Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
Jacobus Rex
Most Excellant Sir
Most Excellant Sir
The Ultimate Conundrum
- Thread starter Curare
- Start date
- Status
mmike87
Member
I do not agree with this. I think we have made a lot of progress with gun rights in the last decade. The AWB died. More states than ever have "shall issue" CCW laws. More states than ever have preemption laws.
Some states will never be gun friendly. Let the libs have them damn states. This is one reason why we have different states.
In Virginia, we have enjoyed a Democratic governor that has signed virtually every piece of pro-Gun legislation that has hit his desk.
We have gained preemption. CCW in your car on school property. As many handguns as you want for CCW permit holders. Liberal open carry laws. Still a few more "bad" laws to go but I feel like we're making real progress.
We have to be vigilant to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. But overall I think we're gaining more ground than losing in most areas of the country.
thereisnospoon
Member
I'm Back
I enjoyed everyone's responses so much I couldn't resist posting just one more thing.
BabieLuie: You ever thought of being a professional satirist? That was hilarious stuff, sounded almost like it came from the press room of a big New York City Newspaper, trying to paint some on this thread as ludicous half-wits...
I think most people are making some really BIG assupmtions in this dialog, and are using that to exploit their views. But if that what it takes to win a debate, insterad of facts and logic, o.k.
The only people I find using the term(s) rebellion and revolution are the people who are against such ideas. They inject the idea into the dialog and then call it crazy. Ummmmmm......it's subtle, but its akin to the same tactics anti-gunners use.
And finally, I really think that those who look down their nose at those of us who talk of using our 2A rights, as given to us by the framers of the US Constitution, to stop the continuous barrage of assaults on our freedoms and rights, are really too afraid to think of ever actually having to use their "toys" to defend themselves, and must therefore, make fun of and ridicule those of us who might do that and make them appear weak and feeble.
I enjoyed everyone's responses so much I couldn't resist posting just one more thing.
BabieLuie: You ever thought of being a professional satirist? That was hilarious stuff, sounded almost like it came from the press room of a big New York City Newspaper, trying to paint some on this thread as ludicous half-wits...
I think most people are making some really BIG assupmtions in this dialog, and are using that to exploit their views. But if that what it takes to win a debate, insterad of facts and logic, o.k.
The only people I find using the term(s) rebellion and revolution are the people who are against such ideas. They inject the idea into the dialog and then call it crazy. Ummmmmm......it's subtle, but its akin to the same tactics anti-gunners use.
And finally, I really think that those who look down their nose at those of us who talk of using our 2A rights, as given to us by the framers of the US Constitution, to stop the continuous barrage of assaults on our freedoms and rights, are really too afraid to think of ever actually having to use their "toys" to defend themselves, and must therefore, make fun of and ridicule those of us who might do that and make them appear weak and feeble.
cuchulainn
Member
What words would you use to describe using guns to fight the government?
You claim to be willing to fight, but balk at those words. Wow. Yep, I'm even more confident that you wouldn't do it despite your lip service.
Yeah, I was expecting that ad hominem argument to enter the debate, but not from you.
The debate was over A) would Americans rebel and B) could they succeed if they did rebel. Your critics' bravery or cowardice is irrellevant to those two questions.
I expected more from you than school yard tactics. Well, I'll take that as further concession.
thereisnospoon
Member
I knew I'd get you with that one...
Chuch,
You think too highly of me my friend.
Anyway, it was not really so much a school yard insult as it was a real conclusion I came to after reading this thread for the hundredth time. I like the debate, don't get me wrong, but I believe you think resistance is futile and I believe resistance is inevitable. Maybe the thread is well titled, as "The Ultimate Conundrum"
I guess along the way I forgot about the thread starters original question..."Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressors?"
The answer is probably because the fire isn't hot enough yet, for some, for others it never will never be "hot" enough, as you have so eloquently put it.
But I ask a new question as a cotinuation of the original thought, especially for those who are so adamantly opposed to even discussing this type of question...
If all else fails and all measures of diplomacy, voting, letter writing, cajoling, etc. have been exhausted, would you rather fight or leave a shattered Republic for your children.
Several have said they would rather live under adverse conditions than die "in a blaze of glory" (which I doubt anyone relaly wants to do) and others have vehemently suggested they would rather die than live in a totalitairan or similar circumstance, or worse , leave the problem for their children to take care of.
What's a gun nut to do?
Chuch,
You think too highly of me my friend.
Anyway, it was not really so much a school yard insult as it was a real conclusion I came to after reading this thread for the hundredth time. I like the debate, don't get me wrong, but I believe you think resistance is futile and I believe resistance is inevitable. Maybe the thread is well titled, as "The Ultimate Conundrum"
I guess along the way I forgot about the thread starters original question..."Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressors?"
The answer is probably because the fire isn't hot enough yet, for some, for others it never will never be "hot" enough, as you have so eloquently put it.
But I ask a new question as a cotinuation of the original thought, especially for those who are so adamantly opposed to even discussing this type of question...
If all else fails and all measures of diplomacy, voting, letter writing, cajoling, etc. have been exhausted, would you rather fight or leave a shattered Republic for your children.
Several have said they would rather live under adverse conditions than die "in a blaze of glory" (which I doubt anyone relaly wants to do) and others have vehemently suggested they would rather die than live in a totalitairan or similar circumstance, or worse , leave the problem for their children to take care of.
What's a gun nut to do?
cuchulainn
Member
Those positions don't really matter.
The point you are missing is that you cannot rebel on your own, but Americans won't rebel with you. It's not about you wanting to and us not wanting to. It's about realistic predictions: would Americans rebel (no) and would they succeed (no).
Even if rebellion were justified, it wouldn't occur. Even if it occured, it wouldn't succeed. Those are facts that you have to seriously consider if you're going to talk about taking up arms.
No, I believe armed rebellion would be futile. I'm not being pedantic. There's a significant difference.
No one has said that. Just because we recognize the futility of armed rebellion doesn't mean we're expressing a preference.
thereisnospoon
Member
Those positions don't really matter.
The point you are missing is that you cannot rebel on your own, but Americans won't rebel with you. It's not about you wanting to and us not wanting to. It's about realistic predictions: would Americans rebel (no) and would they succeed (no).
Even if rebellion were justified, it wouldn't occur. Even if it occured, it wouldn't succeed. Those are facts that you have to seriously consider if you're going to talk about taking up arms.
You're dead wrong...and they do matter. I love how you just make a blanket statement like that, then move on to your same argument, which is based upon a false assumption, that I think there will be a "great uprising" of some sort. As I said earlier, I think most will readily give up there freedom for security
You can rebel on your own, and it is the only way I would do it...or at most woth a few very closely trusted companions. (Incidently we three are currently creating a "compound" as we speak...
complete with our own church, guess that really makes me a "nut" doesn't it?)
Quote:
Several have said they would rather live under adverse conditions
No one has said that. Just because we recognize the futility of armed rebellion doesn't mean we're expressing a preference.
There you go using that word rebellion again...I haven't advocated rebellion, I have advocated armed insurrection, IIRC. And I'm not being pedantic... Therefor your arguments about failed rebellion are non sequitur.
And once again you failed to answer any of my real questions, instead trying to deflect them with your ad hominum responses.
And again, you keep referring to this discussion as though I'm ready to give up now. That has been your assumption all along, but I have said WHEN the time comes. We still have options, but sadly they are running out or being ignored by out elected servants and the High Court.
But sooner or later, these bozos will step over the line that someone has drawn in the sand and someone will respond with force (quite posssibly the people in Kelo or Keto or where ever).
I would see it like this, and I know you'll have a field day tearing this apart, but what the heck...
Some goon decides he has the power to (fill in the blank). Someone decides they have had enough and that goon dissapears never to be heard from again. The internet bloggers (who needs the main stream socialistic press when you have the internet and bloggers?) are tipped off and run with the story. Soon, across the country, goons of all levels begin to quietly dissaper or turn up, ummmmmm......NONTHRAA. More internet blogging, and eventually the main stream press will have to cover it, for no other reason than to paint the "terrorists" in their correct light. Suddenly goons across the country begin to realize they no longer "have the power" and resume their normal duties as ELECTED SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE!
Pure fantasy I know, but armed rebellion it aint.
The point you are missing is that you cannot rebel on your own, but Americans won't rebel with you. It's not about you wanting to and us not wanting to. It's about realistic predictions: would Americans rebel (no) and would they succeed (no).
Even if rebellion were justified, it wouldn't occur. Even if it occured, it wouldn't succeed. Those are facts that you have to seriously consider if you're going to talk about taking up arms.
You're dead wrong...and they do matter. I love how you just make a blanket statement like that, then move on to your same argument, which is based upon a false assumption, that I think there will be a "great uprising" of some sort. As I said earlier, I think most will readily give up there freedom for security
You can rebel on your own, and it is the only way I would do it...or at most woth a few very closely trusted companions. (Incidently we three are currently creating a "compound" as we speak...
complete with our own church, guess that really makes me a "nut" doesn't it?)Quote:
Several have said they would rather live under adverse conditions
No one has said that. Just because we recognize the futility of armed rebellion doesn't mean we're expressing a preference.
There you go using that word rebellion again...I haven't advocated rebellion, I have advocated armed insurrection, IIRC. And I'm not being pedantic... Therefor your arguments about failed rebellion are non sequitur.
And once again you failed to answer any of my real questions, instead trying to deflect them with your ad hominum responses.
And again, you keep referring to this discussion as though I'm ready to give up now. That has been your assumption all along, but I have said WHEN the time comes. We still have options, but sadly they are running out or being ignored by out elected servants and the High Court.
But sooner or later, these bozos will step over the line that someone has drawn in the sand and someone will respond with force (quite posssibly the people in Kelo or Keto or where ever).
I would see it like this, and I know you'll have a field day tearing this apart, but what the heck...
Some goon decides he has the power to (fill in the blank). Someone decides they have had enough and that goon dissapears never to be heard from again. The internet bloggers (who needs the main stream socialistic press when you have the internet and bloggers?) are tipped off and run with the story. Soon, across the country, goons of all levels begin to quietly dissaper or turn up, ummmmmm......NONTHRAA. More internet blogging, and eventually the main stream press will have to cover it, for no other reason than to paint the "terrorists" in their correct light. Suddenly goons across the country begin to realize they no longer "have the power" and resume their normal duties as ELECTED SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE!
Pure fantasy I know, but armed rebellion it aint.
cuchulainn
Member
There is no difference.
It's also not "insurrection." It's assassination and kidnapping.
You're now advocating assassination and kidnapping. You get upset when I say you're advocationg rebellion/revolution, but then you turn around and advocate assassination and kidnapping. As if that's better
No, your and my respective willingness to rise up don't matter to the questions at hand: A) would Americans rise up (insurrection
) and B) would they succeed.They may matter elswhere, but they don't matter to the questions at hand.
Name one question that I failed to answer.
I didn't make a blanket statement. I pointed out two facts you needed to face about rebellion (er insurrection
) A) Won't occur in America.
B) Won't succeed.
Field day? No. I'll just point out again that you're advocating assassination and kidnapping.
thereisnospoon
Member
Nana, Nana, Boo, Boo
Nice try, but I don't buy it. One minute exact words matter, the next they don't. (What was that big word you used... pendatic or pedantic or something?) The words do matter.
What words would you use to describe using guns to fight the government?
You claim to be willing to fight, but balk at those words. Wow. Yep, I'm even more confident that you wouldn't do it despite your lip service.
I'm not disturbed by your words, I'm disturbed by the way you try to deflect honest debate by putting words in my mouth and pretending I said one thing when I said another,how dishonest of you.
Now then, you say my points don't pertain to the matter at hand, but alas, the original question was..." Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppresors?" You have continued to try to turn this into a debate about armed rebellion, which you seem to only define as mass uprising, while I have continued to talk about insurrection, as I have defined it and have given many examples thereof.
You answered the original posters question early on when you said you would never pick up a gun against the .gov, because it was doomed to fail, but you have not answered my question...
If all else fails and all measures of diplomacy, voting, letter writing, cajoling, etc. have been exhausted, and they finally come for you because you are/have/do/ (fill in the blank with the latest disallowed action/right) would you rather fight or leave a shattered Republic for your children.
Its rhetorical at best...you have already divulged that you do not have the will
Of course, as I said earlier, you'll say its because you know its doomed to failure and you'd rather live enslaved than die fighting for the romantic notion of freedom. Ce la Vie`
Nice try, but I don't buy it. One minute exact words matter, the next they don't. (What was that big word you used... pendatic or pedantic or something?) The words do matter.
What words would you use to describe using guns to fight the government?
You claim to be willing to fight, but balk at those words. Wow. Yep, I'm even more confident that you wouldn't do it despite your lip service.
I'm not disturbed by your words, I'm disturbed by the way you try to deflect honest debate by putting words in my mouth and pretending I said one thing when I said another,how dishonest of you.
Now then, you say my points don't pertain to the matter at hand, but alas, the original question was..." Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppresors?" You have continued to try to turn this into a debate about armed rebellion, which you seem to only define as mass uprising, while I have continued to talk about insurrection, as I have defined it and have given many examples thereof.
You answered the original posters question early on when you said you would never pick up a gun against the .gov, because it was doomed to fail, but you have not answered my question...
If all else fails and all measures of diplomacy, voting, letter writing, cajoling, etc. have been exhausted, and they finally come for you because you are/have/do/ (fill in the blank with the latest disallowed action/right) would you rather fight or leave a shattered Republic for your children.
Its rhetorical at best...you have already divulged that you do not have the will
Of course, as I said earlier, you'll say its because you know its doomed to failure and you'd rather live enslaved than die fighting for the romantic notion of freedom. Ce la Vie`
cuchulainn
Member
Actually, you attempted to insert that equivocation at post #82. You are being deliberately dishonest in saying that all along you were merely talking about small-scale clashes.
In any event. This thread is done. Why?
1) We're merely talking about who said what.
2) You are being dishonest.
3) I don't feel like disabusing you of your absurd notion that the purpose of the 2nd is to facilitate assassination and kidnapping.
bye-bye.
thereisnospoon
Member
You still didn't answer my question... 
You know a very wise man once told me I should never try to teach a pig to sing, it annoys the pig and gets you dirty.
I fear in this thread we have merely got dirty. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your opinion, even though I don't agree with it, and I hope we meet again.
Spoon
You know a very wise man once told me I should never try to teach a pig to sing, it annoys the pig and gets you dirty.
I fear in this thread we have merely got dirty. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your opinion, even though I don't agree with it, and I hope we meet again.
Spoon
walking arsenal
Member
wow, this is getting old fast. why dont you two agree to disagree OR go have a nice old fashion duel someplace and let the rest of us continue the thread while you settle this mano-o-mano?
ravinraven
Member
And then...
...there's the old thing about dying on your feet or living on your knees. That is a condum....er, sorry conundrum.
later, in my mind phart thread I'll jabber about my idea for "liberty committtees." Gotta give it another read before posting. It'll be up in about two hours.
I still want to have a peaceful reboot. But you get instant peace through surrender.
Unfortunately, all ideas lead to conflict. That's why sheep are so peaceful. No ideas. Well, two ideas--eating and that other thing with the she sheeps.
rr
...there's the old thing about dying on your feet or living on your knees. That is a condum....er, sorry conundrum.
later, in my mind phart thread I'll jabber about my idea for "liberty committtees." Gotta give it another read before posting. It'll be up in about two hours.
I still want to have a peaceful reboot. But you get instant peace through surrender.
Unfortunately, all ideas lead to conflict. That's why sheep are so peaceful. No ideas. Well, two ideas--eating and that other thing with the she sheeps.
rr
Jacobus Rex
Member
We are a nation of laws and a civilized people. We are somewhat frayed around the edges and often imperfect but never the less, our society and government are based on order and the rule of law. It is always possible to point to examples of injustice and laws that are unconstitutional. This has always been the case. America’s history is full of such examples. You may cite the American Indians, slavery, women’s rights, racially discriminatory laws, or any other number of past (or present) problems with our democracy. The fact is that while those problems are real, they have never invalidated our constitution or our way of life. We have no current problems that compare to some issues and situations that have existed in this nation’s past.
I agree that the recent court decisions such as the anti-property rights’ ruling or some recent laws are a travesty. However, armed response to real or imaginary violations of our rights in a functional republic would reduce the participants to little more than animals. Persons that react in such a manner are the exact type of person that we often discuss defending ourselves against. I suppose that some people that advocate armed response to the government would think that John Hinckley was just exercising his rights or that the Oklahoma City bombers were freedom fighters. That line of thinking brought us both the KKK and the Black Panthers. Let us not forget that Islamic terrorism is based on the concept of imposing your will by force.
Democracy can’t function without respect for the election process. Any two-bit third world dictator with a few gunmen can try to over turn the results of a democratic election. Our nation cannot survive if our people develop such an attitude.
I felt that the entire 8 years of the Bill Clinton presidency was a low point in our history. The fact is that at no point during his presidency was he NOT our (and my) president. I disagreed with everything that man stood for but his presidency was the result of two elections by the American people. The Bill Clinton era has now pasted into history and our nation remains.
The American people have survived many real trials and tribulations in our past. Our end will most likely come from our own self-destruction rather than an external enemy. I’m not trying to argue that there is never a time for hosting the black flag or that we should ignore all the actions of our government and follow like sheep to the slaughter. However, our vigilance lies at the ballot box not the bullet box. There are limits to what we should put up with but these limits are of an extreme nature and we have never even come close to crossing that line in this nation. I have often thought most Americans that develop such attitudes have never seen how much of the rest of the world really lives.
In conclusion, I’d like to add that support for armed response to our government only undermines our constitutional rights. Radicals with guns only make the masses of swing voters in the middle nervous. Nervous voters are always willing to sacrifice a little freedom for safety or comfort. The Second Amendment was intended as a check and balance or as a last resort in the case that an American doomsday ever did arrive. It was never meant to be a means of national suicide.
I agree that the recent court decisions such as the anti-property rights’ ruling or some recent laws are a travesty. However, armed response to real or imaginary violations of our rights in a functional republic would reduce the participants to little more than animals. Persons that react in such a manner are the exact type of person that we often discuss defending ourselves against. I suppose that some people that advocate armed response to the government would think that John Hinckley was just exercising his rights or that the Oklahoma City bombers were freedom fighters. That line of thinking brought us both the KKK and the Black Panthers. Let us not forget that Islamic terrorism is based on the concept of imposing your will by force.
Democracy can’t function without respect for the election process. Any two-bit third world dictator with a few gunmen can try to over turn the results of a democratic election. Our nation cannot survive if our people develop such an attitude.
I felt that the entire 8 years of the Bill Clinton presidency was a low point in our history. The fact is that at no point during his presidency was he NOT our (and my) president. I disagreed with everything that man stood for but his presidency was the result of two elections by the American people. The Bill Clinton era has now pasted into history and our nation remains.
The American people have survived many real trials and tribulations in our past. Our end will most likely come from our own self-destruction rather than an external enemy. I’m not trying to argue that there is never a time for hosting the black flag or that we should ignore all the actions of our government and follow like sheep to the slaughter. However, our vigilance lies at the ballot box not the bullet box. There are limits to what we should put up with but these limits are of an extreme nature and we have never even come close to crossing that line in this nation. I have often thought most Americans that develop such attitudes have never seen how much of the rest of the world really lives.
In conclusion, I’d like to add that support for armed response to our government only undermines our constitutional rights. Radicals with guns only make the masses of swing voters in the middle nervous. Nervous voters are always willing to sacrifice a little freedom for safety or comfort. The Second Amendment was intended as a check and balance or as a last resort in the case that an American doomsday ever did arrive. It was never meant to be a means of national suicide.
RevDisk
Member
A buddy of mine commented on our electorial process. He likened it to playing a game of cards against someone who has already marked the deck and you KNOW it's marked, and then complaining when you lose. Can't say I completely agree, but enough that I recognize the fundimental truth in his words.
thereisnospoon
Member
Sorry if me and chuc hijacked the thread to fight our little battle, I did enjoy it though. 
J Rex,
Your post is very thought provoking and actually very well articulated, but I believe the original post was a question about why we haven't yet resorted to the bullet box. Is it time? I don't think so, not yet. Will it ever come to that? I for one, believe it will.
Some people can not fathom a time or place where the need for the bullet box would arise, however, I think them old fellows who wrote our Constitution were pretty smart, and they put it in there for a reason. If the 2A isn't about using force or the threat thereof to keep a government from becoming tyrannical, then all the liberal antis must be right, it must be about the National Guard or hunting.
We can't have it both ways.
J Rex,
Your post is very thought provoking and actually very well articulated, but I believe the original post was a question about why we haven't yet resorted to the bullet box. Is it time? I don't think so, not yet. Will it ever come to that? I for one, believe it will.
Some people can not fathom a time or place where the need for the bullet box would arise, however, I think them old fellows who wrote our Constitution were pretty smart, and they put it in there for a reason. If the 2A isn't about using force or the threat thereof to keep a government from becoming tyrannical, then all the liberal antis must be right, it must be about the National Guard or hunting.
We can't have it both ways.
- Status