How much SHTF would it take?

[Mr.V.]

The Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska...
The common people - the poor, the dirty, the lice ridden, the cockroaches... Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska Caracas, 3 July 2001

and this one writer, writing her opinion, is evidence of a massive conspiracy for immigrants to conquer the US? a topic I wasn't even talking about in the first place. Even http://www.mexica-movement.org/ENTERHERETEXTONLY.htm which promotes your fear is hardly a conspiracy given their overtness and lack of seats in any governing body in the US.

But back to the other topic, I'm still waiting for you to point to any shred of solid evidence as to how liberals and conservatives are aligning together to conspire to disarm you and take you over in a Pinky and the Brain-esque plot...please cite your source...and let's hope it's not Elena Poniatowska Caracas.

 

[Mr.V.]

Phetro--

I'd like to apologize for my first statement, as it was rather rude. I do disagree with your assessment of the conspiracy as to why we're fragmented (I don't agree that there're foxes in the hen-house so to speak or a government plot at this moment in time to disarm then conquer). However, I very much agree with your statement (to paraphrase) that if people are to successfully fight tyranny, they'd all better be on the same page.

What I find troubling is that many pro-gun advocates point to the slaughtering of minority groups or a recently disarmed populace as an argument FOR guns. Ironically it just points to the fact that they had guns and COULD have fought back but rather gave them up. Which could argue that guns are pointless to fight tyranny because most people would just surrender them if pressed on the matter rather than risking their families or near certain death fighting with government troops. We can look at all the people who surrendered their guns in Katrina as evidence that we aren't THAT different. But then there are historical events the Winter War or our Nation's founding that give me hope that people would organize against such a threat (were it to happen) and succeed.

 

[redranger1]

If a person goes shooting up his or her state's elected officials because they pass a 10 round magazine capacity law...then that person is extreme and deserves to be marginalized or, better yet, executed. If you want to lose your gun rights...that's the fastest road. Many of us have families, wives, husbands, children etc and can't go on elected-official killing sprees if our gun rights are infringed a bit.

Mr. V, who suggested that? and further more im not so sure that if that was a possibility of happening it might not keep poloticians a lil more in check.

 

[Quo Vadis]

tits and tats

#25...and this #26... But back to the other topic, I'm still waiting for you to point

Try - http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/aztlan.html - for #26. As you do not know history no need to bother tit for tat on #25..

 

[Mr.V.]

As you do not know history no need to bother tit for tat on #25

Exactly what part of history do I not know? The part about slavery not actually existing in the south or the part where Lincoln's totalitarian regime didn't sign the emancipation proclamation?

your "we were freer back then" argument is revisionist history at its worst. It completely denies that in our "glory days of liberty", women couldn't vote, it was okay to lynch black people, you could enslave human beings, or at least deny people equal protection under the law because well they were black, chinese, cherokee, gay, etc etc etc.

I guess I don't know your highly edited version of history. I'll acknowledge that much. Maybe you could explain to me how the old days were better when voting rights depended on whether or not you had ovaries.

 

[Mr.V.]

Redranger--

Phetros didn't which is why I apologized. I guess I interpreted it to mean we should resist in an armed manner at any slight infraction. He didn't actually say that so it was wrong of me to fill-in-the-blank.

 

[KC&97TA]

I envision a SHTF like that when LEO's were conviscating ones guns in LA after the huricane... There's that book, "The Turner Diaries" that's a SHTF... were they're doing gun raids, gun owners have gone under ground and are enacting war fare against the gov't.

SHTF could = as small as someone breaking in the slideing glass door at night all the way too full escalated war with the FBI/ATF.

 

[Korimyr the Rat]

Openly discussing the conditions under which one would engage in armed insurrection against the government-- in a quasi-anonymous setting, no less-- is damned foolish. Do you think that you are not being monitored?

It's good that everyone has a breaking point, but it would be better still if they didn't discuss it-- at least outside the company of known and trusted compatriots.

 

[bamawrx]

My thinking on these matters has changed somewhat. I now think that we will not get a revolution (armed) as long as there is a chance of a peaceful means to accomplish our goals. We are a single justice away from having a majority opinion in the original intent camp. No need to rock the boat when we may get some relief in time. Our rights didn't go away slowly and they won't come back slowly either. We need to vote as a block away from the anti's and the pro-illegals crowd.

As far as some other type of SHTF, I now think the greatest threat in the next 10 years or so is from the mexican nationals. That is one large group that shut down some cities recently. If they get hot and violent we will have some real problems on our hands. Remember the LA riots were really about nothing and only involved a few thousand people. Just think of a couple hundred thousand, or a million taking to the streets rioting. I want no part of that for sure.

 

[Meplat]

Exactly what part of history do I not know? The part about slavery not actually existing in the south or the part where Lincoln's totalitarian regime didn't sign the emancipation proclamation?

Errr...the full title of that proclamation was the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. Lincoln signed it after the Civil War had dragged on to the point that it was rapidly losing support. If you recall, for the opening battle, the people brought lawn chairs to what they thought was going to be a one day spectator event. The Union forces lost that battle even though they decided to leave their cornstalks at home and actually bring firearms.

Lincoln was directly quoted as saying that he regarded black people as "little children", unable to care for themselves on their own.

He was also directly quoted as saying that if he could maintain the Union without abolishing slavery, he would do so.

Ol' Abe wasn't the tolerant man he's portrayed to be in today's revisionist classroom.

Was there racism in the South? You bet there was. Still is. And it was rampant elsewhere too. And still is. From BOTH sides now. The main reason it wasn't at the forefront of the news and making history in other places is that there just weren't as many black Americans to practice it against. Was slavery a dying institution? You answer me...if you were a plantation owner and could hire an Irish immigrant for 15 dollars a month, and have him want the job, then send him home to care for himself, or buy a slave for anywhere from 1500 to 3000 dollars and then be responsible for keeping an investment that large healthy - a man who being "owned" rightfully didn't want to work for the man who "owned" him - which would YOU choose? It WAS going away. It was inevitable.

Lincoln's fight wasn't about slavery...sorry to disappoint you. In my view, it SHOULD have been. Slavery and all the injustices that followed it stank to high heaven, and I believe left a stench in the very nostils of God. But Lincoln's war was about his desire to see the growth and power of the central government, and his fear of losing that power should states be allowed to disolve the bond to the Union.

 

[Mr.V.]

Meplat--

I understand there were hundreds of socio-economic and geopolitical forces at work paving the the way towards the Civil War. I understand probably the major fight was about a state's right to secede from the union. However, slavery was still a corner-stone of the fight and certainly one of the most divisive and publicized reasons (even back then).

Look at the amount of furvor caused by the Kansas-Nebraska act and abolitionists like John Brown. They were the proverbial last-straw. Lincoln NEVER agreed with slavery. Whether he viewed blacks as inferior does not change the fact that he was fundamentally opposed to enslaving them.

But Lincoln's war was about his desire to see the growth and power of the central government,

Well so long as by Lincoln you mean Lincoln and a large percentage of people in the north who supported preserving the union rather than a state's right to secede.

Either way...no one has yet convinced me that a stronger central government isn't exactly what the South needed to abolish slavery and (at least philisophically) end segregation.

I'm certainly not convinced by your "It WAS going away. It was inevitable" financial argument. First your argument is flawed simply because not everyone who owned slaves had to buy them. They only had to breed them. And second, lots of terrible things that don't make great financial sense happen all the time. If it weren't for the war, I wonder how many of those states would still have at least some slavery for novelty's sake. Blue jeans are blue jeans. Most are made by the same malasian school children. Why would someone buy $350 Prada's with holes in them when Dickies are $25?

 

[xd9fan]

Current reality is that the 2A Is NOT the law of the land. Theres no way the NFA of 1934 is constituitonal.

Just throw more tax cuts at "the people" (while continuing to grow the govt.) they will be happy.