[quote=HockeyDad]We French can speak of surrender because it is the USA that has gone soft. You voluntarily surrender your rights in exchange for feeling safe.

The history books will write of "vietnamization" in Iraq and Afghanistan due to lack of fortitude at home. Meanwhile France jumped into civil wars in Libya and Mali and cleaned those messes up.

Cut social security by 1 euro in France and there are nationwide strikes and protests. Do the same in the USA and "The Bachelor" will still be a bigger topic.

The cheese eating surrender monkeys now eat American gubment cheese.[/quote]

HD is on FIRE! I'd be LMAO if I wasn't so dam sad.

[quote=jetblasted]Kind of like what happened in the Civil War ?

🌫 [/quote]

Yes, and in our current history, the 1946 Battle of Athens in Tennessee. An armed revolt on American soil by WWII veterans. This is a bit of US History which many Americans have no knowledge.

On YouTube:

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html 

The Constitution is disposable. It's been "improved" so many times, it will eventually just be thrown out.

So don't worry about it and trust the federal government. They'll make a new and improved one.

[quote=8trackdisco]The Constitution is disposable. It's been "improved" so many times, it will eventually just be thrown out.

So don't worry about it and trust the federal government. They'll make a new and improved one.[/quote]

Or just defer to the UN one world.

[quote=Gene363]
Or just defer to the UN one world.[/quote]

First they control the words, then they control the meanings.

If everyone in the world had to vote a thumbs up or down on our federal government, I wonder if the Pr0-Feds would be able to garner 5%.

[quote=8trackdisco]First they control the words, then they control the meanings.

If everyone in the world had to vote a thumbs up or down on our federal government, I wonder if the Pr0-Feds would be able to garner 5%.

[/quote]

If that. We should get out of the UN and evict them from the US..

[quote=pdxstogieman]Lots of hypothetical hogwash floating through this thread about "The People" rising up against the gubmint. As if someone would expect that those with the most extreme views that would likely "take up arms" first against the gubmint, would at that time represent the views and interests of all, a majority, or even a substantial minority of "The People". It would certainly take a lot more actual, not hallucinatory, tyranny from the gubmint to spark a substantial majority of "The People" to armed revolt. So all the theoretical hogwash about armed insurrection or threat of same being an effective means to keep the gubmint in line in this day and age is pretty much the delusional excreta of an extreme minority that are just pissed their political party or point of view isn't supported by the established political process.

The tree of hogwash must periodically be nurtured with the manure of message boards.[/quote]

As a matter of fact, it just was.

[quote=pdxstogieman]Lots of hypothetical hogwash floating through this thread about "The People" rising up against the gubmint. As if someone would expect that those with the most extreme views that would likely "take up arms" first against the gubmint, would at that time represent the views and interests of all, a majority, or even a substantial minority of "The People". It would certainly take a lot more actual, not hallucinatory, tyranny from the gubmint to spark a substantial majority of "The People" to armed revolt. So all the theoretical hogwash about armed insurrection or threat of same being an effective means to keep the gubmint in line in this day and age is pretty much the delusional excreta of an extreme minority that are just pissed their political party or point of view isn't supported by the established political process.

The tree of hogwash must periodically be nurtured with the manure of message boards.[/quote]


Not student of history, are we? During the American Revolution, less then 1/3 of the colonists supported the revolution. 1/3 where loyal to the Crown. The majority of the people where neaturel. Yet a small minority of citizen farmers and other everyday folk rose up against the most powerful military at the time and won our independence.

I'm not saying that this could happen today, as most Americans are too fat and lazy to actually fight for freedom. Others have been brainwashed, and lash out in anger at the mere hint that they fell for the lies of the liar and his mass media propaganda machine.

Oh, and where are folks in this thread calling for armed insurrection? People are discussing “what ifs”, but who is calling for taking up arms? Looks more like you're having a hissy fit over an assumption. Does your little message board tantrum make you feel better about yourself? Talk about the manure of message boards.

[quote=HockeyDad]We French can speak of surrender because it is the USA that has gone soft. You voluntarily surrender your rights in exchange for feeling safe.

The history books will write of "vietnamization" in Iraq and Afghanistan due to lack of fortitude at home. Meanwhile France jumped into civil wars in Libya and Mali and cleaned those messes up.

Cut social security by 1 euro in France and there are nationwide strikes and protests. Do the same in the USA and "The Bachelor" will still be a bigger topic.

The cheese eating surrender monkeys now eat American gubment cheese.[/quote]
True that America has too many sheeple . . . .

But the French calling the Americans soft?

Where are my freedoms fries?

[quote=Brewha]True that America has too many sheeple . . . .

But the French calling the Americans soft?

Where are my freedoms fries?[/quote]


Don't like being called soft......why don't you ask your government to do something about it. You already surrendered your rights because the risk was greater than the reward.

Want some freedom fries? Perhaps your government will give you some if it doesn't deem them to be too unhealthy for you.

In the meantime, why don't you just sit down and knit me some nice wool socks and fix me a sammich!

I could sure use a sammich..... 😟

[quote=HockeyDad]Don't like being called soft......why don't you ask your government to do something about it. You already surrendered your rights because the risk was greater than the reward.

Want some freedom fries? Perhaps your government will give you some if it doesn't deem them to be too unhealthy for you.

In the meantime, why don't you just sit down and knit me some nice wool socks and fix me a sammich![/quote]
I think someone has had a little too much Grey Poupon . . .



HD, don’t spin in your Bordeaux. How you confuse laws that govern and protect a society as a loss of rights, points to the same kind of overly simplified and not thought out ‘small government ‘ crap I hear all the time. And it’s nothing but whining.

Despite all your rage, you’re still just rat(atouille) in a cage.

[quote=Brewha]I think someone has had a little too much Grey Poupon . . .



HD, don’t spin in your Bordeaux. How you confuse laws that govern and protect a society as a loss of rights, points to the same kind of overly simplified and not thought out ‘small government ‘ crap I hear all the time. And it’s nothing but whining.

Despite all your rage, you’re still just rat(atouille) in a cage.[/quote]


Boo hoo...somebody didn't get their lil' Obamaphone!

[quote=Brewha]HD, don’t spin in your Bordeaux. How you confuse laws that govern and protect a society as a loss of rights, points to the same kind of overly simplified and not thought out ‘small government ‘ crap I hear all the time. And it’s nothing but whining.

Despite all your rage, you’re still just rat(atouille) in a cage.[/quote]


Looks like Mr Softy is trying to change topics. There is no such thing as "small government". The only question is how dependent you are on it.

You volunteer to be a dependent and as such don't really need any rights. The government will take care of you by giving you laws that govern and protect society. I mean, probably they will.

[quote=MACS]I think that the military is made up of a lot of the "good ol' boys" we speak of. The vast majority are conservative thinkers.

I'd like to believe that if the gov't ever tried to use the military against its own people, they wouldn't comply.[/quote]

I think that was explicitly stated, we would be dependent on disobedience within the military...

That is significantly different from the original concept behind the 2nd amendment, where the people would be a force more powerful than the military.

As for numbers, remember, not all gun owners have the same purpose. An "uprising" would only constitute a certain percentage of all gun owners. Addiiotnally, they would need to all communicate together to organize. that cuts down the percentage as well. Given established communication, command/control structure within the existing military, and extensive capabilities to deploy around the nation, kill rates of military to civilian uprisings would be absolutely outstanding... They would have the ability to drop overwhelming force wherever necessary, pull it back and deploy it again...

This isn't the mountains of afghanistan... there are significant airports and roads going just about anywhere of importance.

[quote=victor809]I think that was explicitly stated, we would be dependent on disobedience within the military...

That is significantly different from the original concept behind the 2nd amendment, where the people would be a force more powerful than the military.

As for numbers, remember, not all gun owners have the same purpose. An "uprising" would only constitute a certain percentage of all gun owners. Addiiotnally, they would need to all communicate together to organize. that cuts down the percentage as well. Given established communication, command/control structure within the existing military, and extensive capabilities to deploy around the nation, kill rates of military to civilian uprisings would be absolutely outstanding... They would have the ability to drop overwhelming force wherever necessary, pull it back and deploy it again...

This isn't the mountains of afghanistan... there are significant airports and roads going just about anywhere of importance. [/quote]


Three things you left out Victor....(1) We the People have NO rules of engagement (half the reason we lose as many men / women as we do in our military). (2) Our military has been "Out of Country for so long, we know it better than they do....(3) I think you SERIOUSLY underestimate the resolve of most Americans


And one thing in what you wrote concerns me:



[quote=victor809]

kill rates of military to civilian uprisings would be absolutely outstanding....
Absolutely outstanding huh???

You really ARE FUCKED UP!!!!.

Hr probably meant ASTOUNDING.

[quote=TMCTLT]Three things you left out Victor....(1) We the People have NO rules of engagement (half the reason we lose as many men / women as we do in our military).
[/quote]
So we'd have 20 different factions of uprising, all based around slightly different ideology, and no rules of engagement... wonderful. We'll be shooting each other just as much as the "enemy".

[quote]
(2) Our military has been "Out of Country for so long, we know it better than they do....
[/quote]
It isn't the backhills you try to control. Cities and means of production. That doesn't require "knowing the land".

[quote]
(3) I think you SERIOUSLY underestimate the resolve of most Americans
[/quote]
And I think a lot of people seriously overestimate it. I'm a pessimist I suppose.


[quote]
Absolutely outstanding huh???

You really ARE ****ED UP!!!!.[/quote]

Yes, outstanding. As in "Outstanding job on managing to kill all those rebels LT. Briggs, while only losing 10 of your own men."... I'm assuming that would be the phrase used as a medal is pinned to his chest.

Your, or anyone elses (including my own) choice to rebel against the government isn't going to change their means of measuring success....

It's the Bloods vs the Crips...or in Georgetown it's the Plaids vs the Stripes!

Rubby powah!