Supreme Court Healthcare Ruling

[Illinois59]

I really don't understand why people think the U.S. is so threatened with takeover by military type action. The banksters and global corporatism are in a far better spot to become a new government of what we currently call the United States.

[ohjay26]

The people of Japan and Germany could have easily kept up an insurgent war like the one going on in Afghanistan and Iraq today. THEY chose not to because it was the best thing for themselves and they saw this. The only way to achieve all out victory against a people who do not want peace with you is to wipe them out.

China does great because of a thriving American economy bent on getting the absolute most crap for the least price regardless of how many good American jobs are lost in the process. As our economy went down so did China's.

There was a post-war German insurgency that lasted about 2 years. It was never as large as the Iraqi or Afghan insurgency, but there were loose cells of insurgents from various groups, including remnants of the SS, and Werwolf as well as local anti-American organizations. They committed acts of sabotage as well as assassinations. There were more attacks on American soldiers in the first week of Oct 1945 than in the preceding five months of the occupation.

[Skinview]

I really don't understand why people think the U.S. is so threatened with takeover by military type action.

I don't know of any today who are really worried about it, excepting maybe a handfull of fringe people. But the founding fathers were very worried about it, and its part of the reason for the Second Amendment. So anytime there is an argument over gun control, the issue of overthrowing the government comes up.

[Skinview]

What seems so? Given the difficulty of getting straightforward and direct answers from you that you will not later claim "that's not what I said!"

The answers are straightfoward, its your misunderstanding of them that is problematic.

The fundamental claim of your ilk to own (hoard) guns is to be able to overthrow a tyrannical USA federal government. You stated that you have no intention of doing this and at some level you must know that from the present day onward , it is impossible to do so.

Its very possible to overthrow the government.

Therefore, your fundamental reason to own guns can not be based upon the second ammendment.

That depends on which gun of mine you are talking about.

You may claim all other sorts of reasons, but it is equally valid for anyone to challenge those reasons and rule against them.

No one has to have a reason to own guns. Its their right.

A person who believes that he and a few other misguided individuals

There are millions more of us "few other misguided individuals" than there are people in the army.

can overthrow the US government by defeating the entire US law enforcement machine is indeed delusional.

The law enforcement machine would be the easiest thing to take out. They would be outnumbered 100 to 1, and they aren't armed any better than the guy in a mom and pop convenience store. What the hunters didn't finish off, four guys from the state National Guard would, and level the police station with an Abrams tank.

[Skinview]

Do you not believe that America would need to be wiped out in order for a foriegn country to conquer us? Americans would fight to the last person.

Sanslines thinks there would only be a few misguided individuals...

[Skinview]

The fact that you think resistance is futile. Skinview is making reference to your statements to make a point...

Yes, but perhaps a different one than you think. BinCo and Sanslines are making statements that are diametrically opposed to each other in different conversations. I'm just having fun putting the two trains on the same track and waiting for the collision.

That self protection includes defence against a tyrannical government. That was the prime reason our Founding Fathers thought it necessary to protect that right with the Second Amendment. I personally think it was very courageous of the creators of our government to protect that right. Imagine, they were so confident of the government they founded that they did not fear an armed citizenry.

I think it would be more correct to say the founders were unconfident of the government they founded, and that they had much confidence in the rightiousness of its citizenry. They knew which of the two they trusted more, and it wasn't the government they made.

No one believes that a few misguided individuals can overthrow the US Government. But if Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam can gather a Million Men to march on Washington D.C. and the Occupy Wall Street gang can bring 20,000 people to New York and organize hundreds of thousands in over 200 American Cities......well what do you think American gun owners could do if they did not like the way our government was headed. I think the "entire US law enforcement machine" would really have its hands full.
I think the greatest fear facing any commander, Military or law enforcement, would not be hoards of Americans marching down the street....but the defections from his ranks.

You make a good point about defections. And really that is why a tyrannical government seems so unlikely. The tolerance for real tyranny is so low in this country, and our democratic traditions are so strong, that a tyrant would face defections in his own cabinet and all the way down the chain of command. I once met a National Guard commander, and he told me that he and his officers were prepared to take their men and equipment into the woods and resist the government if they were ever ordered to participate in a civilian gun confiscation. The vast power of the US military could turn against itself, as whole divisions and larger units switched sides.

I agree with you there Sans. I have been trying to get that exact point across to Bin ever since he brought it up.

I am more in agreement with BinCo regarding insurgencies. The US military has fantastic power, but against a popular insurgency, it can end up holding islands in a sea of hostility.

[Sanslines]

The answers are straightfoward, its your misunderstanding of them that is problematic.

Sorry you can't see how evasive you are. I am not the only one who has pointed out that you can not give a straight and direct answer without vacillation to a straight and direct answer.

Its very possible to overthrow the government.

Here is a prime example of your vageness. This is a a totally menaingless statement because you do not say how it is possible or which government that you are referring to. You always give these kinds of answers so that when challenged with more direct and specific statements, you can always modify your answer or claim the usual "That's not what I said". No one else has ever claimed because no one else is so evasive and slippery.

That depends on which gun of mine you are talking about.

This is an answer??? OK, which of your guns are you referring to?

No one has to have a reason to own guns. Its their right.

The issue that you can not seem to comprehend is that this 'right' is based upon your own admitted false justifications.

There are millions more of us "few other misguided individuals" than there are people in the army.

This means what?? Yes there are many millions more that in the army but so what? Waht are these millions going to do? Can't come right out and say it so we are supposed to make implications from this statement? This is another meaningless statemen unless you come right out and say what these millions are going to do.

The law enforcement machine would be the easiest thing to take out. They would be outnumbered 100 to 1, and they aren't armed any better than the guy in a mom and pop convenience store. What the hunters didn't finish off, four guys from the state National Guard would, and level the police station with an Abrams tank.

This is fantasy thinking from somenoe who never served in the armed forces and has no clue as to what they can or can not do. To try and state that a member of the armed forces is no better that some guys with no training and an old rifle is completely ludicrous.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines thinks there would only be a few misguided individuals...

How about Skinview answering for himself instead of making false statements and putting these words into the mouths of others.

[Sanslines]

This whole conversation about tyranny and insurgencies as they apply to the USA is nonsense. One man's tyranny is another man's democracy and it is fantasy to believe that somehow millions of men, women, and children are going to somehow rise up, and overthrow the US government by defeating the myriad of forces and replacing it with anachy.

If truth be told, we already have 'tyranny' in the form of alliances between government and corporations (who control this nation) and yet Skinview has yet to do anything about it.

[Yogi Bare]

This whole conversation about tyranny and insurgencies as they apply to the USA is nonsense.

Also, this whole conversation about tyranny and insurgencies has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic of the Supreme Court Healthcare Ruling. Perhaps the conversation should be moved to a new thread.