Jade Helm was just a diversion. The real takeover begins…
Oh, wait. Forget that you read that. I was never here.
That’s just what Colonel Sanders said before they killed him.
2 Likes
Eh - yes and no. You’re right in an 1 on 1 outright civil war the military has way better gear and generally better training. But 1) you assume all of the military would be on one side, when more likely it would be a 50/50 split. Probably more like 75/25 or 60/40. 2) they are fearful of other less doomsday like things. I don’t see the police or military eager to do a confiscation scenario. If things did get bad enough that there was armed push back, would that that strengthen or possibly weaken the public’s support of the government?
You’re right if the US gov turned into the Nazis tomorrow and blitzkrieged America, the armed populace wouldn’t stand up to a direct fight. But people with little training and poor arms in the middle east have been making it a paint in the ass for the US and other militaries for over a decade now.
Agree 100%.
That is because he has been pretty inept at gun control so far. (You could say that about most things.). The difference is, if congress DID manage to pass say an Assault Weapon Ban, he wouldn’t veto it. He would sign it. He has made repeated statements at wishing there was more legislature. Just because he hasn’t made it happen doesn’t mean he is pro-gun. (He also wanted more hope and change and transparency, and that didn’t work out so well either.) Though to your counter point, he did sign those other laws (albeit rather minor) so he isn’t 100% anti-gun.
That is misleading. Obama or any other president has nothing to do with background checks. It isn’t like he is approving people. And considering gun sales are up, then of course approval numbers will be up, as the approved person will go buy 2 or 3 in a year, and the person denied isn’t going to go back and get rejected 2 or 3 more times.
I will admit the NRA and other pundits do tend to exaggerate, waving hands the end is near. But that is just about any political entity about their issue. I do think you are correct that the Republicans use the NRA as a tool and I would agree that the NRA mostly supports Republicans. But they really are a one-issue voting entity. If you had a Democrat running that wanted to give free abortions out of his garage with a take home package of weed, but wanted to repeal gun laws, they would give him an A rating. I would also agree just because a Republican has an A or B rating that they wouldn’t necessarily not vote for more gun control. Republicans are as bad as Democrats in saying one thing and doing another.
1 Like
I agree, a small number of armed individuals on home turf can make things pretty awful for an occupier. But the reality is that if any group is targeted and taken off to camps in the next decade, it will be Muslims or Native Americans, not gun owners. And far too many of those guns owners are going to be the ones being rounded up into posses to go get those people and put them in those camps. As America becomes more and more of a police state, “gun nuts” are a tool of that state, not an opposition to it.
4 Likes
I don’t see the gov. rounding anyone up any time soon. And while I would agree there is a segment of gun owners that would get behind that action (with Muslims at least), you can’t paint all guns owners like that. Gun owners run the gamut of race, color, and creed. Many are very libertarian minded and would be the first ones to oppose camps of any kind of any person. In case you missed it, there was even a small group supporting people’s right to protest in the Ferguson area a month or so ago, who were harassed by cops.
Basically, stereotyping is easy to do, but wrong. Trust me, I have been on many gun forums and they can’t agree on anything politically, though I would describe the bulk of them moderate libertarians, followed by conservative, followed by liberal.
Well what would you call the mysterious sky-beings that watch us from afar that have surely made communication with our unfathomably powerful rulers?
I believe I said that “far too many” would be complicit, and I’m going to stand by it. I know that there were gun rights activists protesting at a Wal Mart where a black man was shot for browsing through air rifles. I hadn’t heard about Ferguson but it certainly doesn’t surprise me. But as a roadblock to the institution of a police state, I think gun ownership is a farce. Not because guerilla tactics don’t work - they do - but because some portion of gun owners will form an opposition to a totalitarian government while another portion will form that government’s posses. Some will be for, some will be against. It’s not going to be the NWO army against the citizens of the US. It’s going to be the citizens against the citizens, and putting more guns in that mix doesn’t change the odds.
But practically speaking, America keeps sliding further and further towards being a police state and the second amendment doesn’t seem to be preventing that. The first amendment doesn’t either. Right now you are in definite jeopardy of having the government take your guns, but not as an instrument of social control, rather as a civil forfeiture so they can resell them and buy themselves a margarita machine for the office.
7 Likes
Swords to ploughshares, guns to margarita machines?
I can get behind that policy.
3 Likes
[quote=“Mister44, post:68, topic:65644”]
That is because he has been pretty inept at gun control so far. [/quote]
You could make the same claim for Reagan, Bush I and Bush II with equal credibility. Far more so for Reagan, based on his statements and policies. But the NRA doesn’t, because their job is to shake their pom-poms for Republicans and sow irrational fear about Democrats.
[quote=“Mister44, post:68, topic:65644”]
The difference is, if congress DID manage to pass say an Assault Weapon Ban, he wouldn’t veto it. He would sign it.[/quote]
So would Reagan. So would Ford. We know this, because they urged Congress to sign the Clinton-era ban. We don’t know about Bush I and Bush II and Obama, because no such ban came across their desk. Bush I did ban the import of assault rifles.
As in “do the background checks. Keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.” In other words, the same things even the head of the NRA has called for.
By any standard where you can declare him “not pro gun”, most any Republican President is also “not pro gun.” And Reagan would be rabidly anti-gun.
2 Likes
Yes, we had a family incident in the mid-80’s that made the papers. Well, then we had some weirdo calling & hanging up, and (the same?/a different?) weirdo mailing us letters that resembled a hand-scrawled Dr. Bronner soap wrapper. Parents wouldn’t let me read them. But I found one and was disgusted at the insane psycho crap written every whichaways on both sides of the paper, folded neatly, mailed with no return address. The letters eventually stopped.
This world is full of crazies. You take your average truther and there are people ten times crazier, and other people a hundred times crazier than THEM.
2 Likes
You’re more pessimistic than me. Its both sad and sweet at the same time.
3 Likes
You know, there actually are conspiracies.
There sure are. But as @some_guy points out above, this particular brand of conspiracy (an evil shadow government controlling everything that doesn’t even have the guts to kill a few people to achieve its ends) is completely out to lunch. If you are going to believe in false flag attacks, at least admit that the attacks really happened. It’s more plausible, more scary, and shows even the smallest amount of empathy for victims.
4 Likes
There is no evidence that there has EVER been a large conspiracy, past or present, remotely along the lines of “this shooting/bombing/terror attack was a false flag operation, and the survivors and family members of dead victims were either A) a bunch of actors who were in on the attack, or B) actual family members who just happen to be sociopaths.”
That’s why I want to reach through my monitor and strangle assholes with their own entrails when they pull this kind of insensitive shit on the already-traumatized victims of horrible crimes.
1 Like
Yeah, but far fewer than people claim. And true conspiracies later shake out with actual evidence.
VS like the recent TV anchor shooting where people looked at the gun man’s video and said, “It’s a false flag! Look at the shooter’s hand! It’s white!”
So either the brightness balance of the phone made his skin lighter, or in some dark room there was this conversation:
“What the fuck, Jim? You got a white dude to play the killer?”
“What? Yeah, of course. I thought that was the plan. The guy’s name is Flanagan, right?”
“God damn it, Jim! Didn’t you see the fake video we planted in the camera man’s camera? We went with the black guy, Terry, to play the killer. We already shot the ‘camera man’ video and spend the last several months planting a plausible back story of a frustrated gay black man who felt the world was against him through out the internet. It took 3 weeks alone to plant false memories in all his coworkers, Jim. It’s in the fucking Ops Manual. Did you read the manual, Jim?”
“Yeah, it’s right here. It says that Leonard is playing the killer.”
“Damn it, Jim, that’s revision 34-C. We are now on revision 38-R. Jesus. Not again. First Sandy Hook and now this. Some times I wonder why I even bother getting up in the morning to plan these elaborate hoaxes that give the public a general sense of fear for a few days and gets the people talking about new laws for a week or so before forgetting about it.”
“Soo - can’t we just find all the versions of the video and alter it?”
“No, Jim. People are too tech savvy these days. They can smell a fake a mile away. They can tell by the pixels.”
“Well we could just blame it on the cheap cell phones brightness balance.”
"Sigh - fine - FINE! It will have to do for now. Wait, why is he just standing there for like 10 seconds and she doesn’t notice him?
“Oh sorry, Leonard wasn’t sure his phone was recording. It’d different than his iphone so he wanted to be sure before he started shooting.”
“Great, one more chink in our armor. You know, it’s a good thing you’re working for the Government, Jim. Shoddy work like this gets people fired in the real world.”
“I’m sorry, Mr. Obama. I’ll try harder next time.”
“Sigh, ok, Jim. Sorry I yelled. I have a lot going on. I am about to transfer sovereignty to the UN and I am meeting with the Pope to discuss how to convert the Catholics to Islam. But I shouldn’t have yelled. After all, it’s close enough for government work.”
“Haha - yeah, close enough.”
7 Likes
I’ve thought a lot about this issue lately, especially when it came home in the form of the I-10 shooters here in Phoenix. Some idiot (or, as is now suggested, a couple of idiots) are taking potshots at cars driving down the interstate.
The general reaction, after the ‘oh my God, I’m never going to drive on I-10 again’ is for people to load their weapons into their car for their daily commute. The mindset is the same as with every other shooting, except that this time they’ll be able to react, aim and fire accurately across a busy interstate while driving at 70mph to save the day.
The point is that after every shooting tragedy, gun sales go up not down. People who have guns buy more of them and stock up on ammo. People who don’t have guns finally get convinced that they should have them.
If there’s a government conspiracy, it’s surely to ARM its citizens not DISARM them. Yet I haven’t yet seen that view in a conspiracy theory. I wonder why… : )
6 Likes
This sort of denial of recent history is an important part of conspiracy theories.
Take “North American Union by 2005, er, 2007, er, 2008, er, 2010!!!” and “US dollar replaced by the Amero in the same timeframe” claims for example. Standard gospel is that a false flag terrorist attack or manufactured economic crisis will be used to create them.
And yet there WAS a terrorist attack, 9/11. It had the opposite effect. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico were locked down, with passport controls and other obstacles for the first time EVER. There WAS an economic crisis in 2008/2009. It had the opposite effect. Increased protectionism, and divergence on monetary and trade policy.
To see several big steps towards a “North American Union”, play the last 15 years backward.
But you can still find the conspiracy theorists constantly claiming that the North American Union / Amero is just one faked crisis away.
7 Likes
Does the Gulf of Tonkin Incident count?
1 Like
No, not really. Even if the worst suspicions about the Gulf of Tonkin are true and that incident was a false flag operation then there’s still no reason to believe the family and friends of the dead or wounded North Vietnamese sailors were in on the conspiracy.
Contrast that to some of the nastiest conspiracy theorists surrounding Sandy Hook or 9/11 or other incidents mentioned above. For those theories to be true you’d need to have a whole bunch of sociopaths who were either complicit or actively involved in the slaughter of their friends, families and colleagues. For no discernible reason at all.
1 Like
