Hahaha... MY LEG. Oh, I'm going to hell.

No, I was referencing the last bastion of the ultra-right winger that's still accessible to the masses: the conservative internet forum. Also, the Tea Party had several.

well, dk, what good is freedom if you're dead?
it's hard not to see in the 3-percenters not only a rebranding of the militia movement, but also an extreme expression of what's happened to conservatives given the implosion of the american conservative movement.
having guns is what allows for a sense of agency---the wreckage of conservative politics makes folk feel exposed. they've been manipulated by the whackjobs in the nra who operate those rally round the wagons boys the united nations is a-coming publications.
the center of the politics is fear. you're afraid, afraid of everything, but you've got guns so it appears ok. since you're threatened with castration by the imaginary forces of the federal government, you lay in wait for them and you dream about a bonnie & clyde moment, but you multiply it by some arbitrary number so you imagine the same sort of thing happening everywhere.

i suppose it's like that bad 80s pop song said: fear is never boring.

You're still not listening or you're being purposefully obtuse. The '3 percenters' are not just conservatives. They are quite the mix of overall americans, but if you need to settle your mind by believing that the 3%ers are just rebranded right wing extremists, go for it.

i'm not being obtuse, dk---i mean exactly what i say---3-percenters et al are rebranded militias; it would stand to reason that part of the reason to rebrand would be to present the illusion of opening far right politics out into the mainstream, maybe in order to return the favor that the republican populist coalition did for the militia movement by opening itself onto the extreme right.

but no-one, except maybe you---and except maybe other folk like you----is fooled by this dk.

in a way this is no different from what limbaugh was doing in the 90s---advancing very conservative arguments as if they spoke not to conservatives but to "real americans"---it's all part of the circle jerk of conservative marketing, how the discourse works.

i can see why you'd want to act as though the rebranded militia movement is not a far right movement, not basically neo-fascist---but the rebranding does not and cannot creep outside the militia demographic. that's why you're "Restorative non-revolution carried out by neo-minutemen" is a pipe-dream. and if it isn't, that's why you people will end up going all khymer rouge in every city in america.

and that, dk, is why you're fantasy america is a political nightmare for the rest of us.

I suppose it's easier to type cast conservatives as 'angry peasants' than to actually see that the Federal Government has taken more power than was originally delegated. :rolleyes: See e.g. "Court Packing Plan" "Chisolm v. Georgia" and compare Carter v. Carter Coal to Wickard v. Filburn. The federal government isn't known for restraint, people.

Like another poster has said, thank god democracy is still alive and well. We're still able to politically delimit federal power.

Ironic that people will accuse gun owners of being 'fearful,' when the DHS report, and this post itself is fearmongering against the right. ("Oh Noes! These people have GUNS! AND LOTSA AMMO! THEY MUST MEAN TO REVOLT!" Actually, active shooters just want to have enough ammo for their weekend recreational shoots, which can take anywhere from 100-2,000 rounds. Big whoop.

so what you're saying is you'd rather just believe that it's all about failed conservatism, because regular americans just wouldn't think like this, at least that's how you make your mind feel better. k. whatever.

American revolutionaries are preparing for armed conservatism. What I'm trying to get you to think about is the band of brothers you'd be siding with. Who, DK, would you be shoulder to shoulder with, overall? What if the gun toters somehow managed to defeat the federal government? I'll bet you $5 that homosexuality would be outlawed in the areas you guys control, despite the fact that you personally don't have a problem with it. I'll bet you $10 that abortion would be outlawed as it's considered by many of your compatriots to be tantamount to murder. And I'll bet you $20 that infighting would collapse any semblance of governance in the areas you control.

What I'm trying to get you to realize is that the other people that are prepared armed revolutionaries like yourself don't share all of your political views. In fact, you'd be a liberal among them. Don't believe me? Go to an NRA meeting.

You mean: "WillJethro, you took my last Skoal tin! Damnit, I've had it!" *dumps AK47 mag into your chest at less than a meter*

Ugh, yeah... I've been to numerous NRA training courses for my certifications and I'm always the undercover liberal. It's scary.

They're overweight middle-aged white guys... and I think they have prepped lynch ropes waiting for their ideological enemies.

...

Hmm, lemme examine the thread title again:


American conservatives = right wing nutjobs who haven't flexed anything except their blogs and credit cards in the last zillion years

Preparing = essentially doing what they've always done, stockpiling ordnance for the comin' of the Great White Jesus

Armed = not exactly surprising given the hobbies of said nutjobs; hobby militants need magical talisman security blankets too.

Revolution = initial conflict (pure coincidence / almost accident) spawned from some paranoid redneck killing a curious state trooper / game warden / racial minority followed by a seemingly endless "Live on CNN!" standoff back at The Compound where AKs are white-knuckled, eyes are slitty, and pork-'n-beans are consumed en masse. Predictably problematic force-on-force resolution involves nearly-botched neutralization-super-suppression by trigger-happy ninja-lookin' M4-wielding stormtroopers of The Man due to the typical quantity (small numbers) and quality (abysmal organization) of the Wolverines! Maybe, if we're really lucky, some of the bumbling junior agents will kill the group leader in a spray-'n-pray 2nd floor shootout finale deluxe, we'll get a new infamous date outta the incident (10-10-10'd!), and some disenfranchised and overly sympathetic former army Sapper Leader Course dipshit will blow up another federal building (killing a bunch of innocent children) with a rental truck full of ANFO all in the name of Stickin' It to the Man That Keeps Us Down.

Yay!

I had at least two paragraphs typed,
using 'Elastic Potential Energy',
for comparison,
and then I lost my train of thought.
Dammit.

I'm a gun-toting American as well (I carry to work), and I tend to ride the fence politically, sometimes falling on the right side for a spell. I think of myself as one that would fight if provoked, but I prefer to hide my stuff if I have a few minutes warning. I've lived without freedom of religion, without privacy and in fear, years back. I know how to hide, to stash, and to use things when the time is right. I had to back then and once you learn to think like that, you never lose it.

This, of course, is assuming that a group would come to my door demanding my rights be handed over on a silver platter. Considering I went through the eye of hurricane Ike at 4AM, I suppose, geographically, it is not impossible. I still think of it as very unlikely though.

If it did happen though, of course I would lie right to their faces. "I vote democrat, I do not believe in guns". A broad generalization and a very stupid sounding statement, to make them think I am a complete moron. You get the point. If they barged in anyways, then I would pull the pistol from behind and unload into the belly of the man barging in. Bullet proof vests are usually strongest in front. I would go in from the side of the ribcage. I suppose that would be it, then.

This is all very high speculation though. I have no desire to kill anyone, and definitely not an officer of the law, with whom I usually have a deep respect for. However I would kill with cold determination if someone was barging into my house with no reason other than to take away my freedoms (or my possessions). I have a loaded shotgun and several dogs with very good ears; I feel sorry for the poor sap that thinks my house looks like a good target for robbery. Welcome to Texas :D

I would be glad to join a peaceful march on the capital demanding corporate regulation and greed-control. It would only take the population of one state to accomplish very much, and a small state at that. However all the crazy civil war II talk is insane. I'm not going to war with my own country. That is just silly.

-------

Anyways, my point that I forgot to mention is that I find your point, Will, to be a good one. To fight with this group would mean several liberties would be gone. On the other side of this, some people are willing to die so that they can choose their own doctor. I'll deal with what I am given, just like bad food in school. I'm a survivor and however things work out, I'll find a way to deal.

When it's all said and done - Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes. The degree of paranoia on BOTH sides is amusing. Interestingly tho' it appears that the Right has the radical extremists and the Left doesn't? Hmmmm....

They might talk a lot, but the bottom line, they will never do anything serious.

Life is still far to good in the US to risk throwing it all away.

Some of them already have, sats.

And the history lesson teaches us what about those incidents?

It takes years for them to be widely considered appropriate to joke about?

What do you consider serious? Killing doctors? Blowing up buildings? Killing politicians?

American conservatives are not preparing for a revolution. Crazy and paranoid morons are. I have some liberal views (support gay marriage, legalization of cannabis, etc.) and some conservative views (against abortion, support stricter immigration reform, opposed to public healthcare etc.). I own a gun. I am not planning to overthrow our government. I think Obama is twenty pounds of shit in a ten pound bag. I think he is more of a terran than an American. I wish he wasn't President, but if I killed him then what would I be? A fascist. A tyrant. As bad as Obama is, the people who would assasinate him are even worse, because he's still our President. Quit being so fucking paranoid. Unlike the british in our Revolution, our professional military is well trained in asymmetric warfare.

I agree that both sides are being overly paranoid. This topic is an example of liberal paranoia; here's some conservative paranoia: Obama is cutting funding F-22 funding and increasing Army funding, because when it comes time for him to take over the country and turn the US into a fascist police state, ground troops will be infintely more useful than multi-million dollar fighters.

See? Anything can be turned into anything else. Let's not lose our cool people.

Those crazy and paranoid morons all seem to be conservatives, without exception. Do you believe that to be a coincidence?

Also, I'm a Terran or Earthling or whatever you'd like to call it.

Conservative and insurrectionist aren't mutually inclusive. It's the conservatives' time in the shade. They're pissed. This thread sort of reminds me of McCarthyism. If all democrats are pinko commies, then all republicans must be right wing fascists. You're mostly assuming that since a very small fraction of conservatives want to get rid of obama (the Nazi vs Wiemar way), then all conservatives do. As much as I hate obama and the way this country has mostly been going to shit the past thirty years or so, I would be the first to take up arms against any and all insurrectionists. I'm an American first and borderline conservative second. As an American I seek discussion and moderation, not paranoia and revolution.

I'm aware that conservatism and insurectionism aren't mutually inclusive. In fact I'm quite sure that your average American conservative has little more than a mild dislike of President Obama. My issue is we don't seem to see liberal insurrectionists. In fact, the only liberal terrorists out there are the ones trying to stop whaling boats. Liberals are generally a lot more interested in civil disobedience than armed revolution, even the loons.

When I said that those crazy and paranoid morons all happen to be conservative, I was driving at an important question. Why do you suppose that is? Why aren't there liberal Tim McVeighs or liberal Scott Roeders (the man that killed Dr. Tiller)? Why is it that religious Olbermann watchers aren't showing up to town hall meetings with guns?

I don't know Will. I truly don't. But I have to dispute one point; there are liberal terrorists: The Weathermen, eco-terrorists, hell, even the black panthers for a short while. Both sides have plenty of loons. We just have to keep our wits about us until natural selection roots them out.:thumbsup:

and my issue is that when Bush/Cheney was running roughshod over the constitution, some of us more liberty minded people were also pissed, but all we heard from the liberal side is why didn't we 'gunners' do something about it then? WTF do you want from us? If the liberals aren't going to stand with us, why should we stand with you?

good question? maybe I can get a decent answer without hearing some bullshit about penis size or IQ handicaps. do liberals have issues with individual rights?

Alright, the answer is really quite simple and it's going to come off as an attack but I swear it's not meant that way.

Liberals oppose gun culture. We hate guns and generally we don't trust people that like guns. It took me years to trust you, even thought you gave me no reason not to trust you. Its not meant as personal, I never made a conscious decision not to trust you, but there's such an aversion to things like war and shootings on the left that we develop a hypersensitivity. We ourselves are so removed from that kind of violence we don't grasp the culture. Because we're so separate from that way of thinking—that "as a last resort, I can always pull my piece" option—it doesn't even occur to our radical elements to go shoot up a town hall or blow up Monsanto or whatever types of attacks a liberal might be inclined to be a part of. It never even enters our mind as an option. Speaking from personal experience, when something violates my personal code to my very core, like someone attacking people close to me, my first instinct isn't to put my hand on the holster, ready to draw. My first instinct is to put myself between them and danger and react non-lethally. It's an entirely different mindset. Thinking of the different progressive people I know IRL and here on TFP, I suspect they wouldn't have that instinct to use deadly force either. It's not that we're all pacifists, we're not, but most of us share a strong aversion to violence and war. It's why liberals have always been underrepresented in the armed forces. We're not cowards, we just have a different way of fighting that involves less violence.

I'm not at all suggesting that every 2nd Amendment loving American is a terrorist, or is even violent by nature. All I'm saying is that the most radical elements of gun culture, the rare exceptions to the mostly responsible people, are the ones that are going to be using acts of violence like shooting up a holocaust museum or blowing up a Federal building. I cannot imagine a liberal shooting up the George W. Bush library or blowing up a weapons factory. Really, the closest liberals get to that is eco-terrorism, which is generally just things like lighting an SUV on fire or spiking trees, things that are more about property damage than putting people in danger.

One thing I can never understand is the idea that you can stop a violent agression with non violence. It isn't possible. I understand Will that some people may have an aversion to violence, I hate violence, but If I'm walking down the street with my wife, and someone gets it in their head that they want to a)rob us or b) rape my wife with the threat of a weapon, how is anything short of pulling my gun in defense of my or my wife's life going to stop this person? No amount of rationalizing with said person is going to stop him, no amount of debate.

Sometimes you can't, but killing someone for trying to kill you makes you the same as that person. Anyway, I'm not talking about debating the person, I'm talking about just how willing one is to kill someone else. Why would I want to kill someone for the $80 in my pocket? Even if I was poor, such a thing could not be just, could it? And why are the only choices lethal force or talking? Tasers and mace are perfectly legitimate methods of non-lethal force which can deter an attacker.

I know that when you're trained to use a gun, one of the primary rules is "shoot to kill". You're not taught to shoot out a leg like they do on TV, you're taught to shoot at the head or more commonly the torso.

rahl just proved Will's point. Of COURSE a position of violence-aversion seems impossibly naive to a position of violence-acceptance. Just like a position of violence-acceptance seems needlessly brutish to a position of violence-aversion. My position seems best to me, but only because it's mine. Objectively, I can see it's no better than the opposite.

You may be right, will. You may have your finger on the thing that makes (in my view) conservative fanatics so much more dangerous than liberal fanatics. I don't mean dangerous in the "push through policies that are bad for the country" sense. I mean dangerous in the "stalk you, hunt you down, and mother fucking shoot you" sense.

Precisely. If violence is against one's nature, even if one is incredibly radical, the temptation to do violence will be overruled by personal ethics.

What we should concentrate on is real life consequences for radicalization of conservatives vs. liberals. Radicalized liberals will protest, cause property damage, and use other civil disobedience methods. Radicalized conservatives do not have those limitations as they're already willing to use deadly force in certain situations.

The worst case of conservative terrorism I'm aware of would be the bombing of the Murrah Building:
http://lefteyeonthemedia.files.wordp...dg-bombing.jpg
Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols are (was, in the case of McVeigh) conservative terrorists, spurred into radicalism because of Waco and Ruby Ridge. They created a simple fertilizer bomb and detonated it right in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building on April 19, 1995. 168 people died, 680 people were injured, 324 buildings were destroyed, and caused a total of about $653 million in damage.

Waco and Ruby Ridge have always been rallying points for the pro-gun crowd to justify their wanting to be armed against a tyrannical government, but now that seems to be shifting away from actual instances of the government acting in a tyrannical fashion to a president acting in a moderate way. As someone that's pretended to be a conservative on a radical conservative forum for over 2 years now, I can tell you without any doubt that Barack Obama will be the excuse for the next large attack by a radical conservative. This has to be stopped, and the only way I can see that happening is for those few moderate conservatives that are left to aggressively challenge the radical elements. If someone is repeating lies about H.R. 3200, stand up to them and correct them citing verifiable sources. Force them to face their true enemy: their own fear and ignorance. I'd like to think I'm doing my part via deception, but a liberal can only wear a conservative mask so well.

..

Good old Chuck Manson wasn't exactly a buttoned up, god-fearing, 3-piece suit type.

Being sure of something hardly makes it true. Please supply verifiable statistics to back this up.
Most welfare recipients are children, and thus do not have a political affiliation. And before you start on the "well I'm sure their parents are..." line, I'll again ask for statistics.
I see. "If you're not willing to commit murder, you don't care about your life or the lives of your family". That's simply not true. I don't love or value my family any less than you do yours. I recognize the probability of being in one of the nightmare scenarios that gun owners cook up to excuse their brandishing weapons everywhere they go is incredibly low. How often is someone going to break into my house with the sole purpose of murdering/raping me and my family?
You have no reason to be so afraid of me. Even if I did take your gun, which I won't, I'm of no threat to you. Instead of fearing me, maybe you should get to know me.

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:47 PM ----------

Charles Manson isn't a radical liberal, though.

I'm a liberal who supports the right to bear arms. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

Most liberals actually are okay with the Second Amendment. Some of us are even armed. I'm more talking about what rat called "violence-aversion", which is much more common among liberals than it is conservatives.

I agree people are different and have different mindsets. I completely respect anyones way of protecting themselves or their families. If you prefer mace or taser, great. I would never judge anyone based on whether they carry a gun or not. I just happen to carry, I'm not a crazy conservative nutjob, I'm not even republican. I honestly hope to never ever have to use my weapon. I guess I'm just the "I'd rather have it and not need it" kinda guy.

Please don't misunderstand. I don't think people that carry guns are crazy, I think they have a different mindset than my own. rahl, I'm certain that you will use your gun responsibly if that nightmare situation ever does find you. There are other gun-folk, however, that cannot act as responsibly. There are other people that are comfortable with the prospect of acting violently under the right circumstances, only their understanding of what circumstances require such action are skewed for whatever reason.

Timothy McVeigh convinced himself that the FBI and ATF's actions at Waco legitimized his attack on the Murrah building. I'm sure you would agree with me that Waco did not legitimize such an attack, even though we have different philosophies about violence. Likewise, there are liberal versions of Tim McVeigh out there, people with a skewed perception of when it's necessary to act in an extreme way. The difference is that the liberal, or more precisely the aggression-aversion Tim McVeigh probably wouldn't consider murder to be a legitimate response regardless of how he felt.

I would equate the tim mcveighs out there to muslim suicide bombers. They truely believe in their heart they are doing the right thing.

That's a good comparison. Those willing to commit acts of murder in the name of principle, ideology, or belief should be regarded similarly to one another.

So far, Will and I are having one conversation, with rahl sort of dipping his toes in it. Everyone else on this thread is having a different conversation.

The one Will and rahl and I are having is new, in my experience of this board. We've never really peeked behind the curtain quite this way before. I invite you to join THIS conversation, rather than simply repeating the mechanized talking points of your entrenched position.

timalkin, powerclown, and FuglyStick: You're missing the point, and in so doing you're demonstrating what the rest of us are talking about. Go back and read Will's post #105 and my post #108. Then note the shift in tone between rahl in post #106 and rahl in post #115. THAT'S an interesting thing to be talking about.

Actually there have been leftist organizations willing and able and successful in committing murder, but most of them died out in the 1970's. They didn't find purchase in a self-perpetuating culture as militia groups and assorted race-based hate groups have managed to do. I will agree that, currently, right-based political violence seems to be more likely at the present time, though. It's pretty well documented simply in the amount of death threats being received at the White House - not that all of them are serious, of course, but it belies an alarming amount of extreme psychological discomfort about the fact that we have not only a democrat, but a black democrat in the White House. It's disingenuous, though, to purport that all liberals are averse to violence. I have seen conversations right here at TFP where the idea of violent revolution was purported during the Bush presidency. And I remember being very disgusted by it.

As for the comment about 'men' acting like 'gigantic vaginas' - I find it interesting that:
1. women are being equated with cowards
and
2. men are being purported to be cowards (ie, women) if they don't have a gun they are willing to shoot someone with
and
3. fools expect anyone to take anything they say seriously when they say stupid shit like that