patrick.net

Bap33 says

If the Obama National Forces foot soldier that is ordered to come take your weapon from you is able to carry a ACME FlameThrower 5000, then you too should have full access to that same weapon.

I'm very much in favor of the goal of citizens being able to rebel and overthrow their governments whether in the United States or any other country. I do not object to that goal.

However, I do not thing the goal is realistic. That's the point. The U.S. citizen militia isn't going to have access to the same weapons that the federal or even state government will have access to. No militia is going to have nukes, ICBMs, jet fighters, stealth bombers, land mines, tanks, armor personnel vehicles, drones with hellfire missiles, Apache helicopters, napalm, flame throwers, or the vast array of undisclosed weapons that our military has.

The only possible way a rebellion in the United States might work is if all the marines, sailors, and soldiers in all our armed forces under the rank of colonel all organized a rebellion and coordinated a mutiny at the same time. In the Information Age, such coordination could not possibly happen because all communication channels are monitored. The brass would find out about the plans before they could be carried out. So even this scenario is implausible.

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Even if you 'win' the result is a shitty place to live.

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Even if you 'win' the result is a shitty place to live.

Yes, I am extremely skeptical that any post revolution government setup by the NRA and Rupert Murdoch would be better than the tyrannical government that inspired the revolt.

leo707 says

I am not so sure.

loe, I was being PatNet specific in my comment.

Dan8267 says

So, if you had to choose between your 14-year-old daughter be stripped searched, having a cop insert his hand into her vagina and ass, and lifting up her clitoral hood, or that daughter being denied possession of a semi-automatic rifle, then you would say, "ah, flip a coin to decide because it's a wash."?

I call bullshit on that.

Why are you creating a choice situation like that out of me agreeing that all amendments are of equal importance (And by the way should not be watered down as you previously posted)? They have NO bounds to do the search, nor deny her the possession of a semi-automatic rifle.

Can't figure out how you'd hide a semi-auto up either orifice anyhow!

Call it Crazy says

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

Aren't we already living under tyranny? I've been hearing that sort of talk for about 4 years. Perhaps the American Freedom Militia got lost on their way to the insurgency.

I find that the TSA officers get a mite uneasy if I moan in pleasure at their pat downs. If they grab your junk just say, "I'll give you ten minutes to quit that!"

Call it Crazy says

If Feinstein's bill goes through, maybe that will be the "trigger"....

It won't.

However, it may inspire a Byron Williams or Martin Hohenegger type to murder some "libtards" who they imagine are oppressing them.

They will meet the same level of success that Timothy Mcveigh met when trying to inspire revolution.

ForcedTQ says

Why are you creating a choice situation like that out of me agreeing that all amendments are of equal importance

1. All amendments are not of equal importance. The Eighteenth Amendment sure as fuck isn't as important as the First Amendment.

2. That is not what you said. You said that all rights are equally important, and that certainly is not true. Exhibit A:

ForcedTQ says

Dan8267 says

Why is the right not to be sexually assaulted and strip searched at the airport (or any place) not as sacred as the right to a gun? Why isn't free speech as sacred as the right to a gun? Wayne clearly doesn't hold that freedom as important. Why isn't the right to privacy and the right to observe and record the police held as sacred? Why can these rights be watered down, compromised, and suspended, but not any gun rights?

All of these things I hold as equally important to the right to bear arms. No more, no less important.

3. The statement I made stands true. Basic human rights involving control over one's own body and human dignity are way the hell more important than the question of which firearms you can possess and which you cannot.

leo707 says

They will meet the same level of success that Timothy Mcveigh met when trying to inspire revolution.

Yep, to this day Timothy McVeigh is called a terrorist, not a hero, and he was one of our troops, you know the people all politicians pay lip service to.

Granted McVeigh was a racist, like almost all militia / survivalist people, and he didn't care about collateral damage (i.e., innocents people being killed) just like everyone in our armed forces. So one can surely make the point that he's no hero, but even if he had the morals of Superman, he'd still be written down as a terrorist in history.

The article says:
"This fear of slippery slopes is why gun-rights advocates seem so unreasonable — they are unwilling to compromise today because they do not trust that the terms of their deal will be honored by the public and by gun-rights opponents in the future. The British and Australian experiences with gun-rights legislation actually supports this sense of paranoia. In both countries, the politics following several mass killings have led to remarkably restrictive gun-rights regimes that most Americans would oppose. If America's gun owners concede even small things now, they risk further erosions of rights later."

The article is right. We have no intention of honoring the terms of any deal that allows any gun in the hands of the average joe.
Chipping away at the worst guns at any given time is our strategy. Everyone knows it, and no one including the NRA can do anything about it.
It's just a matter of time my friends.

Raw says

The article is right. We have no intention of honoring the terms of any deal that allows any gun in the hands of the average joe.

Chipping away at the worst guns at any given time is our strategy. Everyone knows it, and no one including the NRA can do anything about it.

It's just a matter of time my friends.

So the proud royal tomb builders boast about the technical excellence of their handiwork and how secret the entry ways are . . . just before they are sealed inside alive, to keep the secret, well, secret.

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

No.

IDDQD says

See, this is what I'm talking about: inflation of big words. Nobody takes the word "nazi" seriously nowadays for this exact reason. You calling patdown at the airport (to which you don't really HAVE to go in the first place) a "sexual assault" doesn't make it even close to real sexual assault a.k.a. rape. Ask any victim of real rape if these things are the same.

Your ignorance is disguising. Here's a few links you should read. I have about ten thousand others.

http://www.susiecastillo.net/blog/2011/4/25/my-tsa-pat-down-experience.html

http://www.10news.com/news/poway-woman-claims-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-2-female-tsa-employees

"It's just nothing that you want to have happen to you," she said. "I mean, it is sexual assault. It's humiliation. It's embarrassment. It's horrendous."

The second pat-down then occurred. Buckenmayer said by this time, both male and female TSA agents were standing around talking about her genitalia.

"This one was akin to sexual assault... how she touched me," said Buckenmayer.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/-NOBY1ZkRQU

http://www.youtube.com/embed/X6hvUWv2CsY

IDDQD says

to which you don't really HAVE to go in the first place

That's your fucking answer? We, the people, now have no right to travel and must give up our rights to human dignity for the privilege of traveling? We have to accept suffering sexual indignation in order to go to our sibling's wedding, our niece's birth, our parent's funeral? If that's your answer than double fuck you.

We, the people, allow the government to regulate the airline industry. The government has no fucking rights except what we the people bestow on it. So I say, we take away the rights of government to regulate air travel and let us build our own fucking planes. Eliminate the barrier to entry and then we'll have a real choice about whether we want to go through a TSA "protected" airline or one that doesn't have TSA agents. Guess what, everybody will choose the non-TSA airline even if it's run by Bob and Sons.

And everyone will die in plane crashes.

I'm no fan of the TSA and security theater in general, but to say that we don't need regulation in air travel is ridiculous.

TSA doesn't prevent plane crashes. You're thinking of the FAA, and most pilots say the FAA doesn't prevent plane crashes either.

I'll take my chances with a pilot over a TSA sexual predator any day.

I don't believe it is ridiculous to say we don't need regulation by the Federal government in air travel. The current danger in flight these days is that someone will blow up the plane or crash it in some random location - not that they will fly a plane loaded with diesel fuel into thousands of people.

The days of hijacking planes is over. Over. No group of passengers will ever again sit peacefully while vigilantes fly them to oblivion (or Cuba - whichever comes first). The most the terrorist can hope for is to kill the people on the plane and a few others who are unlucky enough to be under the falling metal.

The individual airlines would need to convince me that they are safe enough for my patronage. I'm sure they would do that if the Feds did not interfere.

For me it is all about individual liberty. All I see however is the end of such liberty for the benefit of a "common good". Red or Blue colored Keynesianism. What's the difference between the hues? I see few signs that the republicans will safeguard my individual liberties any more than the democrats. Both sides in the whitehouse have been quite happy with the Patriot Act.

My family and I have a right to certain liberties. Popular vote will not rob me of them. We all have lines we draw in the metaphorical sand that indicate the boundaries out of which we will allow invasion.

What's happening now is that the federal government is treading close to many people's lines in the sand. People love their country but no longer believe the government is "of" them. The country they love is the ground they stand on and the common belief that there is a check and balance for every entity that acts in the country's name.

I see no check or balance on the military.

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

You guys understand that the value of living in america falls to zero in the event of a tyrannical government triggering a civil war, right?

Well, if you have a well armed civilian population, wouldn't that be a deterrent to the .gov from triggering a civil war or trying to take more freedoms away??

huh? what?

We had a well armed civilian population before our Civil War.

Dan8267 says

So I say, we take away the rights of government to regulate air travel and let
us build our own fucking planes

Dan8267 says

TSA doesn't prevent plane crashes. You're thinking of the FAA, and most
pilots say the FAA doesn't prevent plane crashes either.

You said take away the right of government to regulate air travel. That would obviously include the FAA.

IDDQD says

You seem to have no problem with argument that nobody needs a rifle with certain cosmetic features and will be perfectly fine with a muzzleloader,

I have never made any statement to that effect, nor is that the political position I hold. You simply assume that I'm for stricter gun controls because you view the world as being divided between pro-gun and anti-gun and nothing in between. This polarized view of the world you have is typical of Americans today, but it does not reflect reality.

What I have refuted in this and other threads is the argument that the Second Amendment right to form militias protects us from government tyranny. Back when the Second Amendment was written, government and civilians had the same weapons: muskets. Today the asymmetry in power is ridiculous, so the intent of the Second Amendment simply doesn't work.

However, just because I refute the ludicrous argument that minute men are going to band up and save us from government force, does not mean that I am for further limiting access to arms. I can reject this argument and also reject arguments from the other side. In other words, I don't have to play the stupid polar game of accepting all the dumb arguments from one side and rejecting all arguments from the other side. I base my opinions on facts and reason, not religious dogma.

IDDQD says

Both arguments are essentially the same - somebody telling you that they don't value a particular freedom you hold dear and see no problem when it's being infringed.

One can object to the TSA and their crimes without believing that an armed assault on the TSA is the answer. I'd love to see someone try to exercise their right to carry a firearm, legally registered to them, onto a commercial aircraft. When the TSA and police try to confiscate the gun, I'd love to hear them say, "from my cold dead hands". Somehow, I think the police would have no problems with making that true. But it would be nice to see a militia group try to fly commercial with their rifles. It would be even nicer to see them succeed. But I don't believe there's a snowball chance in hell of that happening.

Again, how does going toe to toe against a well-funded, well-armed government work? It seems destined to failure.

deepcgi says

I don't believe it is ridiculous to say we don't need regulation by the Federal government in air travel.

Even more importantly, if the government takes the power to regulate and restrict access to air travel to supplies under their control, the government has the responsibility and liability to ensure that our right to travel is not infringed upon or inhibited. This is why No Fly lists and TSA rape scanners and sexual groping should not be tolerated.

deepcgi says

The days of hijacking planes is over. Over. No group of passengers will ever again sit peacefully while vigilantes fly them to oblivion

Exactly. The only reason 9/11 succeeded was that the U.S. had the policy of not letting civilians interfere in the hijacking situation. I guarantee you there were many able-bodied men on those flights thinking, "Man, I can easily take these fucking punks down, but then I'll get arrested and thrown in jail for a decade for endangering the plane.". This line of thought would not occur anymore and no jury would find a person guilty of any crime while that person was taking down a hijacker.

This change and locking the cockpit doors are all that is necessary to prevent another 9/11. And quite frankly, having the cockpit doors lock is something that should have been done even ignoring hijacking. Hell, I was shocked they weren't locked. What if some dumb-ass drunk in first class has too much to drink and thinks he could do a better job flying the plane? That has nothing to do with terrorism, is a lot more probable, and is amble cause to have locking cockpit doors.

Call it Crazy says

StillLooking says

We had a well armed civilian population before our Civil War.

I think we have a better one now....

People today may be armed more than before the Civil War, but certainly the difference between the weapons possessed by the government and those by civilians is far, far greater.

The Feds and DHLS are already preparing for civil unrest. 1.6 billion rounds bought in the last year. Enough to wage all-out war for 30 years! Woo!

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition

Dan8267 says

Even more importantly, if the government takes the power to regulate and
restrict access to air travel to supplies under their control, the government
has the responsibility and liability to ensure that our right to travel is not
infringed upon or inhibited. This is why No Fly lists and TSA rape scanners and
sexual groping should not be tolerated.

Typical Dan hyperbole aside, the government must weight the rights of citizens not to be blown up in the sky with the right to privacy. I agree that the current TSA scans are over the line and probably not particularly effective. But it's a difficult line to straddle.

I'm sure you guys heard about this police officer Christopher Dorner who is somewhere here out on a killing rampage. All over the news today. Ironically he preached gun control.

The day government learns to control their own guns and their own officers and soldiers, can be the day they can talk about responsible gun ownership for the rest of us.

I don't agree with government that puts us in danger and tells us to roll over and die.

http://ktla.com/2013/02/07/read-christopher-dorners-so-called-manifesto/#axzz2KEXJ3hFu

Nobody wants your gold or your house. Stop eating peyote.

Call it Crazy says

Oh, how's that working out for our military over in Afghanistan?

The reason our military can't do shit in Afghanistan is that our politicians are all fucked up. WTF is the winning condition in Afghanistan? All the Muslims love us and the Jews? You can't accomplish that by killing people.

Furthermore, why would the warfare industry want the war in Afghanistan to end? Does Burger King want people to stop eating shitty burgers?

tatupu70 says

Typical Dan hyperbole aside, the government must weight the rights of citizens not to be blown up in the sky with the right to privacy.

There's a big difference between a minor infraction of privacy and mass strip searches, which is what the TSA scanners are. Furthermore, the scanners would not have prevented 9/11. Not at all.

Locking the cockpit door and making sure civilians aren't subject to arrest for taking down hijackers would have prevented 9/11.

Finally, if such strip searches are necessary, why is it that government is pushing to have a certain class of rich, powerful people not subject to them? Once the masses have become complacent with their rights being violated, the ruling class will have special, no rape lines that only they can use to get through the checkpoint.

In fact, the whole damn system is just security theater. Cargo sent through our nation's ports is not even checked, and that cargo could contain nukes, dirty bombs, and biological weapons. Why isn't security at the ports as important? Because it's cheap to invade people's rights, but it's expensive to check cargo.

Furthermore, a terrorist could easily blow up a planing using air mail. Just send a package with a smart phone and an explosive through air mail and have it detonate when the GPS says you are at X altitude.

Even easier still, a suicide bomber could simply detonate a bomb while in the security checkpoint, killing the masses of people crowded around it. What are you going to do about that? Have a security checkpoint before entering the security checkpoint?

Dan8267 says

Because it's cheap to invade people's rights, but it's expensive to check cargo.

best line you have coined in a while. 100% agree.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

Because it's cheap to invade people's rights, but it's expensive to check cargo.

best line you have coined in a while. 100% agree.

Much agreed, hey it's cheaper to get obedience from unarmed people than to fix the economy they screwed up up there in Washington.

Hey here is our LAPD at it's finest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-jump-out-boys-20130207,0,7728636.story?track=lanowpicks

A clique that celebrated shootings. You get killed, they celebrate... with psychopaths like that running around I'm certainly going to cling onto my guns.

Call it Crazy says

BHO

BHO = GWB

Dan8267 says

BHO = GWB

Hey, I agree with you on things occasionally too.

Does that make tatupu70 = Dan8267?

That depends on how easily you get excited....
go too far and they turn up the juice on that xray machine and shock you back to realilty...

IDDQD says

You calling patdown at the airport (to which you don't really HAVE to go in the first place) a "sexual assault" doesn't make it even close to real sexual assault a.k.a. rape.

So you'd rather have no patdown and unnecessarily increase the chances some nutjob takes down the plane...
You're a simple ass.
Complicating the issue unnecessarily.....
no patdown = smuggled explosives onto plane = terrorist event.
It's the price you pay for air travel in these times...
Get with the program or get on the train....

Dan8267 says

That's your fucking answer? We, the people, now have no right to travel and must give up our rights to human dignity for the privilege of traveling? We have to accept suffering sexual indignation in order to go to our sibling's wedding, our niece's birth, our parent's funeral? If that's your answer than double fuck you.

Shipping wars! First I've heard of that....

Quigley says

The Feds and DHLS are already preparing for civil unrest. 1.6 billion rounds bought in the last year. Enough to wage all-out war for 30 years! Woo!

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million-more-rounds-of-ammunition

tatupu70 says

Does that make tatupu70 = Dan8267?

In your wet dreams.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

mikem says

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

Yet it does. We can't have land mines, missiles, C4 explosives, nukes, tanks, armed helicopters, etc. So clearly this quote is violated severely.

mikem says

"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

Unless they are non landed peasants, slaves, native americans, women or anyone else other than white protestant males.