The Second Amendment won't help against government tyranny

[Q]

- Just this morning on DU I saw more rants against 'gun control' and the idea of using guns against a tyrannical government if they 'cancel' the next election or bring martial law.

- I have to say that this idea is just plain silly. Does anyone really think they can oppose the US military, national guard and law enforcement with a couple guns? The proper term for this would be: suicide. That's why we can't wait for things to deteriorate to the point where this type of thinking is even considered.

- Instead of worrying about your guns being pried from your 'cold fingers'...work to keep the entire BILL OF RIGHTS alive.

- As many of you know, the Patriot Act(s) and 'homeland security' laws have already beaten the Bill of Rights to death. As aware citizens...I don't have to tell you how many of these 'rights' still exist. You know they're hanging by a thread and some have been outright eliminated in the name of national security and the perpetual war on some terrorism.

- You're not going to be able to 'take back your country' with guns. The only way this can be accomplished is by restoring a Constitutional/Representative government through activism and peaceful dissent. It won't have to come to violence if you just do your part as American citizens and demand that government officials be made accountable to the Constitution and Rule of Law.

- Put your guns away and make the Bush* government accountable.

[MrBenchley]

1. You will notice that the loudest voices

in public life screaming about that bogus "gun rights" crap are scumbags like AshKKKroft, DeLay and Cheney...who are themselves the biggest threat to the Bill of Rights around.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Agreed. This is political sleight of hand of the worst kind. We can't

get distracted and focus on the true essential issues.

[DUreader]

3. Guns Are Not Even Necessary, Dissent on A Large Scale is Enough

[Wcross]

11. Yup, tell the Chinese that.

Ever hear of Tiananmen square?

[DUreader]

32. That Proves Only That 1 Concentrated Protest Is Not Enough

Ever Hear About What Just Happened In Bolivia?

[the_boxer_]

65. They didn't have a bill of rights to begin with Wcross....

[Indiana Democrat]

4. SILLY????

You've GOT to be freaking kidding me???

There are over 100 MILLION armed American Citizens. Plus, the American military is made-up of those 100 Million citizens.

You grossly underestimate the potential of the average armed American and their brothers and sisters in the military.

I'll keep my firearms AND make Bush accountable, thank you.

[bryant69]

6. Agreed

I don't have firearms myself, but I don't see any reason why one can't work against President Bush through protests and voter awareness drives while still retaining ones firearms.

Taking your firearms to demonstrations might not be the best idea, on the other hand.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Q]

9. I never suggested you 'give up' your firearms...

...so don't attempt to frame the debate that way.

[Indiana Democrat]

20. No...

...You just infered that the 2nd Amendment is "Silly".

Our military personnel are Americans, our police forces are Americans. And if you don't think they would side with us, and agaisnt the government, you obviously don't know any of them.

[Q]

25. I didn't infer that the second amendment was 'silly'....

...I plainly stated that it's better to fight for ALL the Bill of Rights instead of depending on the second amendment once the rest of your rights have been eliminated.

- It's too late then.

- And yes...I fully expect law enforcement and the military to obey orders if martial law was established.

[Indiana Democrat]

28. Sigh...

If you really think the military and police force would turn on you and me and side with a tyrannical government, I feel sorry for you...I really do.

These people are the Patriots...The bravest of the brave. These people literally put their lives on the line everyday. Do you think they do this for the low pay they receive??? Guess again. These are the kind of people who hold the constitution, and in this case, its 2nd Ammendment MOST dear.

Your post is flawed. Horribly.

[oneighty]

61. Gee!

All my service years I did exactly as ordered each and every time, as I assume you did while serving your country in the military. Right? If I were ordered to kill civilians that is what I would do.

180

[Indiana Democrat]

79. "If I were ordered to kill civilians that is what I would do."

You're not a patriot.

[oneighty]

86. Disabled veteran here.

Korean War veteran. Do not tell me I am not a patriot.

How about you?

180

[Indiana Democrat]

89. I cited your comment...

...And made my judgement based on that ONE comment. And I stand by it.

It needs to go no further.


And thank you for serving my country. I never took the opportunity.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. Well, the Chinese military did fire on the demonstrators at Tiananmen

and throughout history, there have been countless examples of armies firing on their own citizens.

I'm old enough to remember the Kent State shootings, when young National Guard members (not even regular military) opened fire on students approximately their age from the same part of the country. You've all heard that story, I'm sure. What you may not realize, if you weren't alive and aware at the time, is that a huge percentage of Americans---probably the parents and grandparents of today's Freepers-- actually applauded the shootings and thought the demonstrators got what they had deserved. The percentage would have been higher if the demonstrators had shot back or initiated a gun battle.

Less well-known, but occurring during that era, was the killing of two students at a predominantly black college, Jackson State. Because the students were black, this story generated almost no outrage and quickly fell off the front page.

A shooting war, a new civil war, would be more horrible than you can imagine. Get rid of those romantic images from Red Dawn--think Sarajevo or Somalia or Lebanon. It means living in a ruined neighborhood with no electricity or running water or heat or dependable source of food. It means knowing that a sniper might get you if you set foot outside your door to get water out of the nearest river, or a shell might get you even if you stay inside. (An American of my acquaintance loved living in Lebanon during peaceful times, but she brought her Lebanese husband and son back to the States after a shell destroyed the son's bedroom just minutes before bedtime.)

It means the people in your own neighborhood suddenly trying to kill you after years of getting along fine. If you live in the country, it means that rampaging mobs from the other side might go house to house massacring people and/or destroying their crops and livestock.

So forget leading the valiant freedom fighters over the barricades to strike at the forces of tyranny and being awarded with a tickertape parade by a grateful America. A more likely scenario is that the U.S. authorities will mow you down the minute anyone in your group aims a gun, and half the country will think THEY are the heroes.

Our greatest enemy now is not lack of guns. (America has no gun shortage.) It's apathy and ignorance. Most of the public barely realizes and doesn't care that our Constitutional rights are being stripped away. If they fully realized the implications of a vote for Bush, they'd get rid of him and his whole despicable crew, and there would be no need for armed revolt.

[the_boxer_]

68. Thank you for an excellent post Lydia Leftcoast!

:yourock:

[LMacNeill]

14. AMEN!

Making the government accountable to the rules of the Constitution means forcing it to adhere to ALL the amendments -- including the 2nd amendment... (And the first -- we need to repeal the McCain-Feingold political-speech repression act ASAP, but that's a different topic...)

Most politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have FORGOTTEN that it's the Constitution that made this country what it is... A Representative Democracy with the RULE of LAW being supreme, not just what is necessarily popular or politically expedient at the moment... Those who are in power are supposed to be subject to the Constitution the same as the rest of us... A fact very much forgotten by most administrations (not just Bush's) during the majority of the 20th century...

Laurence MacNeill
Atlanta, GA

[Q]

15. Well said. There is no reason to take guns away...

...and that's not even an issue.

- The issue remains: We're either a country with a Constitution and rule of law which everyone follows...or some Banana Republic where the leaders can break the law with impunity.

[Beam Me Up]

52. This is precisely the point!

"We're either a country with a Constitution and rule of law which everyone follows...or some Banana Republic where the leaders can break the law with impunity."

Given the lies upon lies upon lies that make up the current regime, we have become more the latter than the former. But, WHO is being held accountable? DO we see our system WORKING in the way that it should?

I agree that an "armed rebellion" will not work in this country. They have us "out gunned" on many different levels. "Waco" anyone? What the vast majority of people believe to be TRUE in any particular situation has all become a matter of "media spin."

However, I also agree that there are honorable people within the armed forces and law enforcement. These are the people those of us who SMELL SKUNKS IN DC need to be talking with. I'm not afraid to talk to an FBI agent. I simply WANT MY COUNTRY BACK--and I don't see why they wouldn't want the same thing. It is in THEIR best interest that those in power BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SAME SET OF LAWS that govern them, as citizens, and everyone else.

[absyntheNsugar]

49. Exactly

As the Doors song goes...they got the guns but we got the numbers.

And better if we have the guns AND the numbers!

[Indiana Democrat]

50. We do have the guns AND the numbers.

And we always will.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Tell that to the folks in Iraq

Conventional weapons seem to be working fairly well for them as they do in every insurgency.

[Q]

7. Iraqis aren't using 'guns'...they're using bombs...

...and suicide attacks.

- I can't take seriously the talk of fighting against the US government if it came down to something like martial law. And if you think the military/law enforcement would hesitate to blow your ass away...just look at what recently happened to protestors in Florida.

- I'm sure the Bush* government loves the false sense of security guns gives to certain citizens...but they won't even consider your popguns when it comes to eliminating the Bill of Rights and martial law.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Not entirely true

The bombs are getting the big news, but they are also using small arms.

And sorry, I saw no "military/law enforcement" blowing protestors away in Florida.

I don't consider it likely anyone will try to take my gun away. I can't guarantee that I would succeed defending myself, I can only guarantee I would try. My ancestors lost their freedoms and had no guns to take them back.

[Q]

13. I used the Florida protests as an example...

...because of the kind of TACTICS they used against relatively peaceful protestors. Rubber bullets? Gas? This was simply overkill.

- Of course they didn't blow anyone away. But things would be different under a scenario such as martial law.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Having lived in D.C.

The concept of police using teargas is not new to me. I've seen it a bunch already. Rubber bullets are a bit different, but there is a HUGE leap to anything worse.

Now, what do you mean by "relatively" peaceful protestors? Isn't that like saying they weren't peaceful?

[Q]

27. Then forget 'relatively'...

...they were using undue FORCE and violence against peaceful protestors. This is undisputed if you look at the videos

- We're living in a very different world now...and if you think the national guard/military would hesitate to shoot protestors...(especially during martial law)...then think back to Kent State.

[the_boxer_]

71. Exactly Q! Here's a quote from Joseph Stalin that best explains it.

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas. - Joseph Stalin: Brutal Dictator Extrordinaire

[the_boxer_]

69. The people of Iraq aren't fighting their own government....

They are fighting occupation. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[tom_paine]

8. You know what they used to say in the 60s, Q

The people generally advocating then to break the law were usually the COINTELPRO people.

Records released since then (the likes of which will never be seen by our descendants even 50 years from now due to the Imperial Seal now being put on all "National Security" records), show that they were largely right.

It is something we should all bear in mind.

[Q]

12. Yeah...where IS that COINTELPRO guy?

- He'll probably show up any minute.

- The Bush* government...as they have clearly shown against protestors...won't hesitate to use 'modern' weapons on dissenters during a time of martial law. They have a whole arsenal of 'chemical' weapons that would either quickly put you to sleep or stun your nervous system.

- So put your muskets away and get involved in making this government accountable to the people.

[Democrats unite]

17. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

That goes for Governments too!

[Q]

18. The government has no interest in 'outlawing guns'...

...because they present no danger to them.

- This thread is NOT about giving up your guns. I certainly don't care if you have a gun. More power to you....so to speak.

- I'm referring to the foolish talk about 'fighting' government tyranny with a gun as opposed to peaceful dissent.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. Believe what you want

If it ever became that bad in the U.S., guns would be a useful device.

[Democrats unite]

21. I am reminded of the American Revoulution...

The Civil War, it's a fact of our history and will contine to do so. Half my Family hasn't died in vain due to wars faught for this Country, to let some asshole like Bush ruin it! Guns may be the only answer. Screw the peace shit!

[Q]

23. They didn't have copters and nerve gas in the civil war...

....so I don't understand the relationship to this thread.

- My very point is that we can no longer depend on firearms to fight against a tyrannical government.

- Screw the peace shit? No offense...but isn't THAT the position of the the Bush* government?

[Democrats unite]

26. Don't see the relationship to this thread?

Surely you ca do better than that. I don't care what the Government has! If they trash the Constitution I will use whatever is at my disposal to stop them. If you want to call me a Bushlite go tight ahead I'll wear it proudly! I have been here long enough to know you always try to win your arguments by associating the other person with bush or Republicans.

[Q]

29. They haven't already 'trashed' the Constitution?

- Where the hell have YOU been? The fact is that they've already trashed the Constitution and you haven't been able to stop them.

- I don't think you're a 'Bushlite'. I'm just calling you on what you think is a 'good idea' in opposing a tyrannical government with guns.

- For all intents and purposes...the Constitution/Bill of Rights is nearly dead. What good have your guns done in preventing this?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Good post and true. Violence is impractical and adolescent.

The idea of shooting it out with the military is not only couterproductive but just plain stupid.

First point. Who are you going to shoot? Some GI or cop? A politician?

Second point. If you should accomplish the deed, what next? Another GI, cop or politician?

Third point. America isn't some third world country where you can form some army hiding in the jungles or mountains or even among the urban populace. The government has the capabality of becoming an instant police state (even more than it is now).

Fourth point. Without a real national catastrophe, i.e. a complete collapse of the economy like the Great Depression, violence will only turn the populace against you. Revolutions don't work unless the mass of the people want one. This isn't Russia ca. 1917 or France in 1789 or China in 1948.

Fifth point. The ONLY way of winning back the country is to win the people to our side. Violence, or the threat of violence, does nothing to accomplish that.

Violent revolutions in industrialized countries don't work. Anyone remember the "Red Brigades" in Italy? The "Baader-Meinhof" gang in Germany? "The Red Army Faction" in Japan? The IRA?

If it should ever come to a revolution in this country, instead of guns and violence think of "Solidarity" in Poland or the "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia. Passive resistance and general strikes accomplished what violence never could have.

Visions of shooting it out with the government are the things of movies and adolescents and will only alienate the people.

[Democrats unite]

24. think or Russia 70 years!

No thanks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Would you like to translate your post?

"think or Russia 70 years!" "no thanks."

A reply in a coherant sentence would help.

[Indiana Democrat]

35. You just don't get it...

Quoting from your post...

"The idea of shooting it out with the military is not only couterproductive but just plain stupid.

First point. Who are you going to shoot? Some GI or cop? A politician?

Second point. If you should accomplish the deed, what next? Another GI, cop or politician?"


It will be us AND the military AND the police against THEM (Anyone STUPID enough to represent the government, ie: Politicians and/or Buerocrats.

And "Them" don't stand a chance in HELL. THAT is the point, and reality, of the 2nd Ammendment.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. The most reactionary parts of society are going to join "us"?

Funny, in all the years of this nation, I can't think of a single instance in which the military and cops joined the left (which I presume you mean by "us") to oppose the government.

The Labor movement?

The civil rights movement?

The anti-war movement?

The anti-WTO/NAFTA/corporate movement?

Perhaps you can fill me in on the ones in which the cops and military of this country took the side of the left.

[Indiana Democrat]

80. Let me tell you something...

...If it ever came down to it, those who would join with us would not care ONE BIT about the idiology of us. As I wouldn't care about theirs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. What in the hell are you talking about?

"...If it ever came down to it, those who would join with us would not care ONE BIT about the idiology of us. As I wouldn't care about theirs."

What is it that you would be fighting (killing) for? If you "wouldn't care about ideology"? Or would it be just for the hell of it?

[Indiana Democrat]

85. I thought it was pretty clear...

If our government turned tyranical, I would take up arms against it...And I wouldn't stop to ask the person I'm standing beside, or firing at, if he was a liberal or a conservative.

The Chicken Littles running around screaming that it would be open season on liberals obviously have never interacted with true constitution loving conservatives. Hell...Even the whacked-out hardcore kook militia conservatives would stand sholder to sholder with us.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Another example:

the "singing revolution" in Estonia, where people gathered in the public squares and sang banned songs, or the partly violent revolution that was triggered in Romania in 1989 when some brave person finally heckled Ceausecscu and gave the rest of the crowd the courage to join in.

As one Romanian woman said in an interview, "We could have done this (heckled Ceausescu) at any time, and we didn't."

Or remember the way the Red Guard movement in China finally fell apart after some factory workers beat up a team of Red Guards who came to order them around. Up till then, everyone had cowered before the gangs of rampaging teenagers, but those factory workers from Beijing showed everyone that the Red Guards were cowardly bullies.

I hate to quote Nancy Reagan, but the best defense against tyranny is "Just say no."

[the_acid_one]

31. Oh Contraire

The military wouldnt help the government in the long run.

I sincerely doubt any military could wage sustained war on a well armed citizenry. The numbers are just to much in the citizens favor, you can also wager there will be military deserters who bring heavier hardware to the fold.

In addition, the "national guard" is made up mostly of ordinary citizens, not government devotees, and a ton of cops would side with the citizenry.

I'm sorry, but no ammount of technology is going to help their chances much. You must remember the military would not use the most devestating weapons in it's arsenal on US soil.

What's kind of funny is you'll see anti-gunners say "There's no way that armed citizens could fight the military"

And then use that as justification to ban the very weapons that are most effective! After we really are reduced to muzzle loaders and break open shotguns. Then yeh, they'll be right. But right now...there is some serious hardware in private citizens hands.

Everything from .50 BMG sniper rifles to 40mm grenade launchers. Yes, that's right, automatic grenade launchers just like the military has. In addition to millions of semi-automatic rifles that fire the same caliber rounds as the military out of the same capacity magazines, and also several hundred thousand fully automatic machine guns.



We are not nearly so castrated as you think. The citizenry is so much better armed then a "few guns" as you so quaintly put it. We're at least as well armed as the cops, in many cases, better armed.

When you think "armed resistence" you think Uncle Jim and Cousin Bubba-Ray trying to hold off a tank with their SKS's

When I think armed resistence I think myself and several of my former military friends, one of whom is an explosives expert, using squad hit and run tactics with improvised explosive devices, moltov cocktails, 37 MM "flare launchers" loaded with explosive rounds, buckshot rounds, or good old fashioned flechette rounds. Not to mention both semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons with 20 and 30 round magazines.

Now imagine 50 million gun owners (there are more..much more..but lets say less for fun.) doing the same thing. Also remember that the gun owners most likely to fight are either current military, ex military, current cop, or ex cop...meaning...we have experts in our fold.
We're so much more then a few goons with hunting rifles and double barrel shotguns....

Plus, You severly overestimate the militarys numbers, might, and willingness to use truly extreme force. There are not going to be carpet bombing missions on US soil. Sorry ;)


They would try to do everything with armoured vehicles, helicopters, and most of all, infantry going door to door, and guns work plenty well on infantry....

If guns are so worthless and outdated, why the fuck does the military still have them? Because they still work.

You can also wager that if our government got truly bad that other countrys would come to our aid. I mean seriously...there is just no way the government can wage war on it's citizens and expect to win. Especially not in a country that had it's beginnings in a revolutionary war.


Of course, this is all speculation. I sincerely doubt that the government is going to get oppressive enough to warrent taking up arms anytime in the next 25 years.

However, your condescending tone towards gun ownership certainly wont help to sway the millions upon millions of us to come to your aid if push does indeed come to shove.... ;)

[Q]

33. What do you call the current government...if not 'oppressive'?

- And push has already indeed come to shove.

- I believe many of you have the mistaken impression that the Bush* government has to actually USE force of the military to take your rights away. They've already done this...and didn't have to fire a shot.

- The 2000 election wasn't a 'close race' ...it was a coup. Nobody rioted at the illegal decision of the Supreme Court and Bush* was installed without much of a problem. It was a perfectly executed bloodless coup.

- A quick study of the Bush* administration will show you that they have ignored the Constitution and eliminated most of the Bill of Rights without consequence. Take a look at the Bill of Rights and tell me how many of the amendments are still intact?

- I won't accept your argument that I'm being 'condescending' to gun owners. I own a couple guns myself. My position is that we must do NOW what we won't be able to do later if martial law is enacted: make the Bush* government accountable to the people and OUR rule of law.

[the_acid_one]

47. Annoying, at best.

I dont like the government anymore then yall do. But in all honesty it hasnt affected my daily life one single bit. I do what I want, I say what I want, I go where I want, and I really doubt Uncle Sam gives a damn (Cool rhyme!).

In all honesty, I feel that Bush has signed some annoying legislation that I disagree with, and that's about it. I dont feel that my rights have been compromised much at all as of yet. As obviously, I am not in jail for "political dissent". I would hardly characterize our current government as "oppressive" without some severe stretching.

When I really see them interfereing in the day to day life of myself or people I know, then I might change my tune. But I cannot justify even considering taking up arms against the government as is. When abortion is banned, homosexual marriage is banned, owning certain books is banned, and they put Jesus on the dollar bill. Then yeh, that's oppression. This?

This is nuscience.





I believe many of you have the mistaken impression that the Bush* government has to actually USE force of the military to take your rights away. They've already done this...and didn't have to fire a shot.

How so? I still do all the same things I did when Clinton was President. The change of office has yet to affect me or anyone i know, with the exception of one guy who swears it's Bush's fault he cant get a job, when in fact he wont apply for anything that is not a 60-120K a year "dream job" in the waning IT field.


The 2000 election wasn't a 'close race' ...it was a coup. Nobody rioted at the illegal decision of the Supreme Court and Bush* was installed without much of a problem. It was a perfectly executed bloodless coup.


AFAIK Bush won the Electoral College, which of course, elects the President. This is not the first time the winner of the popular vote does not become President.

An outrage? Maybe. But this is how I was taught the system works in school. When the election fiasco was going on and everyone whined about the popular vote I just wanted to know what the EC said because that's the only thing that mattered.

Do I like Bush? Fuck no. But no matter how much I dislike him he is President, even if he's not a paticularly good one, and I certainly dont want to discard the Electoral College due to a vote that didnt go my way. Shit happens. I deal. In 9 months Bush is gonna be out of there, and if not, then another 4 years isnt that long either.


I won't accept your argument that I'm being 'condescending' to gun owners. I own a couple guns myself.

Then please accept my apology. Something about the tone I read your post in kind of irked me. I just severely disagree with people who say that citizens owning firearms is ineffectual. Most likely it was the way you downplayed it. Someone on another thread did something similar and refered to citizen owned firearms as "pop guns"...which to me makes it apparent this person has no idea what's out there in citizens hands. It left a bitter taste in my mouth and apparently some of it was still in when I read your post. Once again, I apologize.

I do however, agree with you that we should act now to further lessen the chances of martial law coming to pass, I just disagree on what would happen if it did.

[Q]

84. That you approve of your own gilded cage...

...means little to the rest of us concerned about the erosion of civil and human rights IN America.

- The tone of my post is one of concern that too many Americans think they can just grab a gun and get their rights back. That's dangerous thinking...especially when it ignores the FACT that there's not much of our Bill of Rights left in Bush's* America.

- And one more thing: it's been proven that Bush* DIDN'T WIN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Election fraud and vote purging put him in a position to make it appear as if a 'close race'.

[Indiana Democrat]

87. Great post.

[Indiana Democrat]

34. Well stated!

The lack of comprehension in this post of the intent and current-day realities of the 2nd Amendment is staggering.

[Q]

36. Perhaps you could explain the 'intent'...

...and 'current-day realities' of the second amendment instead of copping out with your 'lack of comprehension' statement?

- The 'current reality' is that without the rest of the Bill of Rights...the second amendment holds little meaning. The current reality is that the days of the civil war are gone...with a government capable of using modern weapons and the media to label dissent as 'unpatriotic'.

- Some of you seem to want to relive the civil war. And some accuse we liberals of 'living in the past'.

- On edit: please keep in mind that my argument has nothing to do with taking guns away from citizens. That's never been the point even though some of you continue to intimate that it's part of my position.

- The idea is to fight to keep the Bill of Rights intact instead of having to fight a superpower government later to restore it.

[Indiana Democrat]

37. More than ANY OTHER Ammendment...

...The 2nd Ammendment literally GUARANTEES our freedoms and liberty from a tyranical government.

Keep bashing the military...Keep stating that those in the military will take-up arms against us. Keep doing it...And when, and if, the time comes, be sure to make a great big sign that reads: "Screw the oppresive military". You'll go down with any government officials who are foolish enough to think the military is on THEIR side.

In other words, our military is you and me.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indiana Democrat]

43. Oh forget it...

...if you don't think the military is us, then you're a lost cause. Good luck siding agianst the rest of us if the case ever arises. Here's a hint: You'll LOSE.


(And I never said the 2nd Ammendment is the "Only one" as you stated. I said it, more than any other, guarantees our freedoms and liberty. YOU need to stop making shit up).

[Q]

73. I would agree that the military is compromised of US citizens...

...and that few of them would follow an illegal order. But under a scenario like martial law...it wouldn't be an illegal order to fire upon someone threatening the peace or 'national security'.

- What makes you think I would 'side' with the government? I'm fighting against government oppression RIGHT NOW...not waiting to take up arms in the event of the worse case scenario.

[the_boxer_]

76. Martial Law means the suspension of Habeas Corpus...

Meaning anyone (including those with guns) can be whisked away, detained with no right to trial or attorney indefinitely and be categorized as an enemy of the state.

[Selwynn]

66. If it came down to it, miltiary would side with government.

And by the way, if your so certin that the military would be on our side, then the argument about needing guns to defend against "tyranny" STILL doesn't work. :) 'cause that's what the US military is for.

[Indiana Democrat]

81. You couldn't be MORE wrong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Hmm, in my limited trips into Free Republic

I've found a lot of gun enthusiasts there, the types who post tender, loving pictures of their gun collections or photos from catalogues about what they want to buy next.

You think the Freepers wouldn't delight in the chance to go kill off liberals? You think they'd hesitate for one second if the government declared open season on liberals?

[randr]

38. When the only right we have left

is gun ownership, guess who will be prying our dead fingers off of our guns!

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[supercrash]

40. Q, You are so wrong...

Look at what a handful of rebels can do in Iraq where there are 25 million people...the US military cannot stop them

Just imagine the US with a bunch of angry people uprising..half the military would revolt, the government would be crushed to say the least, It would take something pretty bad to cause a uprising, yanking the constitution out from under our feet just might do it

The military wouldn't stand a chance, the bodies would pile up fast

[Indiana Democrat]

42. Not half the military...

...closer to 99.9% would revolt.

These people serve because they are Patriots...They are "We".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. And if "liberals" are characterized as

"enemies of the people," then they'll go after the liberals. Remember that most tyrannies use their own people to clamp down on their own people.

I once heard a talk by a former Salvadoran soldier from a peasant family, who had participated in massacres of peasants like himself. Why? Because his superiors had told him that those peasants were contaminated by Communism and were the enemies of God. By killing them he was doing God's work.

It was only after he learned to read and read the Bible for himself that he realized that Jesus would never have condoned what he was doing. So he deserted and fled to Mexico, eventually ending up in the U.S.

Here's the scenario: the Busheviks tell the military that anti-Bush forces are made up of anti-American, atheistic, terrorist-supporting, quiche-eating, elitist, Communist, Socialist, PBS-watchin' liberals who congratulated Saddam Husseiin for attacking the WTC, and you just watch the military get down to suppressing dissent.

History is so full of cases of ordinary soldiers willingly oppressing people just like themselves that your faith in the U.S. military seems naive.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Indiana Democrat]

54. Debating with the "Turner Diary" mentality???

I'll remember that disgusting swipe in the future.

I'm not one to use Alert functions on message boards but this is a case where I wish someone would.

[Q]

55. Now...if you'd only remember that the 'enemy' is the Bushies...

...and not some innane remark on the internet.

- It's strange that so many are willing to defend their right to own a gun but don't have much to say about the 'missing' first and other amendments.

- I wasn't referring to the 'Diaries' and you in particular. It's the 'mentality' of allowing a government to turn to shit through inaction and then expect guns to guarantee the type of freedom they didn't fight hard enough for in the first place.

[the_boxer_]

78. I agree with you Q....

In such subtle was as we the sheeple will relinquish our rights in the name of security to a government that has taken power illegally. This same government is using war and alerts and national security to slowly steal more power from the sheeple and our "congress" is all too happy to let it happen.

What Q is saying makes sense. We don't have to give up our guns. That isn't even his point. His point is to create awareness so that we know what is slowly becoming a Military Police State that will not stop at anything to consolidate power so that a few elitists can get and remain rich via corporate wealth and that dissent will not be allowed. It's called Corporate Fascism and it's just as deadly as Fascist Italy, Germany, or the USSR.

Remember folks, it's "We the People (guns included) but we have to excercize what little power we have to restore our Bill Of Rights/Constitution. We have to speak up and loudly.

No one is telling you to get rid of your guns because it would be antithetical to what I (and I believe Q) is talking about. Which is retaining all of our rights.

[Nlighten1]

45. Fighting tyranny with terrorism.

You are right Q. The limited amount of firepower that over the counter guns give us will be squashed by the military and police forces superior firepower.

So were does that leave the powerless? Look around the world and you will see plenty of examples...Columbia, Middle East...etc.

[FreakinDJ]

46. Reality is

The lone man that stood in front of the tanks in Tienanmen Square China, (without a gun) had much more effect the a hundred armed rebels lurking in the dark

Talk about armed revolt will give Ashcroft the reason he needs to claim the Internet is subversive. That members of the board are subversive. They will begin by rounding us up, shutting down the dissenting boards. Eventually shutting off the Internet

THEN WERE WILL YOU BE

Peaceful protest in full view of the American Public is the most powerful weapon we have

[supercrash]

48. The greatest thing about this planet is...

That if the sheep zombies that make up the US population don't snap out of their trance, and the country does get taken from us, we can always move out...There would be no reason to stay in such a place.

There was one group of people on the planet that could have stopped the Iraq war, they are the US citizens...if they spoke up against this war in numbers the government would have to listen, Imagine 88% of the country was protesting aganist the war...It would have never happened...But that didn't happen did it ?

You would think that losing the constitution would wake them up....but it hasn't so far, ....But there is hope, I am sure some of you have seen what I have seen...I see people slowing changing their minds about Bush and Ashcroft...not the hardcore hacks, but they were republicans ...People ARE coming around

[the_boxer_]

82. One thing, supercrash, is that this admin has control of the media

via super corporations. They have the ability to tell the American people exactly what they want them to hear. This is why so many think that Georgie is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Remember the start of the war? The mainstream media (the kind the sheeple watch) was sensationalistic! It was basically cheerleaders with very short mini skirts yelling Hooray Hooray Hooray! They were just following the orders that the admin had laid forth.

[TreasonousBastard]

51. I agree.

The thought of the country descending to the point of armed resistance is too horrible to contemplate. If it goes that far, we've lost it all. There can be no winners in such a scenario.

Should martial law be declared, and that is a long shot barring some horrific catastrophe, passive resistance would probably be the key.

I have no doubt that uniformed forces would generally follow their leadership and there won't be massive defections from the military and police. Kent State and police performance during demonstrations have shown that they don't sit back and question their orders. They assume that the leadership is doing what is right and proper for the country.

Of the millions of armed Americans out there, many of them would agree with the government or have other reasons to not join any resistance. Others would be in lightly organized small bands using guerilla tactics. A large, organized insurrection would have little chance against the superior arms and organization of government forces. That is, if anyone could even organize a large insurrection. Doubtful at best.

Looking at the countries where dictatorships have been installed one way or another, it does not look good. Whether it be armed coups, or subjugation of democracy, nations have been reduced to rubble by rebellion. I don't want this place to become either Nazi Germany or present day Columbia.

[YNGW]

58. Q

I may disagree with you and many others on any number of various topics, but I assure you that if a coup were to be attempted in this country, I would stand arm-in-arm with many people whom I disagree to fight tyranny, and so would many of our right-wing neighbors. More frequently here, the word "fascist" is use to describe the type of takeover. RWers believe that "socialists/communists" would like to do the same thing. Any movement by the government, whether done under Democratic and/or Republican control, would be an act of war upon the people. At that time, all party affiliations are off the table. Period. We group together or we die together. Besides, let's all keep in mind that history shows us the first people sent off to the gulag's after the "fascist/socialist/communist" takeover were many of the supporters who helped it come about. It wouldn't be any different this time.

[Beam Me Up]

60. YNGW

Do you believe the current administration was fairly elected?
Do you believe they had no foreknowledge or complicity in the events of 9/11?
Do you believe that the war in Iraq is a just cause, a policy based on accurate intelligence?

Do you believe the current administration in fact honors their oaths of office and are attempting to protect the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution? That their policies, actions and decisions favor WE THE PEOPLE or their corporate, banking and military-industry benefactors?

It looks to me like "an act of war upon the people" has already been made. The BEAST already occupies the halls of power. The question now is WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT.

BMU

[YNGW]

67. It wouldn't work now.

The consenses of the people is not there now. You know it. I know it. Four and five years ago, the Repugs would have said The BEAST already occupies the halls of power. Unless one is of the opinion that both parties serve the same corporate master, then both sides see the other as the BEAST.

Gitmo is not enough. A terrorist or two here and there are not enough. However, a large portion of the population starts getting loaded on trains and sent away because they are "Juden", or "liberals" or "conservatives", or they are told "no more elections", or similar things, the people will not stand for that.

[Beam Me Up]

70. agreed

but we may not have long to wait

[Character Assassin]

59. Wrong. Simply, clearly, flat-out wrong

Does anyone really think they can oppose the US military, national guard and law enforcement with a couple guns?

Yes, easily. 180,000,000 citizens vs. the armed forces? With a substantial amount of the those citizens veterans and over 150,000,000 guns in private circulation.

Let's hope it never, ever comes to that.

[Selwynn]

63. Yeah, right...

180,000,000 citizens will never organize together in that fashion, no matter what, and guess what, even if they did, the US militiary is still stronger.

[Character Assassin]

74. Yes, right

180,000,000 against a most likely unwilling US armed forces domestically?

No contest. Citizens win.

[Q]

72. Do you know how many people showed up to protest...

...Bush* being illegally installed into office? A few thousand at the most. Everyone else sat home and watched it on TV...helpless to do anything about it.

- The Bushies won't have to roll tanks into the streets in order to 'yank' the Constitution. They won't need any kind of force at all. That they have the media under their control is enough to convince Americans that they still live in a Democracy.

- We're talking about a government that can 'legally' search your home without a 'warrant' and jail you without due process as a 'terrorist' just on the basis of an accusation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. First you have to convince those 180mil to move left.

Or, at least a substantial majority of them. But, then you wouldn't need guns, would you? Just a general strike would do the trick without playing playing rambo.

[Selwynn]

62. I couldn't agree with you more, Q!

You are a fascinating fellow to me. I strongly agree with you about 50% of the time and then just as strongly disagree with you the other 50% of the time! :)

Keep it commin!

[the_boxer_]

64. Great post Q!!!!!!!!!!

One thing I have to say is that once each right is gone, it will be tough as hell to get them back. We have to educate the masses as the "Revolution will not be televised."

[Moderator]

90. I'm locking this.

This topic is more appropriately discussed in J/PS. It violates several GDF Rules, not the least of which are an inflammatory subject and immoderate rhetoric in the OM.

For reference ...
Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator