reality, the Syrian government has the most support from the Syrian people. But in either case, it makes no difference. My argument is not: Insurgencies are easy and fun. My argument is: Trump-haters are saying we live under tyranny RIGHT NOW. Clearly, they have not thought through the implications of that position.

 

Warfare was different back then. Rifle power was a more significant factor in winning wars, but now riflemen are more to occupy territory than destroy the enemy. They also got lucky in the sense that France was able to put a check on Britain's naval power, but the balance of will was clearly in the founders favor. In an all-out war it's a matter of advanced machines. On the other hand, a determined insurgency could probably wear down a more powerful military force, but the success of that insurgency is not determined by whether they had enough small arms due to prior gun policy. It's really a matter of enough people being determined enough, willing to sacrifice.

 

Trump-haters: You want guns to protect against government tyranny? You are so paranoid.

Also Trump-haters: TRUMP IS A TYRANT TRAITOR FASCIST RACIST PSYCHO

 

It wouldn't be an all-out war. The US government is not going to carpet bomb America. And if they did try to do that, they would instantly lose the support of everyone in America. The only way they could realistically put down an insurgency in America would be to employ the kind of COIN strategy they used in Iraq.

 

Problem is - and I see this a lot on these threads - people tend to call 1% of a group as representative of that group. I dislike Trump because I've seen him in action personally before he was President - I don't believe we are seeing a tyrant, I see the effect of voting for a political leader who doesn't like politics, doesn't understand politics and hates all who are involved in the politics around him.
It's like voting for a new CEO of Ford who has never built cars, doesn't like cars, and hates the people who build cars ... the result is his employees don't like him, they stop working for him, and he finds it hard to hire new employees ... basic chaos and poor management.

 

I'm glad you have this all planned out in a perfect, neat little package of Hollywood style war ... cause heaven knows, wars ALWAYS go exactly as planned ...

Really? WTF.

 

It isn't one percent of liberals who are saying things like that. Virtually all liberals believe Trump is some kind of traitor who "colluded" with Russia in order to manipulate American democracy.

But even if the common characterization of Trump among liberals is one along the lines you've just described, it STILL demonstrates the importance of an armed populace, since incompetence is also capable of producing tyranny. The President is the most powerful person in the world, at least in theory. If that person is incompetent, then they are extremely dangerous.

 

Ah, so you cannot tell the difference between theorizing and planning. It's not a difficult distinction to make, yet you are clearly struggling with it. Please tell me what I can do to help.

 

Big wup, I was in the military before it became "the volunteer" military. Now it's a bunch of morons that think they are fighting for freedom. Here's a clue, every single soldier that has died since WWII, did so for the profits of the industrial military contractors. Kennedy was assassinated because the war machine was making too much money to let the Vietnam war end. All those that died in the Korean war, the Vietnam war, and Iraq and Afghanistan, didn't die for American freedom, they died for the profits of Halliburton and Lockheed and the rest of the contractors. Our economy is based on war. Without war we go into recession, that's why Iraq/Afghanistan wars are perpetual. If we don't use up the bullets and bombs, the war machine gets laid off. And then so does the supporting businesses. Only young ignorant kids think they are bullet proof....once you realize you're not, you don't enlist.

 

I'm sorry, that happening is so far from reality it will never happen. If I'm wrong, let me know when it happens.

 

We cannot have faux liberals owning guns. For they seem to think that guns are responsible for what mentally ill, or evil people do to others. Of course, it takes a mentally deranged or evil person, and it takes a gun. So, it requires two things. At least for killing with a gun. Other weapons could be used, and would be used, if the mentally ill or evil person was intent on pulling such a murder off. It is just too bad we cannot legislate healthy brains and and an end to evil.

Faux liberals know that you can have a billion laws, and it will not stop the mentally ill nor evil people intent on such an act. So, of course many of them want to destroy the 2nd amendment, but this comes from not understanding basic reality. And that reality is, given how americans feel about guns, and the 2nd amendment, any attempt to get rid of guns, and more guns than our population is just impossible. For in america, it is a fact that taking away the right to own guns means, in actuality, that only criminals will have guns. And while you can wish your way out of this reality, and create an alternative reality, you cannot change reality. No matter how hard you can dream, or wish. And it looks like until the faux liberals accept reality, they will never minimize these kinds of murders. But they will in earnest, and seriousness have no problem with giving us an even greater police state than we already have. And a greater post 1984 america than even Orwell could have imagined. Ben Franklin, unlike the modern faux liberal and corporate/banking owned DP, had something which is lacking in today's america. Common sense and wisdom, and the demand for the greatest liberty and freedom, which would limit the ability of gov't to take away rights, driven by fear mongering of those who have no problem is destroying rights, due to an incoherence and a lack of wisdom and basic common sense.

 

I agree with everything you just said. If anything, it tends to support the argument I'm making. Well done.

 

I didn't say anything was happening or going to happen. I just asked you a question.

 

Well, I can't wrap my head around the smug conviction that the government is far too powerful to challenge either. Partly because they share a healthy amount of the blame for the strength of a government that uses threat of violence to enforce all of their social policy. Do they not realize that all of their support for government regulation is only effective if the government has a big gun to point at people who refuse? Do they not want to retain the right to refuse?

 

I dunno, it certain has some merit! I have personally read dozens of post by leftist absolutely claiming/questioning Trumps sanity, willingness to take us to the brink of nuclear war and Beyond! There is hardly any disputing the fear mongering the left on this site has resorted to trying to convince the right what danger we are in supporting Trump, so in my personal opinion and observation the OP is totally on point and you are clearly wrong!

 

Maybe you should "Think About That Yourself" LOLOL. How would it have gone if one side had sticks while the other had cap and ball Better yet, ask a native American what he thinks about the U.S. Government and the Idea they should disarm themselves LMFAO!

 

OK then state some facts that show that I am wrong.

 

You don't get it do you? Your opinion is an opinion, it can't be proven wrong with facts.

 

What? Whatever, we're done here.

 

No, they are slaves, and they like it.

 

Can’t keep up? It’s ok. If you have any questions about what an opinion or fact is maybe try google.