American conservatives are preparing for an armed revolution
 

The Tea Parties are just the tip of the iceberg. There is a seething grassroots movement going on in America amongst the most militant of conservatives.

We've read the stories of people stockpiling arms and ammo in the aftermath of Obama's victory in the White House. We've seen the backlash against Democratic power: we've seen racism, paranoia regarding socialism/communism, etc.

It will only get worse.

The cumulative effect of the circumstances fuel the fire: a global recession, a pending influenza pandemic, the continuing loss of industrial production, a continued strengthening of Democratic power, a perceived erosion of Constitutional rights, a major network (Fox) doing more harm than good with "reporting the news," etc., etc.

The only thing currently lacking is a spark. I don't know what that spark could be, or how to avoid it from setting off the powder keg.

Any ideas? Any solutions?

They'd never be able to fix things, they're peasants. Peasants are angry at everyone and everything except for the land owners, their real oppressors. I can't imagine conservatives going after executives that ripped off their investors or hedge fund managers that guilt the bubble that burst.

They can't take any important government installation, the White House, Capitol Hill, Pentagon, etc. are all expertly guarded. I'm not worried.

Will, you're looking at it the wrong way. Consider the most probable situation. It won't be a matter of taking over the White House or the Pentagon. It will be more a mentality of "hands off me and mine!"

When Americans revolted against the British Empire, they didn't try to overthrow or usurp King George. Instead they kicked British rule out of their territory. This is how I see a conservative revolution happening today. Parts of the country attempting to force federal power out of their states or parts of their states, maybe even going as far as trying to rid of both federal and state power, where state power doesn't sympathize.

If these paranoid types see the Obama administration as corrupt, socialist, and/or infringing on "God-given rights," why wouldn't they try to rid their communities of this "evil" federal power? If they think the feds are coming after their guns (as that individual had recently), why wouldn't they revolt with these guns? What happens if this occurs on the level of the community, and other similar communities are spurred as a result? What if they form a solidarity as a result?

So you think it would more take place as a civil war? Psshh... they don't have anywhere near the numbers. They'd get crushed.

Isn't that what the British said?

I agree with the caveat of "in any one place and large enough to make a difference". If you look at the facepalm that Texas had to do when Rick Perry suggested secession as being a viable option, I think you'll get a fairly accurate picture. I am sure that there are folks in every jurisdiction in the country who would do something along these lines, but I can't imagine those who would ACTUALLY pick up arms against the US government would ever comprise more than 5% of the population - at least at the outset. Whether or not that would grow depends very much on how the response is handled.

I don't see the French helping any militant neocons.

Look at how quickly Tim McVeigh was turned on by the right. Say some idiot actually does fight back. Do you think Sean Hannity would back him? Of course not. He's a coward.

The new administration is very aware of what could happen.
Unfortunately there is strong and very much alive racist hatred in our country,
as well.

http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf

i've said this before in various rephrased ways, trying to be nice, but since this is in paranoia...
actually, now that i think about it, the only reason it is here, apart from an editorial decision, is the verb "planning" which i think is wrong in any event.

the republicans decided it was in their interest to fabricate a coalition with a range of far-right across the 90s. the coalition was never really coherent internally, but it seems that alot of folk had enough fun bouncing to the collective first person pronoun tracks that limbaugh and other populist ideologues were spinning that it didn't really matter--so long as the coalition was in opposition. once george w bush--a kind of reactionary chauncey gardner--got fashioned as all things to all far right wingers and the power of this populist reactionary discourse became momentarily evident, i think the coalition--which was a pure product of oppositional thinking--reached it's high point. all the segments then expected to get paid. some did, some didn't--either way then 9/11/2001 happened and things like that didn't really matter so much as the bush people could then navigate around the incoherence of their own base by substituting another Enemy. and for a while, this fascism-lite that people like limbaugh were all about effectively merged with the paranoid discourse of the Terrorist and the long march through the fog of american fascism-lite began.

then the fucking up started. then things got worse and worse and the ideological space the right had fashioned for itself receded like a tide and the political reach of the conservative movement evaporated along with it and things just kept getting worse for them. the republican party, which benefitted from this populist nonsense even as to appeal to moderates there was some hand-waving in the direction of nose-holding, got sucked into the vortex of its own making, a straight result of the singular, almost awe-inspiring incompetence of the bush administration. and now there's nothing but wreckage left.

so whaddya gonna do?

faux news has a business model to protect and a demographic to maintain and the infrastructure that our boy karl rove once bragged about in terms not that unlike an earlier boast about a thousand year reich---all that's collapsed. so generating hysteria becomes a business decision. everything faux news has done follows in a straight line from that.

conservatives know that their own actions have fucked them over completely, but they aren't real good at accepting responsibility for things it seems, so there's all kinds of distancing devices you see floating about--bush was not a "real conservative" blah blah blah---but all that really does is generate a sense of even more wreckage because it runs a separation between themselves and the republican party (for example).

not adept at reflexivity and too embedded in this fucked up mix of evangelical language with reactionary politics, these folk are pissed.

not adept at reflexivity and too embedded in this fucked up mix of evangelical language with reactionary politics, it seems almost predictable that they would now, collectively--in the sense of maybe everywhere maybe nowhere--feel themselves under threat.

so they're suceptible to hysteria because it enables them to direct the consequences of the fact that the right had power onto imaginary external threats.

and this is a lynchpin of any fascisant ideology. everywhere an Enemy that sucks dry the petit bourgeois Victim. everywhere a threat. all the time.

so guns. why not? lots of them too.

you, Evil Other, will not fuck with my stuff.

but i don't see a movement in this--i see a structured reaction. behind it, there's a bunch of management strategies, all geared around trying to find ways to weather a massive, self-inflicted political defeat. which is WAY bigger than the fact that obama was elected president.

so what it looks to me is happening is the formation of a new variant of the american extreme right, the kind of petit bourgeois right that's linked to the post-reconstruction extreme right, that's been a constant in the jurassic park of reactionary politics that is the united states.

what's changed is that these folk cannot occupy a collective first-person space and imagine that it extends much of anywhere.

they don't know how to deal with this. so guns.

that's my cheerful little narrative.
hope you had fun with it.

boy o boy, spanky, that sure was powerful fun. let's do it again! :p

I feel the same way about whiny far right reactionaries and their guns as i do about the suh-whine flu.

mehge.

That was a refreshing cathartic read...roachboy.

Hmm. That sounds awfully familiar. I think I heard about something like that happening, back in the early 1860s.

;)

Rational conservatives--they do exist--need to take this opportunity to purge their party of lunatic fringe extremists if they want the GOP to continue being representative of any significant demographic.

I've been largely a supporter of liberal policy since I've been old enough to vote, but on a few issues I appreciate the conservative point of view. They've made it impossible to find any middle ground or compromise lately, however, with the patients running the asylum.

Come back, GOP. I want an opposing party that offers an alternative view, not lunacy.

Everyone underestimates the peasants. They ride single file, to hide their numbers. Fear the sand people! I mean peasants! The French aristocracy laughed at the Guillotine...until the peasants executed them with it.

The peasant mentality I speak of involves blaming everyone but those responsible. They want to blame the pro-choicers, the ivy league intellectuals, the community organizers, ACORN, Clinton, the House and Senate, all of the evil "leftists", but they refuse to judge anything connected with business. I'm more than willing to admit freely that the government has had some catastrophic screw ups not only in the past but even presently, but they're unwilling or unable to admit that AIG execs don't really deserve big bonuses. They refuse to admit that big business is out to screw them just as much as any politician. They refuse to admit that some government is necessary. They're peasants, and they bow every time the duke rides by on his steed. When they're dissatisfied, they blame everyone but the person that's directly causing them that discomfort.

I think there was a recent article about this on Smirking Chimp.

Edit: Found the article:
"http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/21289"

I don't have much to say, but I will preamble my post with this: I don't like Obama. I don't trust Obama. He's a shifty fucking character; he promises way too much, and a lot of people are going to be pissed when he keeps only a fraction of them. I realize ALL politicians are like this to some extent, but...well, anyway, I think an armed revolution is the worst thing militants could do. It would fail, and Obama would declare martial law, only increasing his power and furthering his agenda, whatever it may be. As an American, I would help supress any revolution in anyway I could, but I doubt it will come to that.

I'm still trippin' on the "reactionary Chauncey Gardner", bit. Priceless.

...and we scratch our heads and wonder why our schools are producing illiterate, mindless automatons who can't be bothered to care about anything outside their own limited sphere of inter-entertainment. Do you honestly believe this is accidental?

While the article that willravel posted makes a lot of sense and does so in a very witty manner, the truth is it's just not the peasants who are delusional. The entire middle-class (yes, even us enlightened Progressives) has been duped in a manner that would make the peasants look like the League of Skeptics, and what's worse is that we're too arrogant to believe we could be.

He'd only declare martial law if the rebellion were large, and the only way the rebellion could possibly be large would be if Fox News organized it. Call me crazy, but I think someone might catch on if an internationally broadcast 24-hour news station were calling for armed insurrection.

We *might* see a few individuals doing something stupid with their guns, but the way our military and police forces are set up there's no way they'd be able to do anything substantial. Had the Branch Davidians fired first, the standoff at Waco would have been over in about 20 minutes.

The only scary scenario that I can see is if the US military stages a coup. There is about a 0.0001% chance of that happening though. It would make a great movie however.

The right does a lot better talking and arguing than actually doing anything. If they had been a little more effective in the past 30 years when they were in charge, I might be a little more concerned. But, they lost in a fair election, they need to move on and figure out what they are going to run on in 2 years. They aren't going to win a war with guns (unless it all goes to hell). They can still win at the voting booth.

..

See, in all honesty I could be swayed to armed revolution and believe it or not I'm not a radical right wing nut.

I just see the country's leaders and media working hand in hand with big business and whichever party happens to be in power decides which companies will succeed and which will be hurt. An excellent example is watching who got TARP funds, who didn't who now has to sell to bigger banks that got TARP and so on. TARP has not and it's purpose is not to help the people but the banks and the top 5%. The rest of us just pay for it.

I think for the top 5% to complain they pay too much in taxes when in the past 20+ years they have watched their wealth increase exponentially while the middle class has lost and continues to lose more is pathetic. If that top 5% doesn't want to pay high taxes and truly believes in personal responsibility and the opportunity for someone to become self made, they would invest more into local businesses and build a better tax base instead of outsourcing and raping the workers.

I blame government because both parties have allowed the rich to get richer and done nothing to rebuild a truly viable tax base.

I look at the media and a great example of how they can make a company extremely wealthy is how they have scared us with the Swine Flu. In doing so (along with WHO), they have increased Tamiflu sales into what 500%? And if you research and see Donald Rumsfield gets 14-22% of its sales you can see why. (BTW Tamiflu sales also skyrocketed for the Avian Flu).

Donald Rumsfeld's controversial links to drug company behind Tamiflu | Mail Online

Anyway, back to the topic.... IF and only IF there was a true outcry to retake the country for the hard working middle class and not some bullshit given by talking heads with agendas of their own.... I would arm and join immediately.

But since that won't happen, I guess I'll just sit back and watch the country destroyed by the greed of the extreme wealthy and the political extremists who have such powerlusts they don't give a damn about people's rights or this country... they only want more power to control people's lives.... except of course the extreme wealthy that allows them that power.

I refuse to be associated with any kind of armed revolution.

They'd have mismatched uniforms and I can't handle that.

...

It's pathetic that anybody thinks this is viable. Or newsworthy.

We've had plenty of Republicans doing this stuff for ages.

Idiots like Timothy McVeigh, Montana Freemen, etc. :crazy:

EDIT: Hah, it's the cracker equivalent of the jihad!

I think that if armed rebellion results, most instances of it will be similar to the recent one where the "gun enthusiast" who was afraid that Obama was going to take away his gun ambushed and killed three cops. Which is to say, they will be stupid and tragic.

I am pretty certain that the easiest way to force any government to take your guns away would be to engage in open, violent rebellion.

Fuel on the fire
 

Do people actually watch this stuff? How do they synthesize it?

As someone who lives in an ostensibly "socialist" nation, I roll my eyes when I see things like this. This is unbelievable.

I can see this kind of thing fuelling the paranoia and misconceptions of millions of Americans.

They honestly think this is socialism? "The path to socialism"? Communism?

Holy crap. Are we living in the '50s?

And, Pan, I can't believe you'd be willing to take up arms. For what, exactly? This tells me one thing: you believe the American system of government has failed. What do you want in its place? You can borrow from our system in Canada if you would like. Or is that too socialist for you? But, wait....you want to go up against the capitalists it seems. Are you gunning for a socialist revolution?

Baraka, keep in mind when you post Glenn Beck vids, this is an alcoholic who just a few years ago said he couldn't support Lieberman for president because the country would then not be able to form any kind of rational debate with Iran. Within the month, he said he could support Lieberman to be tough on Iran, and had no recollection of ever having said his previous statement.

He didn't sound confused over it, he just flat out denied it, and there was a shitstorm on his show about it.

He gets press now and then, but he's not saying anything new. He is a long time addict who came up through wakka wakka morning zoo radio and became conservative when he looked at his tax bill (under Reagan, who blamed the democrats).

A couple of things to think about, under Clinton the first two years of his administration plummeted in popularity because the economy initially worsened before skyrocketing. So far, under Obama the economy has dumped like a baby on soy and his ratings continue to go up. The American people are not fomenting rebellion.

And if there's one thing we learned from the 1992-2000 era, the nut jobs do not own the better guns.

The only thing that seriously worries me about this recent concern is that media outside the US really does not get how things operate inside the US. When Clinton was elected, the hue and cry from the right was deafening. People called in death threats non stop to any agency or media outlet that would hear them. Idiots crashed Cessnas into the DC mall, people referred to Hillary and Janet Reno as Butch.

That happened from the start. It's been reletively silent this time.

I dunno, nobody did anything when people were illegally disarmed during Katrina. Nobody did anything after Ruby Ridge or Waco (unless you count Tim McVeigh... but he didn't use guns). It seems likely the "cold dead hands" thing is all talk.

Not to mention that "Obama and Co" have said NOTHING about taking guns away.

Oh, I know, they never say anything about it. Then look what Clinton did? He took away all of our guns!

ditto

I do believe our system has failed. As I stated above, I believe the top 5% controlling the vast majority of wealth (some say 75% some say as high as 90%) control the country. They are like the Outer Limits "Do not adjust your television... we control all that you see, hear, read and think."

Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O Reilly, Cunningham, Coulter, Moore, Olberman, Matthews, Time, National Review.... and so on are all one in the same. The messages may seem different but the reality is that they divide and conquer. Thus the power structure never changes, the political parties will always just trade off like some bad tag team, but the rights of the people and the country as a whole will continue to be looted and destroyed. The politicians can't help themselves, they need to be reelected because they have POWER.

If politicians truly were looking out for the people they governed in this country and around the world, they'd mandate that ALL product brought into the US would have to be made by people making similar wages with similar working conditions and rights. But they don't..... WHY? Give me 1 truly good reason as to why. Well, it would be hard to police. Bullshit. It would be stepping on other countries toes. Bullshit. Sending lead painted dolls, poisoned pet food is ok because we don't want to step on toes? Preaching human rights and then allowing product made in a children's sweatshop or a factory that pays 28 cents a day to its workers is ok? If you are promoting standards for your country and demand those standards be followed by the people, then the product you bring in better be made by those same standards or... well, you lose your manufacturing base, your tax base and you financially free fall. You want to raise taxes on people scared to death that they may lose their job, can barely live for "universal health care" while the countries we have making our product have barely any human rights and no true healthcare system except for the extreme wealthy? You say, "there's no new taxes for that." Really then how is universal healthcare going to be paid for?

I think the vast majority who chair committees probably do so because the party or the puppet masters have pics of them and blackmail them. It becomes clearer every time a Senator or Rep speaks out or goes against the grain and all of a sudden they have a mistress, misspent campaign funds, took congressional payola, or the press just starts to dig into their background and tells us how bad of a person they are.

The top 5% sit back and get whatever they want from government and allow hacks like Limbaugh, Beck and so on talk about how they pay so much in taxes, meanwhile they outsource, close plants, do nothing to keep jobs or figure out how to rebuild a long lasting tax base. Thus, they will continue to pay higher taxes BUT it doesn't matter because they control the wealth. If I have a billion dollars, do you think I'm worried about the price of toilet paper, food, paying for my kids college, my mortgage, tires for my car, gas, utilities, etc? HELL FUCKING NO. But, if I do, I just raise prices and blame taxes, outsource and blame taxes and the American worker and unions for wanting too much and I can't be competitive and so on. I'll keep mine, fuck everyone else.

I don't believe in pure Socialism, nor do I believe in pure Capitalism or Communism. I believe we find factors of each and meld them. There is enough wealth in this world for ALL people to succeed and prosper. There will always be those who take their talents and flush them. That is part of free will and freedom.

I believe in economic justice not just for my country men but for all. But the only way we can have economic justice for all is to drastically change the system here in the states first and to demand that product made outside the states are made with US employment rights and laws. In doing so the other countries people will prosper and take more pride in their work, wealth will be spread out further.

For those beliefs, I would take up arms. But it will never happen. The longer we stay in this world recession, the richer that 5% gets and the more wealth they will ultimately control. The more wealth they control, the more they control what we see, hear, read, get taught and eventually think. Until, we are in a feudal system and believe that the overlord will protect us and the worse our standard of living becomes.

But, Pan, despite the recession, the mortgage crisis, and the value of the ultra rich, America remains one of the top nations in terms of standard of living. Once things turn around, it will be business as usual—which I agree isn't the life of Pollyanna, but it isn't nearly as bad as most of the world. I'm guessing the average poverty rate is less than 15%—compare that to other nations, whose standards might not even be as high.

The median income in the U.S. is probably still higher than it is here in Canada. I don't see many seething people around here.

I understand the rich are getting richer, but unless the government is completely ignoring the poor ("socialist" Obama surely wouldn't, would he?), why would economics be the linchpin for revolution? America is doing quite a bit better than other non-revolutionary states.

And you would kill for this? Kill your own countrymen?

* * * * *

Okay, you know this...I know this (now)....but what about his viewers? And do they even care? They're just after his "goods." They eat it right up, don't they?

Very quick because I have to go to work... The median income level is a joke. To say "yeah people make this amount so life is good." is propagandist bullshit. It doesn't show how many are living paycheck to paycheck and are heavily in debt due to healthcare, credit cards, student loans, mortgages, etc.

True wealth IMHO is defined only by net worth. And since the average American is in debt and our government is extremely heavily in debt.... what wealth does the true average person have?

So, it's ok for nations we trade with to use slave labor, poor working conditions, little pay and no rights? As long as those goods are cheaper it's ok??????

If you are going to say America has the highest standard of living... we probably do, but we are in debt for it because we trade with countries that promote squalor living conditions with no or very little freedom.

If we truly have a great standard of living and our way is the greatest, then we must allow others that taste so that it can spread. The only way to do this is to tell those we trade with that all product they produce and ship into our country must be made in factories with equal workers rights, corporate regulations and competitive pay values and bonuses as those offered here.

Until we do that, we have no true wealth because we will continually seek cheaper labor for cheaper goods and outsource jobs until there is nothing left.

And yes, if there were a movement for this or my life and freedom or those I loved were threatened because of my beliefs, I would take arms.

To quote a Paul Anka lyric sung by Sinatra:

I would rather fight to the death for my beliefs and the right to hold them and possible see them come to fruition (but since they are so out there that will never happen) than to sit idly by, say nothing and be told that I cannot hold those beliefs. To me it's being true to oneself.

A lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck because they're irresponsible, not because they can't afford the necessities. For evidence of this, one not need look further than the sub-prime fiasco. Most Americans live above their means. If you find a way to rally against these people, please let me know. I'll stand right beside you as you revolt against irresponsible spending.

I agree, Willravel.

One doesn't need a six-figure income to become a millionaire.

Another indicator of wealth is earning ability over time, based on your current age. It's not your net worth only; it's where your net worth could be if you know how money works.

Many of us have (or have had) the potential to be millionaires.

Very quick because I have to go to work... The median income level is a joke. To say "yeah people make this amount so life is good." is propagandist bullshit. It doesn't show how many are living paycheck to paycheck and are heavily in debt due to healthcare, credit cards, student loans, mortgages, etc.

True wealth IMHO is defined only by net worth. And since the average American is in debt and our government is extremely heavily in debt.... what wealth does the true average person have?

So, it's ok for nations we trade with to use slave labor, poor working conditions, little pay and no rights? As long as those goods are cheaper it's ok??????

If you are going to say America has the highest standard of living... we probably do, but we are in debt for it because we trade with countries that promote squalor living conditions with no or very little freedom.

If we truly have a great standard of living and our way is the greatest, then we must allow others that taste so that it can spread. The only way to do this is to tell those we trade with that all product they produce and ship into our country must be made in factories with equal workers rights, corporate regulations and competitive pay values and bonuses as those offered here.

Until we do that, we have no true wealth because we will continually seek cheaper labor for cheaper goods and outsource jobs until there is nothing left.

And yes, if there were a movement for this or my life and freedom or those I loved were threatened because of my beliefs, I would take arms.

To quote a Paul Anka lyric sung by Sinatra:

I would rather fight to the death for my beliefs and the right to hold them and possible see them come to fruition (but since they are so out there that will never happen) than to sit idly by, say nothing and be told that I cannot hold those beliefs. To me it's being true to oneself.

---------- Post added at 03:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------

Really? Person with a college degree, works 40 hours a week makes let's say $10 an hour life is bleak because there are no longer jobs anywhere, he's stuck paying his rent, utilities and so on. His one vice is to go out once a week and see a movie. Who are you to tell him he's wrong and spending his money irresponsibly?

The fact he only makes $10 an hour while the CEO and upper management makes MILLIONS, is ok? Not to me. That's the wrong part right there. That';s fucked up thinking.... but it's what people are ok believing because that way no one will truly realize the workers deserve to be able to live decently without having to go heavily in debt and watch their jobs go overseas.

See, I truly can't stomach the bullshit that it's the little person's fault because they spend their pittance wrong, while the fucking rich keep getting richer and exporting what little decent jobs we have out.

you know, this is a bit awkward because it's better that there be some recognition of the obvious fact of the american class structure than the opposite.....

but geez pan you act like you just discovered that this is that case and just worked out that it matters in shaping how things have played out.

i can't for the life of me figure out what you thought was going on before you woke up.


welcome to reality.

The average annual earnings of someone holding an associate's degree in the U.S. is $38,000. It's over $52,000 for a bachelor's degree.

Who's making $10 per hour?

I wasn't in debt when I was making $10 an hour and living on my own.

I've lived on $10 an hour as recently as 2002. I'm not saying it's easy, but if it's not impossible to live on $10 an hour in San Jose back when the housing bubble was still peaking, it's not impossible anywhere. It simply takes an iota of fiscal discipline. Unfortunately, fiscal discipline is about as common in America as... say... socialism. How many people do you know that are out of debt? Now look at all the people in debt. Do you see any decisions that might make, maybe some small sacrifices, in order to be debt-free? I do.

I work directly with some of the poorest families in the bay area. Just 30 minutes ago, I had a gentleman come in wearing $100+ shoes and a decent watch looking for free food for his kids.
Socialist. :thumbsup:

..

Whether anybody supports the 2nd Amendment has little to do with "the system" still working. That the 2nd Amendment is in place and working is a given. This plays such a minor role, which is why I'm always intrigued by how rabid people are about it, all the while there seems to be relatively little energy plowed into such things as the problems of education and poverty in the U.S.

You want to see the system break down? Let those two things spiral into oblivion.

But, hey, at least you have guns, right? Seems a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy if you look at it this way.

If you look back, my stance on this has never changed. I have always been saying the same thing when it comes to class structure. So, forgive me but I don't understand this whole "just discovered" bs.

---------- Post added at 02:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------

See, with that thinking though comes telling people how to spend their money and the end of freedom. I can't nor will never think that way. To tell someone working 40 hours a week making $10 how they spend their money or to ridicule them because they want to enjoy a little is not my cup of tea.

If you truly did that, then my hats off to you. I worked 40 hours a week, making $8.50 to roughly $10 within the last 4+ years (up to a grand 11.40 now). And at that time, by the time child support came out and I paid rent, utilities, food, gas to just get to work and home, minimum car insurance, I barely had enough to survive. If not for the minimal help of my mother (if a tire blew or an emergency arose) and student aid, I couldn't have survived and that was cutting back on everything but cable and a cell phone.... both of which I was getting great deals on. And that was living in a lower cost of living area than you.

Some people work the system, some may have inherited a little and believe it or not, just because you are poor doesn't mean you have to wear shoes with duct tape.... in fact if you do, good luck getting a job. He may have gotten those shoes through a charity/Goodwill or Salvation Army sell some nice clothes, shoes and so on cheap... I know when I was making that money back then, I shopped there and even now I buy stuff there at times. Found a nice leather St John's Bay coat that was like brand new for $15, went to JCPenney's and saw the same coat for almost $300. What's a decent watch to you? It may have looked nice but so do many watches at Wal*Mart and thrift stores... did you get a close enough look at the name?

My point is, it is complete and utter bullshit to assume that he spent big bucks on what he had, there are many ways he could have gotten those articles. Doesn't mean his family is still not in need.

No, not socialist. I think a free market with restraints/regulations and private ownership is the only economic system that allows true personal freedom. Once you allow government to own anything, freedom, IMHO, goes out the door because the government wants to maximize the workers earning potential, plus it allows government too much control over the people.

So, no..... I cannot say I am a Socialist. I just believe in the social responsibilities that come with wealth. I believe the only way to attain true wealth physically, spiritually and mentally is to take a fair share of your investment in a company and spread the rest out equally in regards to the workers.

Henry Ford once said, Somewhere along that line, the ultra rich forgot that reasoning.

He also said:

I'd like to find a site that has my favorite Ford quote but I can't, it goes something like this:

pan---you act all shocked and outraged that there is a class structure and that this class structure has consequences. you act as though this represents some kind of Problem for the american political system. fact is that the system is built around the class structure. i just don't think you have a terribly coherent idea of what that means.

since you've taken to quoting one of my favorite american fascists, henry ford (you know, ole hank, the guy who sponsored the translation of the protocols of the elders of zion and who broke with hitler in the early 1930s because he wasn't anti-semetic enough; ole hank, the guy responsible for a sustained war on labor unions culminating in the lovely river rouge battles of the 1940s; ole hank, the guy who also decided to rationalize american folk music and dance because it offended his fascist sense of nation that there were multiple traditions...good old henry ford...a jonas brother amongst intellectuals), i'll offer you in return a little nugget from marx:

Marx, German Ideology (1845)

so let's say for a second that this is close to accurate in principle. that would mean that your entire "politics" of revolution really is nothing but a snippy inversion of the dominant ideology.

you are a product of a system of social reproduction; you repeat the ways of thinking that underpin the worldview that you think you oppose in the ways in which you oppose it. this leaves you no alternative but to imagine that the problem is that there's been some sort of Betrayal of the Amurican Way by one or another collection of Bad People---recently you've been trying to argue that these Bad People are somehow affiliated with the obama administration, which explains your foray into the tea party farce. whatever, it doesn't matter. you are stuck juxtaposing some imaginary "Real American Political System" with some equally vague existing arrangement, opposing the latter in the name of the former and then proceeding to talk about taking up arms in some kind of equally imaginary revolutionary movement.


you're a gun and a uniform fetish away from militia world, pan.
and what you take for revolution would be-----at the very best-----a kind of beerhall putsch.

Look up the skinny on Walt Disney, as well.
Yikes.

Pan, you should have at least quoted Peter Drucker, who knew better than Ford: management isn't about production, price, and profit exclusively:

"[CEO compensation more than 20 times what the rank and file make—especially at companies where thousands of employees are being laid off]—is morally and socially unforgivable, and we will pay a heavy price for it.”

"[The concept of profit maximization] is a major cause of the misunderstanding of the nature of profit in our society and of the deep-seated hostility to profit, which are among the most dangerous diseases of an industrial society."

"To know what a business is, we have to start with its purpose. Its purpose must lie outside of the business itself. In fact, it must lie in society since business enterprise is an organ of society. There is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer."

The problem isn't with business. The problem is with poorly managed businesses.

You can't fix this with guns.

Because I like some quotes from a man does not mean I like the man. Henry Ford's actions were not great. Some things he said were. 2 totally different things. The quotes I used above, to me are very good quotes from a man who built a very profitable business. His actions towards his workers were in no way supportive of the quotes but that does not give any less strength to what was said, just that the man saying them did not follow through on his own beliefs.

Trust me I know my American history. But again, believe what ever you want about me. This quote and the previous one you had to me sound more like you are trying to read deeper than what there is or perhaps not seeing what I have written.

As far as taking arms against anyone, unless my freedom is at stake, I seriously doubt that my beliefs would ever become popular enough for many to take arms for.

What I am seeing from you and others are excuses for the fucked up system and how you truly think about the average person and that disgusts me. But that is your right. But enjoying your right to believe whatever you choose to do not belittle, berate or try to show your belief is better than mine. Beliefs/opinions are like assholes... we all have them and they all smell.

It is when I am not allowed to express my beliefs freely, to not share/debate my beliefs and trade ideas, that I will take arms.... against those oppressing my ideas or against myself. Because the freedom to have, share and express my ideas, not just politically but in religion, art, life in general is to me my most important right as a human and would be the one I would fight to the death for.

---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 PM ----------

I extremely agree with Drucker's quote above.

I agree with business and privately owned business there isn't true problems. It is when the people running those businesses feel they have the right to rape and pillage the company and workers that the problem begins.

Again, just because I have quotes from Ford does in no way mean I am a believer in his actions. I am a believer in the quotes above and that perhaps instead of lip service perhaps Ford should have lived by his own words.

No, you can't fix this with guns, only by opening minds expressing ideas on how to find better solutions and developing then following that plan making adjustments as needed if something doesn't work or you find a better way. It's finding compromise so that we all can move forward and live in the prosperity each person has the ability and freedom to make for themselves.

Without compromise and finding middle ground the country, the people and the whole human race may as well go back to carrying clubs and living in fucking caves. It is compromise and working together for common goals that got us to the moon, that beat Hitler, that built this nation to be the once greatest nation ever seen.

It was only when compromise and finding middle ground, failed to work because sides saw those as weaknesses that we began to fail.

pan---what i take exception to is your empty talk about revolution. the argument is basically that you haven't thought it through far enough--like anywhere near far enough---so when i read you trying to invoke it as a way of basically adding some spice to being snippy, there's always a little fight that happens in my head as to whether i am going to take you on or not regarding this. suffice it to say that i come out of a marxist background and so to my mind almost all of what you talk about as problematic concerning the american system looks to me like it is as it is as a function of capitalism. unless you go after that, you aren't talking about anything remotely like revolution. o sure, the militia types would like to imagine that because in their dreamlands they pantomime minutemen that they're somehow revolutionaries--but mostly they're just pathetic.

when i posted about the dominant ideology, i wrote quickly and in the process ended up sounding as though somehow or another i was outside it and you weren't...if only things were that simple...but they aren't. so my apologies for that.

i didn't say anything about "the average person" and really don't care what does and does not "disgust" you about what you imagine my attitude toward this construct of yours to be. you're making up everything you impute to me, so the problems with what you say are yours, not mine. think what you like. it really is of no consequence.

what's hilarious is that you imagine that because i think your "revolutionary" politics are shallower than shallow that somehow or another i am an apologist for the existing order standing in the way of the Heroic March of folk like yourself Forward toward some Brighter Future. you're so completely wrong that it's hard to know where to start with it: what's clearer is that starting isn't worth the time or energy---here's why: this whole business whereby you set yourself up as some Lenin holding out against a world of apologists for the existing order--no matter whether these apologists are figments of your imagination or not---- is nothing more than the introduction of yet another round of what seems to be your favorite game: poor me.
and that, pan, is not a game i have the slightest interest in playing with you again.
if you want to play a different game, then fine--but wading through another series of posts that are about your victimization, no. not interested.

I'm not telling them how to spend their money, just how not to spend it. And there's no rule anywhere that says teaching fiscal responsibility is the end of freedom. In fact, I'd say education and the application of good education is key to freedom.

Anyway, it's not difficult to see when someone is spending his or her money in a way that's irresponsible. If someone is spending money on luxury items but can't afford enough food for his or her family, that should be lauded? Of course not. Worse still is the man making $30k a year that signed a mortgage for a home that costs $600k.

We're all interconnected, Pan. I spend very responsibly, I'm out of debt and have a respectable nest-egg in case something goes wrong. I make small investments that generally are slightly profitable, but I never take big risks. I am fiscally responsible. And yet the money in my savings has decreased in worth because the US$ has dropped in worth. My home is worth maybe 71% of what it was 3 years ago. Why? Not by my doing. No, it was by the irresponsible behaviors and beliefs of others that I've lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $350,000 worth of theoretical home value and monetary value. Because these things have a direct effect on me, they are mine to judge and I judge them without guilt. They don't have the freedom to damage my financial security.
Okay, bad example. I'll give you a good example: sub-prime people.
I was half-kidding. It's not alright with me either that incomes are so extreme. When I think of the billions of dollars that upper management or hedge fund managers made last year when there are so many minimum wage backs they built their fortunes on, it makes me sad. Still, liberals have been called socialist (or worse) for years for merely suggesting that income should be a little more fair.

Once you allow the market to own anything, freedom, IMHO, goes out the door because the market wants to maximize the workers efficiency (more work for less pay), plus it allows the market too much control over the people. This is why you need a small measure of regulation, just to make sure that people aren't getting ripped off by millionaire CEOs.

Yes we are all interconnected and it shows more in turbulent times than it does in prosperous. I think our differences here maybe the fact I blame the top 5% class for their greed and making the problems we have by not paying the worker what the worker needs to survive.

It's easy to tell a worker "live within your means" while the CEO and upper management rape the company for all it's worth and get bonuses when they layoff people or golden parachutes when the company they ran goes into the dumpster.

Upper management wants to say it's paid because they put the stake into the company...again as Ford (I know I know) stated "A company is owned by the customer". If management worked as hard to find and develop better product as it does to blame the workers, government and so on for the way things are, they may show profitability and increase in their salaries that way instead of having to rape and pillage the workers and company into bankruptcy.

People are people. If they saw an opportunity to buy a house and were told they could afford it, then of course they are going to. Government knew what was going on so did the banks... they knew there would be a bubble bursting and they did nothing. So who is to truly blame. I can't blame the people for wanting a chance at a better life. I blame government for not protecting the people and the banks for knowing what they were doing but not caring. If the rates hadn't gone up, if gas hadn't ballooned, a lot of the housing would have been ok. The rates going up I still have to hear good reasons for.

True. I think that's a NeoCon right way to scare people. Scare tactics work.

Agreed 100% here as I stated a free market with restraints and regulations. I don't think that the top 5% are evil as a whole. I think greed takes one over as they acquire more and greed affects rational thinking.

Does anyone really know of anyone who made 30k that got a loan for 600k? Nobody did. Some people got loans that might have been about twice what they could afford, most got less, but when the interest shot up and the payment went way too high.... A good chunk of these people were told that these ARM loans were normal and that they could afford them, and the bank wouldn't jack the interest up so high, so fast. They were lied to, so the bank could get a lot of these loans closed and sold off to investors.

I personally got an ARM, (against my better judgement, I blame my ex), but I can still afford to pay the payments, because my bank isn't going nuts and jacking up the interest faster than they promised. I make around 75k and the MOST I could get was a loan for 240k. I guess I should have held out for a million.....

Oops, I missed this:
I can't tell you how glad it makes me to read you saying that. I totally agree. The top 1%, the developing oligarchy, are out of control and its about damned time that we have things like executive pay limits imposed in order to force the ultra-rich to allow their money to trickle down to the hard workers that they build their fortunes on. I'm not against hard workers getting paid for their hard work, but I'm against the working class getting ripped off. So I'm totally with you so far.
I think that's a different issue, though. There's the issue of vast wealth inequality, which is an issue of fairness, and there's the issue of living within one's means, which is an issue of pragmatism. Am I making sense? I say we should fight tooth and nail to make sure hard working people aren't getting ripped off, but until we score that glorious victory it's up to us to ensure that they don't break us (though now that I think of it, I'm probably not one of the "us"s because I'm pretty comfortable). Every time a minimum wage earner wastes money he or she needs just to stay afloat, they're supporting the vampiric debt industrial complex that further enslaves them financially. Every time someone borrows money they can't pay back in this country, the "ruling class" earns another indentured servant. That's a bigger threat to the poor than the corrupt, golden-parachute-wearing pricks that enjoy an outrageous salary made off the poor. The poor should avoid debt like it's the plague. They should avoid wasteful spending. It's not about me judging them, either. I'm speaking from my own experience. I made it. I was poor from the day my dad first moved our family so he could go to the seminary to the day I got my job after graduating from college. I want everyone to have the opportunity to taste the sweet taste of success.
There's more than enough blame to go around. Congress, Clinton, Bush, banks, and yes, the people that put their John Hancock on the mortgages; they're all to blame. I get that real estate isn't simple. I had an interesting adventure buying my house from a family member that I might retell someday. Still, I didn't walk into it blind at all. No one should.
Scare tactics are used to control. What's needed is proper education. These people walked into a trap and didn't have a clue. It's time for people to wise up and learn about these things before signing papers.
Glad we're on the same page. :thumbsup:

I will say only this:

Having sold a -lot- of those guns and ammo everyone's so worried about, I think I have a pretty good notion of the motives informing this rush to arm.

Nobody is preparing, from what I can see, for a Revolution. Certainly nobody I've seen intends to start a fight.

People are preparing to defend themselves from a threat they perceive, realistically or not, as an assault on their entire culture and way of life. They are preparing to fight to their deaths in defense of their homes, families, and culture. They are drawing lines in the sand. And if even 1% of the gunowning American public decides to resist whatever-it-is through force of arms...this is gonna be one HELLUVA gunfight. These people have been pushed around, demonized, harassed, and browbeaten by the past three Administrations. They are well aware of their tormentors; bankers, industrial Mercantilists, the Military-industrial Complex, etc. They see these interests acting in concert with the current Leftist control of the Legislative and Executive branches (always to their detriment), and they are sick of it. They have mostly given up on such niceties as voting and protest and petition-signing, since nobody pays them any heed anyway (Bailouts, wars, etc come immediately to mind) and are "hunkering down," hoping to avoid notice if possible...and preparing to fight like cornered rats if not.

If Revolution comes, it will because somebody was forced (in his mind) to defend himself/herself, and their friends came a-runnin'. Misguided and misinformed though they may sometimes be, these folks will not -start- a fight. Most are fatalistically aware that they cannot realistically hope to -win- such a fight in concrete, numerical terms. But fight they will, at least some percentage, until they are killed in the doing.

"Progressive" and Leftist cultural imperialists would do well to meditate upon this at length, especially upon the fact that if even 1% of the gunowning public resists, they will have to kill somewhere north of 850,000 people. They will have to kill men, women, and babes in arms. They will have to be willing to join the ranks of Pol Pot and Idi Amin. And that's not counting any of their perceived aggressors whom the insurgents manage to take with them.

Leave them alone, and they will leave you alone. Poke them with a stick and, to paraphrase General Giap, they will kill all you send...or die trying.

4,500,000 firearms were sold in the last 3 months of 2008, along with over 1,300,000,000 rounds of ammunition. If nothing else the sheer numbers bear consideration.

As I said; meditation at length.

Edited To Add:

An equally large number of people, many quite inexperienced with firearms, are also arming-up in anticipation of a rise in violent crime during what many worry will be a generational economic depression. Last time around,, they think to themselves, we got John Dillinger and Clyde Barrows and Al Capone. And that was in the '20s and '30s, when 50% of the population still lived on farms and could at least feed themselves...these days it's less than 5%! These days we have the Bloods, Crips, Aryan Nations, National Alliance MS-13, Latin Kings, Folk Nation, not to mention freelance thugs and sneak-thieves, and an almost entirely urban population. Oh HELL. "Hot" home invasions have been on a slow increase nationwide for years, and this disturbing trend combined with the sure prospect of severe recession or depression bringing on a rise in poverty (and therefore crime), has a lot of people very worried.

Yes, but we have Obama and the Democrats running this country and they will fix it all. No need for guns in the next 7 years we will all live in peace and poverty will not exist. Haven't you heard the news.... GM and Chrysler plants closing thousands upon thousands more will be losing their jobs but Bernanke says the recession is ending later this year..... put the guns away...... Obama and the Dems are solving poverty and taking us all into Utopia and with Utopia there will be no crime thus no need for guns.

I think I'll write Obama and tell him as much maybe he can get through legislation to end gun ownership since the recession is ending and he has plans for the end of poverty and thus crime.

A recession and owning a gun are connected? So I lost my job and need a gun to hold up the local bank? Or... everyone lost their jobs and I just gotta shoot someone, where's that tall tower? Or maybe a little more logical... a bunch of my neighbors lost their jobs and they might try to stealing my stuff; I want the option of shooting them if that happens.

And the auto industry largely screwed themselves. I'm not thrilled with the way the good folks in DC treated the blue collar workers as opposed the bankers but the recession may well end with them in the dust.

It was a sarcastic reply adding to the quoted post which had this and thus my post was created:

Why is it that when ever a Democrat is in the White House there is talk of revolution?

I know, right? Republicans have done so much to help the economy in the last XX years. Time to change the flavor of the "good old boys" we have running the country to something with less of a southern drawl and a more diverse skin color. Perhaps that's too progressive for parts of America here in 2009.

...

This old Red Dawn bullshit speaks of new generation of lower middle class meatheads that are starting to experience their first real hardship. Gotta blame somebody: "snobby liberals" in the government. Gotta have some kind of magical power trinket to cuddle like an adult security blanket: guns, guns, guns.

"Holy shit, Jethro... if I hadn't spent $6k on these tricked ARs and 1911s I coulda dealt with being unemployed for a few weeks! Gosh dangit!"

Plenty of individual idiots with guns. But a cohesive unit with a grievance that has escalated beyond moderate, civil protest? Pfft, not in the US. Hah, closest thing we have to an "armed revolution" here in the US is the ELF/ALF... armed with Molotovs and strictly targeting property (no-kill philosophy).

I've got half a dozen "assault weapons" within ten feet of me as I sit here and write this. They're pretty much useless for the problems we face today.

I sometimes sit here and imagine what the looks of utter shock on some faces are going to look like when the next waco rolls around. Most people like to sit at their computers and firmly believe that nobody in the great american nation would ever willingly stand up to the mightiest army the world has ever seen, yet are totally oblivious to the atmosphere and attitudes of the portion of this population as it concerns their continuing antipathy regarding ever increasing encroachment of the federal government. We see it daily in the news now, states making resolutions or introducing bills to increase the strength of the 10th Amendment. States rights/powers are not just important to the legislatures of those states. Most of those legislative bodies are finally listening to a growing pool of pissed off people.

someone up front of this post had it right on when they talked about community level events. There are some communities/neighborhoods who have gotten very close and tight with one another. Those of like minds and attitudes concerning the federal government have made decisions on any reactions from them, should something occur. This community just might be your next waco. Understand that if something like waco were to happen again, no number of news reports detailing planned terrorism, drug trading, child molestation, or anything that would normally rile up the majority of the populace in to supporting the government will be enough to put out the fanned flames of anger and retribution. It will indeed start small, but like the california wildfires growing with the wind, you'll see an inevitable onslaught of small and growing firefights between these communities and 'oppressive' forces.

As to the viability of success? Dunedan has it about right just for starters. 850,000 people who feel strongly enough about freedom in this country, rightly or wrongly, will violently react. If you choose to disregard these numbers, I suggest you reconsider by googling 'three percenters', 'oath keepers', and 'kill all they send'. It's not just the 'far right wing' you need to worry about either. It's the quiet middle ones that will prove the surprise to you. People who you would never have thought to be so inclined, will shock the hell out of you as they join with the so called 'extremists'.

There will be no more free wacos, but what should scare people more than the thought of some small violent skirmish of far right nut jobs should be the impending example that the government will need to make out of a group of people as the growing wave of limited federal government support grows. The match is already lit, it's just waiting for the feds to light the fuse.

Just think... I'm going to be part of the Great Jackbooted enemy, DK. Oh noes! :paranoid:

Inigo Montoya(crompsin): You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you.
Westley(DK): You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die.

:D

There most certainly will be more free Wacos. And free Ruby Ridges. And free Katrina gun confiscations. And free moderate rulings by the SCOTUS on the Second Amendment. And free gun control laws. And pretty much free everything.

DK, you're rare in that you're a part of gun culture but you're not a part of authoritarian/establishment culture. Most gun culture'd people are all about supporting the troops, supporting police and firemen, supporting the Republicans in congress and in the White House, etc and supporting the corporations that infect the free market. They absolutely love the daddy state. They love the politicians that say they want limited government while at the same time are making huge grabs for power and spending billions of taxpayer dollars. I've got news for you, if things do really escalate in this country to where you're concerned they might, a state requiring armed insurrection, it's going to be the daddy state that's responsible. Because of that, most of the armed populace, those enamored with the Second Amendment, will join the escalation instead of fight against it. You and I will find ourselves on the same side facing most of the people Dunedan described buying up all those guns and ammo.

and you will be one of those wearing the utter look of shock I talked about.

Will, all you are doing is listening to one of the squeaky wheels and equating that with 'most', when it's not really as accurate as you claim it to be. I seriously doubt that anything i'm going to put in this post is ever going to change your opinion on the issue, but as I said before, it's relatively easy to get a gauge of just how large this sentiment is throughout the country. I'm not saying that it's even 10 percent of the country with those feelings, or even 5%, though it could certainly grow to that.

Your line of thought process in this is not much different than most others in the world, where you think that every warm body in government service is going to be in lockstep with their government orders, and that just couldn't be any further from the truth.

Don't listen to me though, i'm just another rightwing gun nut who thinks the federal government is the enemy.

You're not right wing, though, and that's the point. Sure, you're conservative (by my definition) and you're libertarian, but you're not right wing. You're not a Bush Republican. Shit, you're not even a Reagan Republican (even if you think you are). Because you're neither of these things, you and your ilk are separated from a majority of conservatives in gun culture. Sure, there are others like you, but you'd be in the minority at a Tea Party or NRA convention. Or in line at the gun store.

If you want evidence of lockstep, look at the past 8 years for truckloads of it. Not one shot was fired as one of the most repressive governments of my lifetime spied on dissidents, kidnapped and tortured people, etc. etc. etc. When Clinton was being what I thought at the time was a bad president, conservatives were going nuts. He was almost impeached over what had to be a pretty shitty bj. Someone blew up an entire federal building. During Bush? Nada. That tells me one thing; if there's a Republican in office when that Orwellian line is eventually crossed—and if Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 are any indication, there will be—the conservative right wingers won't have the objectivity to rebel.

let's say that you're right and this "fire" catches just because that's what they do and so there's no particular need to engage in any political work beyond hanging out with people who agree with you up front and who are also armed to the teeth. what you're talking about, then, is a coup d'etat carried out by small heavily armed rightwing paramilitaries. so what you're talking about is turning the united states into a place that resembles the places that the united states has in the past destabilized using far right heavy-armed paramilitaries. this doesn't sound like something that would really catch on...you know, join the coming right-wing paramilitary coup d'etat.

you aren't talking about a revolution because these communities talk to and about themselves. they don't have a particularly coherent alternative vision of how things would actually be run--so actually holding power is a blank space---but instead, there's lots of fantasies about constitutional fundamentalism and a return to "real america" and all that---which doesn't sound to me like anything other than a kind of flag-waving amurican fascism.

i don't particularly want to see people getting shot up in great number by a bunch of "minutemen"---nor by the civil war that you'd trip if you actually get anywhere near posing the danger to the dominant order that you imagine would be so easy peasy to pose. nor do i want to see what you people would do with the urban populations, which is where your politics are likely to get no support at all anywhere. you don't seem to spend a whole lot of time thinking about what you'd do with political opposition, so i assume that were your fantasy coup d'etat to get rolling, you'd be lumping them in with the other Enemies...and since you imagine yourself Completely and Entirely correct in your politics, in your tactics, in your view of the order you and your milita buddies would bring crashing down on us if by some fluke you weren't all wiped out, i read your pipedreams of revolution and think

good old american fascists with just a twist of khymer rouge thrown in.

so i hope you're just dreaming, dk.

I can see the t-shirts now. They'd probably be black, with a central logo. I can even see the arm bands. Yikes, those arm bands sorta look like....

this is where you have it wrong, roach. Those who are of the 'rebellious' set are not of the mindset of revolution, insurrection, overthrow, or any other term you want to use in the belief that we want to take over the government. The 3 percenters, oath keepers, minutemen, etc. only want the government RESTORED to what it should be and that is a very far cry from what it is now. Worry about the urbanites as well, for they are a mixed bag. Some are quite happy with the totalitarianism being implemented around cities like chicago and nyc. some are not. it is for them to choose and I cannot say what would happen one way or the other, other than to tell you that it wouldn't be fascism, not that you'd accept that either.

Will, you have a small point about the BUSH lockstep, alot of things were done in the furtherance of 'executive' power, but again what you heard was the squeaky wheel and NOT the overall middle of the road populace. People are learning and Katrina was a huge part of that lesson. Where some used to think that such a blatant disregard of the fundamental rights of Americans could NEVER happen here, now they know better. No, will, there will be no more free wacos or katrinas or ruby ridges.

... I'll take Emo Pinwheels for 500.

People have been saying this for as long as I can remember. "Next time, oh yes, next time we will stand up!" You yourself said it long before Katrina. What did you in response to the Katrina gun grab? You probably got really mad and vented online. Maybe you bought some more ammo. Still, nothing was done at all. They came for your (collective your) guns, and you did nothing. I'm not trying to be an asshole, but why didn't you go down there and fight back? And what makes you think that the next one will be any different than the last?

ever heard of geography? you know my personal situation, if they were grabbing guns in Austin, i wouldn't head down there. If they decided to do it in my neighborhood? then they get to see if they can catch bullets.

Don't be silly and stupid by thinking that all of us gunowners or libertarians, or even anti government folks all held a meeting and told ourselves that we won't stand for it here. I know that my neighbors and I got together and said that we won't stand by and let it happen to us. If they come for one, they get to meet us all. I'm sure we're not the only neighborhood to consider that.

all in all, it matters little to me. i know what i'll do if it comes to my neck of the woods.

No, but I'm a quick study. :thumbsup:
Maybe, but are you really going to say that no one in New Orleans has a similar disposition? Of course not, there are plenty of people in New Orleans that believe firmly in an "originalist" interpretation of the Second Amendment and believe, similarly to you, that if someone comes to take their guns, they'; open fire. And they didn't do anything at all. Not one shot was fired. All of the people there that were just like you didn't do anything but complain.

Put yourself into the scenario. There's a natural disaster, let's say an F5 tornado decimates your area, leaving tens of thousands homeless and untold dead. People are being evacuated because the storms are still coming. You know people are are dead, or have had their homes and business destroyed. You're scared, as you should be. There's a knock at the door, so you go to answer, and it's 10 armed city police officers, National Guard members, and US marshals (iirc, there were 6-10 men were at Patricia Konie's door). You instantly think of your closest weapon, I won't pretend to know where or what it might be, but then you likely realize that you can't take all of these guys without likely getting killed yourself. Maybe you can take two or three with you, maybe.

Are you sure you'd open fire?

one thing to remember, will, is that these people in New Orleans had no power, no communications, and had basically been abandoned. When the then chief of police gave his news conference ordering the disarmament, nobody in New Orleans knew or could know, so when they see and hear armed police and guardsmen coming to their door, they were thinking 'finally some sort of help', too late to realize that they just got screwed by their own government. It only needed to happen once, it did, and now most of the people KNOW not to trust that they won't attempt to disarm them again. The ones who really screwed up were the police and guardsmen who actually followed those illegal orders because they put the lives of other police and guardsmen at risk if another disaster pops up.

as to your scenario, knowing what I know now, I don't just blindly answer the door. If I see a squad of armed men in uniforms, they are promptly invited to leave the property, one warning only. If they refuse to leave or attempt to enter, I have no qualms about emptying every magazine I have.

If they attempt to disarm me, I will kill all they send.

Okay, like I said, you check your door and see 10 armed police/National Guard/US Marshals. Knowing what you know from Katrina, you should through the door, right? Maybe, "What do you want?". When they reply, "We need to confiscate your weapons per our orders.", you give them the warning, "No, get off my property right now"? This is how I see the events following: They try your door, you open fire, hitting one or two right off the bat. They return fire, firing blindly into your home (which isn't bulletproof). If they managed not to hit you, they're likely spitting up to enter your home from different angles while calling for backup. I realize that you're probably a good shot, but so are they. Rambo could kill an encampment of Asians, Jack Bauer could empty a building of terrorists, but in real life you'd be outnumbered and thus likely outmaneuvered. You'd probably kill several of them, but they'd get you. Eventually, you'd die.

I don't want you to die, DK. Nothing would be served by your death other than maybe an NRA lawsuit and some very angry blogs.

the problem, will, is there needs to be a line in the sand. I faced death a long time ago and it does not frighten me.

p.s. you're also looking at this scenario as if i'm alone. I can assure you, I would not be alone. let's look at the scenario a little further down the line. In the ensuing firefight, say two or three end up dead, and one or two more injured. With NOT knowing who and how many are still in my home, what's the first thing that the rest of them are going to do? If you guessed 'call for backup', you'd be right. Once that call hits the airwaves, the game is up. the media will get ahold of that and within a day, everyone and their brother is going to know about it. On top of that, if you remember in Katrina aftermath, the police and national guardsmen only entered a select few neighborhoods. They conveniently stayed out of neighborhoods where groups of neighbors bound together in groups and patrolled their streets. It was not a fight that those guardsmen/police wanted.

I don't remember reading about the police avoiding gun-thick neighborhoods. And I read as much as I could find about that because it kinda freaked me out.

dk:

i've spent the last 10 minutes trying to figure out a way to characterise your last few posts and the politics behind it that does not involve the word sociopathic, but i can't do it.

Two words, comrade: gun culture. It's something I've found to be unique, mainly because of the uniqueness of the gun. Certainly you're not of the gun-folk, and neither am I, but I'm sure you can understand the attraction of the gun. It's a cold, precision instrument of absolute power over life and death that you can hold in your hand. With it you can vanquish even the most powerful foe with only the pulling of a trigger and an unleashing of unmistakable power and flash and noise. Moreover, it's a part of the conservative mythology, about great men fighting against an unbeatable opponent with just their wits and their guns, like David standing before Goliath with just a stone and sling. It's considered a sacred right, having a gun, and anyone that challenges that right assumes the roll of a mythical villain, the evil, powerful, corrupt government usually. Objectivity doesn't even enter into the equation, the roles are already established and any differences between a beat cop coming around to collect guns and an evil government operative working on behalf of the Orwellian leftist administration aren't even perceived.

I've spoken to people that would make our DK seem like a liberal, anti-gun pinko. This is what they live, each one believing him or herself to be the storybook hero in an epic battle with pure evil.

I mean no disrespect, DK, but my understanding of gun culture comes from a very, very different place than yours. I'd still be honored to fight back to back with you should we ever find ourselves in true danger.

*Hamlet-style palmface*

rb, it really comes down to whether or not you believe freedom is real or just something you like to dream about. I will not be disarmed. I will not be ordered around or off my own property, I don't care who or what you are. I make my own decisions, my own fate. If self determination is sociopathic to you, then what do you consider non-sociopathic?

---------- Post added at 06:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:47 PM ----------

it doesn't matter what other 'groups' you've talked to will and it doesn't even have to be a gun with me. I'll use swords, knives, ball bats, even my bare hands. I refuse to back down anymore.

---------- Post added at 06:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

I've also dealt with the unwarranted loss of my freedom before, palm face that?

you're either free or you're not.

I just can't adjust to this distinctly American flavour of freedom... a freedom that is decidedly based around the individual. I am no communist but I do feel a responsibility to my family, my community and beyond...

Whenever this sort of rugged individualism rears its head, all I hear is: me, me, me.


(Marsha, Marsha, Marsha -- sorry, I hear that too ;) )

Were these the gang members you disarmed with a deli sandwich?

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.