That is just even more of a reason to fight.

Even if others see it as a narrow minded waste.

The way I see things, it is far better to die on our feet fighting them every step of the way than for us to give an inch and live the rest of our lives on our knees.

It wouldn't be a siding against the states. It would be a matter of the people vs. the government. If that time came many would side still with the government but I bet a deceptive number of people would provide intel or at least some form of support.

If there were to be another war it would be handled very different. When the Americans fought the British they were appalled that we didn't line up and fight. We're clever and were going to use that to break the rules of warfare so it works in our favor. You'd be surprised how effective a group of "nighttime militia" can do. That is they are perfect law abiding citizens by day but by night they use subterfuge and heavy explosives to take out targets. This worked in France against the Nazis. It worked in Vietnam against us and its working in Iraq. After wearing them away long enough it could tip the scales.

Yeah but it would be one bloody drawn out street by street, house to house,and hilltop to hilltop Brawl.

Also my next and final Personal Weapon Purchase.

Puma Rifle's Reproduction of the Winchester Model 1892.

It has a large loop lever (I always thought the rifleman kicked ass).

It is a .357 Magnum Carbine (Well it does make good sense to have a longer ranged firearm in the same caliber as your sidearm,simplifies the hell out of any supply problems)

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...ducts_id/48624

Night time militia, aka insurgent army. Which, as I already said, can't function without the support of the local populace. You used the insurgents in Iraq for example so I'll use your example to prove my point. Anbar province was an insurgent hotbed until the local Sunni population, same sectarian group as the insurgents as well, got tired of their crap started going against them. The area wasn't a hotbed for insurgent activity for much longer.

That is a better term. If it actually comes down to the point of revolution it is presumable that there will be more than just a few for the idea. The Iraqis are doing a really shitty job of fighting off the US because they are killing off many of their citizens in the process. That's not a very good way to be getting supporters. It does show that even an unpopular rebellion can get their opinions felt. It would draw a lot more attention in America though, because Americans only really care about whats happening in America and what influences America. Vietnam was a better example of what that kind of insurgency can accomplish. America never really won that battle.

It isn't that we never really won that battle, we lost. Anyway, Vietnam or Iraq, both are not very good comparisons. In both cases we're talking about a foreign occupying power vs local insurgent population. Civil war is almost better, as that was an uprising against the government. Problem is that, during the Civil War, the Confederates were pretty far from an insurgent army and much closer to a standing army. There for, the fight was more like two nations clashing. It just so happens that one of the nations rose up from within the other. Still, the fledgling Confederacy rose up in the south, which had a population that shared their views of the Union's actions and a good chunk of, if not the majority of, the citizens supported them with material aid, comfort and shelter. That's when they didn't outright join them.

In the modern day it would be like if the fledgling confederacy would have tried to form in the heart of a northern city. In which case the would be rebels would never have had a chance to form into the Confederacy as they would have been put down quick. This is also failing to take into account modern surveillance technology.

As for your "night time militia" of goodies by day, insurgents by night. It wouldn't last long as the cover of being a goodie two shoes by day would be quickly blown. There's sophisticated software out there, first developed in Las Vegas to catch cheats and crooked dealers, that finds even obscure connections between people. With the government and private databases out there to draw from, it wouldn't take more than to catch a few before the government knows where to watch to find the rest of the militia.

Anyway, if you want to dispel any illusions you may hold of just how the vast majority of the population would react to an uprising, google phrases like police taser abuse or police protester abuse and find sites with comments. You'll see just how the vast majority of our fellow citizens feel about those who go against authority. I've found that, on most sites at least, for every person saying the police were out of line, in cases where they clearly over reacted, there's 10 that say things like "the idiot should have just done what the cop said" or "I would have tased them too!".

That's how you can tell friend from foe.

Then a vast majority of the population are foe. Which begs an interesting question. If the vast majority of the population want to live under an authoritarian police state in which they are not allowed to own most guns, isn't it pretty authoritarian of you to decide to rise up and force them to live in a free society where someone can own any gun they so choose?

If taken to the same extent.

But I'm not going to force anyone to live my way.

They have their own lives and their own way of doing things.

And those that like doing as they want with their lives will make that choice on their own.

Live under their own Control or be allowed to Exist under the Control of someone else.

[QUOTE If the vast majority of the population want to live under an authoritarian police state in which they are not allowed to own most guns, isn't it pretty authoritarian of you to decide to rise up and force them to live in a free society where someone can own any gun they so choose?[/quote]

That leads me to ask you the following questions.

Since I would be in the minority and only wanted outside their cities of controlled masses,wouldn't they be forcing me to accept their way "Life"?

And in that same breath wouldn't they be seen as the aggressors?

Because I would be tending to my own matters of raising a garden,raising cattle and other animals for food,Building a house and starting a family with my sweet little Cassy.

But if forced to defend what I have and the future of my family,I pity the aggressors because of what I will do to them.

You guys are missing the bloody point. It's not an issue of weather a people's militia would win against a better armed US military, it's an issue of realizing what the abolition of the second amendment costs and that cost is blood.

Those wanting to abolish the second amendment either doesn't realize what that cost is or is perfectly fine with even 100s of Americans being killed because the rules all of a sudden changed and those Americans were all of a sudden the bad guys.

Shit, I don't even own a gun and if there were even a small handful of Americans who wouldn't cleave to what the government wanted them to do with the second amendment, I seriously wouldn't blame them in the least bit.

Even if these tend to be the type of people that declare their RVs a separate country and use the confederacy flag as the flag of their trailer nation?

Who are you referring to in your last post Jillian?

Kontan said he wouldn't blame a "handful of Americans who wouldn't cleave to what the government wanted them to do with the second amendment"
These generally aren't activists that want to make the world a better place in spite of the government. They tend to be rednecks that feel the second amendment is more important than the first.

What about the Handful like me that only want to live their lives peacefully?

All rights protect the Second Amendment,and in turn the Second Amendment Protects all rights.

One right is not more important than the other,they are equal.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Obviously, it would just be SO much better if the American people handed in their arms to the government and soldiered on smartly.

Jillian, if you think that's the only people that would protest with force... Nah, man. You're smarter than that. Also, I would say it again, I wouldn't blame them. I can't help if that doesn't sit well with you.

The anarchist is telling you that you guys are too blindly obsessed with the possibility of forceful resistance to the government.
That should tell you something.

Alright. How about for the lulz we go ahead and abolish the second amendment. Just to see what happens. I'm simply saying it'd be a bad idea. But I'm more than willing to have my assumptions proven wrong.

What you are complaining about is the federal legality to own guns for the purpose of defending yourself from the federal authority that validates this legality. You don't see how stupid that is?

The Federal Government has nothing to do with the Constitution,the Federal Government would've thrown the Constitution out long ago because to them it is a dead document.

I see the constitution as a living document that applies to any and all United States Citizens.

And I recognize that. However, some people really DO believe that the bill of rights is something that can't be compromised. It's almost like a belief beyond what a federal organization may say is otherwise true. I would say this is just as applicable to any of the other amendments in the bill of rights, not just the second.

What I'm saying is that it's a terrible idea for anyone to change any of the bill of rights amendments cold turkey. Americans are very likely to do the exact opposite of what an authority says they can't do.

For example, it's VERY common to see people challenge censorship in America. It's also very common to see Americans talk of defending one's right to say hate speech despite it going against what they believe. In fact, I saw that today as a bus driver told some teens that they weren't allowed to witness their faith to another passenger on the bus. Those boys actually apologized for excersizing their right to free speech to the driver despite the fact that the one being witnessed to did not complain about it and neither did anyone else on the bus.

Jillian- I offer my view of the US right to bear arms, speaking purely as an outside observer with no direct experience of your actual laws and democratic process but a reasonable amount of vicarious experience through friends in the US.

The right to own and carry arms is surely the equivalent of a safeword.
Let's use a dodgy sex analogy here.
The government is a quite aggressive top, and the populace is a relatively submissive but unsure bottom. The top will play, taunt, tease and abuse, but the bottom has a safeword just in case it gets to be too much and the bottom can't stand it any longer.

The ability to own weapons to react against your government is your safeword, your means of getting out of the chains and back onto equal footing. It is assumed that the population is willing to take part in these things, that it is an actual and active part of all proceedings. For when it stops being these things and is simply being abused against its will, it has safewords and the right to an armed revolution.

Though I daresay any actual top involved in kinky sex would be rather more respectful of the bottom's wishes than the government generally is.

Please also bear in mind that I am thoroughly sleep deprived.

That's basically the point, Delk.

The Federal Government does have a good record for fucking the citizens over.

Nice analogy.

Jesus christ...

Yes he is and so are you. I'm talking about the civil war you dumb cunt, not the revolutionary war The spirit of revolution is ingrained in the American consciousness. It is written into our constitution. The revolutionary war, the whiskey rebellion, Shay's rebellion, the civil war...fucking prohibition. Americans will spill blood for liberty, it is our culture, it is our essence as a people. You fuck with it, you have to spill blood . It doesn't matter what part of the bill of rights youi try to do away with it.

Think about this: MOST OF THE MILITARY IS MADE UP OF GUN NUTS. That's why they joined. They are made up by the very "red-necks" you despise. An oppressive government wouldn't be able to simply roll over armed american citizens (and we have proven that time and again), and even if it could, that was never Kontan's point.

This is a Straw-man argument. Not only is it wrong, it's also completely irrelevant. KOntan's argument was that blood of innocent Americans needs to be spilled for anti-gunners to have their way. Is Onyx willing to Kill Deadman so that he can have his nanny-state wankfest? Because if the way he's talking is any indication he will have to do it. Onyx, do you have the consitution for that? Do you have the fucking balls?

Jillian, you don't even agree with this dumbass, you're only taking issue with Kontan because you don't want to be on the same side as some redneck. What's funny is it's that redneck's sacrifice that gives you the freedom to run your little anarchy club.

And mine won't be the only body cooling off after the fight that I can assure you if it be 1 or 100 the score will be the same I took one of the bastards with me and fufilled my oath to never stop until dead.

My mistake, I just saw. But then who the fuck are you calling Rebels?
The south had as much legitimacy as the north; it just so happened that the north won.
Check it out, your argument was less stupid when I mistook it.

I don't have a problem with that per se, but please tell me you're not actually so pompous that you're saying it's solely an American trait.
It's called BEING HUMAN you dumb cunt. Tell me we won't have a problem with this too.

Now now, when did I say I despise rednecks?
Stop trying to make up bullshit.

Wait, what the fuck? What blood needs to be spilled to protect the second amendment?

Again, making up bullshit to insult someone? You're not even talking about me and I can see that. Nowhere did Onyx hint that he had to kill Deadman to have a nanny state.
And you dare to say I'm using a straw man argument. That's bullshit.

Oh, and yet more bullshit. Why the fuck are you even calling Deadman a redneck?
And how the fuck does his sacrifice allow me to have my 'little anarchy club'?
You realize that's, word for word, the same fucking rhetoric pro-war people say? You know, soldiers killing Iraqis to defend our freedom and all.

Depending on who you're labeling the Iraqi Civilians and The U.S. Government Soldiers Jillian.

My take on the War in Iraq is,it was a blue print or trial run for a conflict with the American citizens,notice some of the new tech that's coming out to help protect our soldiers against ambushes now while I think it's good that soldiers are protected,I also see the flip side,of how that technology can be used against us.

As well as the new Less Lethal weapons designed for Crowd Control.

Your analogy is exactly what I'm arguing against. And, just for the record, I'm not anti-gun. I have a few in the garage, somewhere. When my brother breaks his shotgun out when I'm at his place I'm right there in line with his sons to take my turn blasting holes in shit.

What I'm trying to argue against is the stupidity that gun ownership is some sort of deterrent against the government when, in fact, if they wanted to the government would roll right over any militia group. Probably with the full support of the the majority of the US population.

Just look at how protesters are treated. The riot squad comes out, tosses some tear gas and bashes some heads. A few people complain about the treatment, mostly on the internet because they can't get any MSM attention, even more argue that the cops were "just doing their jobs", often with MSM attention and within the MSM, while the rest sit on their couches and ignore it.

That's not fair to the federal government. The people, of whom the federal government is made up of, have a good record for fucking each other over. The federal government just lends authority behind the actions. The government is only as good as the society that it draws its' members from.

The reason you don't see or hear about that from MSM is because the people that own the Broadcasting Companies also have ties to police organizations.

The Mainstream news is as corrupt as this Government the mainstream Media is the Governments mouth piece.

As goes the MSM, so goes public opinion.

Unless the people that have seen what is going on start talking to other members of the citizenship and stand up when the time comes.

Ummm, do you interact with normal people much? . First of all, if someone on the 6 o' clock news says we're only listening in on terrorist conversations then it's true. Second, people believe their own eyes over your words. On the news it peaceful protesters being left alone and only violent involved with violence were being tear gased and manhandled, never mind that the only violence they were involved in was the police manhandling them. Sure, we all know that brief clips on the news don't really show the whole story. To bad that's what gets burned into their memories. Another thing is that people are prideful, they hate to be wrong. If the initial report they got from the news led them to believe that the government was justified in its' actions then their minds will fight any attempt to alter that perception, even their own.

There's lots of examples of this. Things like only junkies and homosexuals get AIDS, that Cuba was ever a threat and/or is still a threat, socialised medicine doesn't work, the markets always offer the best solutions.

More and more are finding out and are informing others.

The information is sought out not fought over or force fed.

Onyx: Answer the fucking question. Are you prepared to spill blood for your ideals? Are you ready to kill Deadman so you can have the world that you want? He obviously stands in your way and obviously will not be persuaded, so what are you going to do?

You know what, I know where this is going, so I'll answer for you: No. You're not ready to do that, because you're a fucking coward. Like Jillian you're willing to talk and talk and talk but you'll never put any action to it because you're not willing to sacrifice for your ideals.

Are you, Despanan? Everything about you screams out "pussy that wants to feel big after no one liked his play".

Wow, you're sounding crazy there. Way off to boot. The people currently running the Iraq war, well most of them have been all along just the top has changed much, haven't been around to be using it as a blueprint for anything.

As for the people who started it, the neo-cons, their motivation and what they were using it for is well known. They were all hold overs from the cold war who never learned it was over and they thought they were going to transform the middle east into a thriving democracy with the US as their benevolent rescuers from tyrannical dictatorships, thus improving our standing in the world and proving our might. 9/11 proved it had to be done because everyone knows democracies don't produce terrorists *cough*McVeigh*Cough*. For some reason they had it through their heads that Iraq was the best place to start and that, after Iraq fell, the rest of the ME would topple as people rose up democracy would flower. To bad they didn't remember that, and no one reminded them that, during the cold war they were the same people who had a bad habit of overthrowing fledgling democracies while arming and propping up the same dictators we were supposed to be now saving the from, Saddam in particular.

There was no plans of using the fighting as a blueprint because there wasn't supposed to be an insurgency. The people were supposed to welcome us with candy, flowers and open arms.

After that all I have to ask is.

Who is calling who crazy?

And who the hell gains the most from the attacks on 9/11 ?

The Federal Government that's who and it isn't about money or political clout,it is only for Control.

Look at how much bigger the fed is now from a few years ago.

You know, maybe if you were a little more respectful people would more willing to answer the questions you pose. Being snarky or having a little venom is one thing, being an outright ass is another. Learn the difference.

Secondly, people may also take you more seriously if your limited intellect allowed you to understand what the conversation was about. Let me explain something to you, child. And you are acting like a child. I never once said guns should be banned or taken away from people. In fact, I distinctly remember stating that the types, number and frequency of gun purchases should be stricter. What I said the second amendment had outlived its' purpose and the argument that ensued, is that to big of a word for you, was in regards to whether or not a civilian uprising could succeed or not. There was also some argument on how effective guns were for self defence situations among the general populace. How you confused any of this with advocating banning guns and subsequently using force to take them away from people is beyond me. Other than pure stupidity that is.

Hey Onyx, you still haven't answered the question!
Answer if you would kill for your ideals. You wouldn't want to be thought of as a pussy by some failed actor in Kentucky that only deigns to answer you ON HIS FREE TIME, would you?

How can I answer when I've never been put in the position where I have to.

Neither has he, but he's manly enough to belittle other people with that hypothetical.

Jillian I have to ask you a question and this is not meant as an attack...just wondering.

What would/will you do when Federal Agents come to forcefully remove you from your home and force you and your family members into a special camp at a remote location?

Will you stand and fight or Go peacefully?

Here's the way I see the country currently:
Epic fail two party system.
Each party as bad as the last (and essentially the same).
Other parties have no hope at winning.
Media Controls who gets elected because they get to decide who gets air time or who gets talked about as a candidate.
People vote, but only the people in the first few states to vote actually matter.
Stupid electoral college system where the losing candidate can win the popular vote.
When that fails Supreme Court flips a coin. (lol 2000 election)
Media runs everyone's life.
The majority of the American's don't know or don't care. (a really fucked up mix of 1984 and Brave New World)


The fact is we are in desperate need of a revolution but it won't likely ever happen there are too few people who care. If the government tries to all out ban guns shit will go down, because many gun owners have the "out of my cold dead hands" mentality.



Now what I think is going on in this thread is:

delk has a good description of why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution

deadman seems to believe a lot of the same things I do. (with the exception of he believes in the constitution as written and I think it needs a much deserved re-write top to bottom in a new common language everyone can understand and the old copy burned (it doesn't matter if its almost the same exact thing it needs to be re-written already))

onxy has a lot of great points but I think he severely underestimates what would happen if there were an armed revolution. If enough like minded people got together they could still make their ideals felt even if it were only for a little bit. He may be right but I'd like to hope that the people would be able to overthrow the government like the writers of the constitution would have wanted. Our whole system is checks and balances. In the beginning the people were the ultimate check and balance for their government and they protected and nurtured our young democracy. It grew and gained power. In the 1860's a few states (well 11 of them) tried to get away from a system they had issues with and the were dragged back into it by force. It's continued to grow and is probably unstoppable now. Which is kind of sad because that original idea of democracy is looking pretty sickly...

godslayer seems to just enjoy causing trouble because she enjoys the chaos that the arguments create

despanan seems to be largely inflammatory but he called out godslayer which i found amusing....



"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson

I would also like to add that although its all well and good to say that you would never take a life. If it comes down to killing or being killed no animal is going to lie down and take it (even a plant will fight back to the best of its ability). Fighting for an ideal which you consider central to your way of life is no different.

I don't feel the constitution should be burned or changed in anyway,shape form or fashion.

That document is the backbone of the American people,to destroy it is to destroy the history of all our fallen family members that fought for this country, to do such a thing is nothing more than a betrayal to the American people and to this republic for the 200 or so years it has stood.

To be honest, I don't know if I could take another person's life on purpose just for my ideals. If someone were threatening my loved ones, then perhaps I would, but I don't know if I could do it just for my opinions and personal, intangible beliefs.