Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:15 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhopper View Post
I'll avoid a confrontation if possible, but if cornered, I will "go" as a free man than live like a slave/prisoner/cattle.

People who are unarmed are always taken advantage of by their government, it's been that way for thousands of years. Why would the U.S. Government be any different? It's won't...

The picture below occurred in the 20th century...who's to say it won't happen again?


Some time around or before six thousand years ago mankind managed to domesticate plants and animals and develop the beginnings of agriculture. This freed him from the hand to mouth existence of hunter gatherers and lead to the development of an agrarian society which, in a much evolved form, we still live in today.

Man could, for the first time, produce and store more food than he needed to survive. This surplus meant that he could pursue interests beyond feeding himself. This surplus lead to specialties and specialists. If two farm families with a total of ten people could produce enough food for twelve they could support a metal smith or a potter, etcetera, and still save back some for hard times.

There were then, as there are now, smooth operators who wanted to get in on this surplus but did not want to labor over a hot crucible or a plow or a potting wheel all day. If a person could produce more than it takes to keep body and soul together, he could be taxed! The political/military class was born; Government was born! At first the two were indistinguishable and still are in the most oppressive places. It started with bands of thugs selling protection, just like the mob. And blossomed into the little shop of horrors we have today.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:18 PM
tanner127's Avatar
tanner127 tanner127 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 98
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Funny how the only such goat herders that have won are the ones who got air support from major military powers, or ones in which the military basically just stepped aside. Neither will happen here.

We should definitely stand up for what we believe in, outgunned or not. But we shouldn't expect to win if we do so. The effort will almost certainly fail, for many reasons.
You're right, an outright win would probably not happen, but the idea behind the resistance would live on until every last "revolutionary" has been killed. The "War on Terror" has been going on for ten years now and will never end because the anti-American idea cannot be killed. You make a lot of good points in your article, but the military is already stretched out on foreign soil. Would they have the resources to fight on domestic soil too? The police force would have to step in, but we've seen recently what one guy can do against them. And I believe that when innocents are killed by the government that neutral people will turn and become more vocal against the them. I know this is all crazy talk, so I'm gonna go finish my tin hat.
__________________
'Aim High...Fly-Fight-Win'
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:19 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yugo View Post
What are you typing about? I am simply implying that "that" post was enough argument to win this debate, it can happen, it has happened, and the indicators are now here to show that it may happen again.
My bad! I misunderstood.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:21 PM
Yugo's Avatar
Yugo Yugo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 7,984
iTrader: 39 / 98%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
My bad! I misunderstood.
no worries
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by WAMO556 View Post
Voting for Donald Trump is the protest vote against: Keynesian economics, Neocon wars, exporting jobs, open borders, Washington criminal cartel, too big to fail banks and too big to jail pols and banksters.

Cutting off foreign aid to EVERY country and dismantling the police/surveillance state!

Umm yeah!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:24 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
We should definitely stand up for what we believe in, outgunned or not. But we shouldn't expect to win if we do so. The effort will almost certainly fail,
Oh well, nobody lives forever.

Also, when faced with a vastly superior force with much more advanced weaponry, one slinks around setting traps and stabbing backs until they are so tired of your ***** they just wanna go home. Add some doubt about the honorability of their mission and your enemy’s leadership has big problems.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)

Last edited by Meplat; 03-24-2013 at 3:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:47 PM
sunaj sunaj is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central valley
Posts: 330
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Yeah, I know, you're the OP and you feel silly for posting something that's already been posted a time or two. I feel silly when I post dupes too. Plus, of course, there's the tinfoil hattery that goes along with the subject itself.

Better sleep with one eye open tonight, you never know when the .gov is gonna kick in your door...

If you're so unhappy and think this is just another tired retread what are you doing on the thread?
BTW The hat is an improvement

sunaj
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:51 PM
bodger's Avatar
bodger bodger is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,853
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colossians323 View Post
But none will be brave enough on their own. Although dorner was just a common criminal, how far did he get on his own, and what has changed because of his actions?
I see your point and might agree that not enough will be brave enough on their own, and certainly if it comes to confiscation, many if not most, will hand over their guns rather than jeopardize their families or their lives.

But many will decide not to just be a sheep. I am one of them, unless I piss my pants at the critical moment and cave in like a little biatch. I don't see that happening though, I'm 60 years old, my kids are grown, I'm a Vietnam combat vet.
If my door gets kicked in by so called authorities for the sole purpose of confiscating guns that I obtained legally, I will be deploying deadly force. They WILL kill me, so be it.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 03-24-2013, 4:14 PM
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,876
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunaj View Post
If you're so unhappy and think this is just another tired retread what are you doing on the thread?
BTW The hat is an improvement

sunaj



...
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 03-24-2013, 7:20 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodger View Post
I see your point and might agree that not enough will be brave enough on their own, and certainly if it comes to confiscation, many if not most, will hand over their guns rather than jeopardize their families or their lives.

But many will decide not to just be a sheep. I am one of them, unless I piss my pants at the critical moment and cave in like a little biatch. I don't see that happening though, I'm 60 years old, my kids are grown, I'm a Vietnam combat vet.
If my door gets kicked in by so called authorities for the sole purpose of confiscating guns that I obtained legally, I will be deploying deadly force. They WILL kill me, so be it.
I resemble those remarks. Dying on your feet, fighting for what you believe in beats the hell out of dying in a wheel chair in a rest home drooling down your chin and wetting your diapers. Make my Fing day.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 03-24-2013, 8:30 PM
GayGuns's Avatar
GayGuns GayGuns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default THAT....

Should be required reading for every single American.
Thank you so much for posting.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 03-24-2013, 9:50 PM
GayGuns's Avatar
GayGuns GayGuns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

THE REST OF HIS STUFF IS REALLY AWESOME TOO!!

http://dcclothesline.com/

Last edited by GayGuns; 03-25-2013 at 7:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:08 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tanner127 View Post
You're right, an outright win would probably not happen, but the idea behind the resistance would live on until every last "revolutionary" has been killed. The "War on Terror" has been going on for ten years now and will never end because the anti-American idea cannot be killed.
No, the "war on terror" will never end because the objective of that is not even theoretically achievable. That's why it's being fought: to make it possible for the government to engage in a war without end, to give it the pretext it needs to eliminate every last right we have because "we're at war".

In any case, because the revolutionaries would have to achieve an overthrow of the sitting government through force of arms (one does not engage in a violent overthrow attempt unless all the other options are already off the table), the government wins as long as it is able to prevent that. My argument is that the government will prevent that as long as it has the backing of the military, and the nature of the media combined with the control options available to the government combine to make it highly likely that the military, as well as the majority of the population in general, will side with the government.

Because an outright win will probably not happen, it means that the goals of the revolutionaries will probably never be achieved, and tyranny will remain intact. That is the entire point. People think that because the American Revolution was fought and won, that a second one is likely to succeed should it become necessary. But that is precisely what is incorrect. This ain't the late 1700s, and it's high time people start figuring that out.


Now, that said, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. If violent revolution is the only means left on the table to rid the world of a tyrannical domestic government, then violent revolution it'll be. But nobody should believe that such an action is likely to succeed, when the reality is that it is likely to fail.

The universe is inherently evil. Favoritism towards evil is baked into its very fabric (look up entropy to see what I mean). That's why good things such as the American Revolution are extremely rare, and why liberty will not last. But liberty must be fought for no matter the odds.


Quote:
You make a lot of good points in your article, but the military is already stretched out on foreign soil. Would they have the resources to fight on domestic soil too?
No, they probably don't. That just means the government would have to prioritize. That would be easy, because the choice would be between the government losing some foreign influence and the government losing its entire existence. Guess which they're going to choose?


Quote:
The police force would have to step in, but we've seen recently what one guy can do against them.
It's much harder to locate one guy and neutralize him without the aid of the NSA, homeland security, etc., than it is to locate and neutralize a larger group of people with the full surveillance and investigative resources of the U.S. government, most especially when the group fails at its mission if it does not offensively engage in some significant fashion. You simply cannot take the Christopher Dorner experience and "scale it up" in such a fashion. As soon as it becomes clear that what is involved is a group of people intent on overthrowing the sitting government, all the gloves will come off.

Quote:
And I believe that when innocents are killed by the government that neutral people will turn and become more vocal against the them. I know this is all crazy talk, so I'm gonna go finish my tin hat.
You mean like they did when Anwar al-Awlaki (a U.S. citizen) was assassinated abroad without due process? Oh, wait.

You just don't understand. Being vocal means nothing anymore. Protests fail, because the government knows that the only thing that really matters is the amount of force you can actually bring to bear. The government is safe in knowing it can do any damned thing it pleases, because the U.S. citizenry cannot bring enough force to bear to stop it even if it wanted to. If it could, then a revolutionary effort would have a real chance of succeeding, but it doesn't, as you yourself acknowledge.

And so, we slip forever into the abyss of tyranny, never to climb out again. *


* This is an exaggeration, of course, but I believe it to be true enough, for I do not expect us to climb out of tyranny for many hundreds of years. And that presumes the avoidance of the water monopoly empire effect, which would extend that to thousands of years. Remember that we exist on earth in a closed system, so once a sufficiently strong and wide empire is formed, there is no "outside" to overthrow it.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 03-25-2013 at 1:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:13 PM
bodger's Avatar
bodger bodger is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,853
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
I resemble those remarks. Dying on your feet, fighting for what you believe in beats the hell out of dying in a wheel chair in a rest home drooling down your chin and wetting your diapers. Make my Fing day.
Roger that Meplat.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:18 PM
Yugo's Avatar
Yugo Yugo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 7,984
iTrader: 39 / 98%
Default

https://www.facebook.com/notes/terry...51339181433869
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by WAMO556 View Post
Voting for Donald Trump is the protest vote against: Keynesian economics, Neocon wars, exporting jobs, open borders, Washington criminal cartel, too big to fail banks and too big to jail pols and banksters.

Cutting off foreign aid to EVERY country and dismantling the police/surveillance state!

Umm yeah!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:25 PM
TRICKSTER's Avatar
TRICKSTER TRICKSTER is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 10,719
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Well, I just got the call. FEMA camps open on the 1st.
Time to go back to work.
__________________


Ignorance can be educated.
Crazy can be medicated.
But there is no cure for stupid.


Police Brutality? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRd5oucG114

NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:31 PM
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,876
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRICKSTER View Post
Well, I just got the call. FEMA camps open on the 1st.
Time to go back to work.
Oh, you got one of them senior volunteer jobs? The gray hairs in the white shirts, driving a car with an amber light bar?

Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-25-2013, 9:56 AM
FatalKitty's Avatar
FatalKitty FatalKitty is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,937
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coverme2 View Post
Awesome read.
Thanks for quoting the entire damn thing... I couldn't find it in the original post..



__________________
WANT TO BUY: AR-15 'Carry Handle' rear sight! - 20" Ar barrel - PM me!

you don't rise to the occasion,
you just fall back on your level of training.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-25-2013, 11:02 AM
sunaj sunaj is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central valley
Posts: 330
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, the "war on terror" will never end because the objective of that is not even theoretically achievable. That's why it's being fought: to make it possible for the government to engage in a war without end, to give it the pretext it needs to eliminate every last right we have because "we're at war".

In any case, because the revolutionaries would have to achieve an overthrow of the sitting government through force of arms (one does not engage in a violent overthrow attempt unless all the other options are already off the table), the government wins as long as it is able to prevent that. My argument is that the government will prevent that as long as it has the backing of the military, and the nature of the media combined with the control options available to the government combine to make it highly likely that the military, as well as the majority of the population in general, will side with the government.

Because an outright win will probably not happen, it means that the goals of the revolutionaries will probably never be achieved, and tyranny will remain intact. That is the entire point. People think that because the American Revolution was fought and won, that a second one is likely to succeed should it become necessary. But that is precisely what is incorrect. This ain't the late 1700s, and it's high time people start figuring that out.


Now, that said, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. If violent revolution is the only means left on the table to rid the world of a tyrannical domestic government, then violent revolution it'll be. But nobody should believe that such an action is likely to succeed, when the reality is that it is likely to fail.

The universe is inherently evil. Favoritism towards evil is baked into its very fabric (look up entropy to see what I mean). That's why good things such as the American Revolution are extremely rare, and why liberty will not last. But liberty must be fought for no matter the odds.




No, they probably don't. That just means the government would have to prioritize. That would be easy, because the choice would be between the government losing some foreign influence and the government losing its entire existence. Guess which they're going to choose?




It's much harder to locate one guy and neutralize him without the aid of the NSA, homeland security, etc., than it is to locate and neutralize a larger group of people with the full surveillance and investigative resources of the U.S. government, most especially when the group fails at its mission if it does not offensively engage in some significant fashion. You simply cannot take the Christopher Dorner experience and "scale it up" in such a fashion. As soon as it becomes clear that what is involved is a group of people intent on overthrowing the sitting government, all the gloves will come off.



You mean like they did when Anwar al-Awlaki (a U.S. citizen) was assassinated abroad without due process? Oh, wait.

You just don't understand. Being vocal means nothing anymore. Protests fail, because the government knows that the only thing that really matters is the amount of force you can actually bring to bear. The government is safe in knowing it can do any damned thing it pleases, because the U.S. citizenry cannot bring enough force to bear to stop it even if it wanted to. If it could, then a revolutionary effort would have a real chance of succeeding, but it doesn't, as you yourself acknowledge.

And so, we slip forever into the abyss of tyranny, never to climb out again. *


* This is an exaggeration, of course, but I believe it to be true enough, for I do not expect us to climb out of tyranny for many hundreds of years. And that presumes the avoidance of the water monopoly empire effect, which would extend that to thousands of years. Remember that we exist on earth in a closed system, so once a sufficiently strong and wide empire is formed, there is no "outside" to overthrow it.
Excellent post, thank you and please feel free to continue to contribute your insight to these and similar threads



sunaj
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-25-2013, 12:56 PM
wazdat's Avatar
wazdat wazdat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego, PRK
Posts: 502
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
...Because an outright win will probably not happen, it means that the goals of the revolutionaries will probably never be achieved, and tyranny will remain intact. That is the entire point. People think that because the American Revolution was fought and won, that a second one is likely to succeed should it become necessary. But that is precisely what is incorrect. This ain't the late 1700s, and it's high time people start figuring that out.

Now, that said, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. If violent revolution is the only means left on the table to rid the world of a tyrannical domestic government, then violent revolution it'll be. But nobody should believe that such an action is likely to succeed, when the reality is that it is likely to fail...
I seem to remember the guerrilla mujahideen in Afganistan holding off the Soviet Army for over 10 years. Even though nearly 1 million Afghans died, the Soviets did not succeed.

Even now, we're being labelled "Patriot Terrorists".
__________________

ET1 - U.S. Navy, Retired
________________________________________

Politicians take note...

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic..."
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-25-2013, 2:13 PM
OlderThanDirt's Avatar
OlderThanDirt OlderThanDirt is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Aztlan
Posts: 2,608
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colossians323 View Post
I have to wonder if lithuania was brainwashed as our children that have gone to the public schools, and because of the apathy of parents we have whole generations of constitution haters.
No, Lithuania was invaded by the Soviet Union, then Germany and then the Soviet Union, again. They were so confused as to which way to point their guns, they just threw them on the ground in frustration (at least those that weren't slaughtered).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 03-25-2013, 3:38 PM
North86 North86 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,081
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg36f View Post
Great another "they are out to get me" paranoid example of OT spreading to the rest of Cal Guns. They are not coming after your damm guns!!!! "They" meaning te people we elected to represent us could not even get an assault weapons ban passed. Almost 100 percent of what the anti gun crowd wanted did not see the light of day. Did we suffer some set backs? Yeah, but we won a lot too.

We are never going to get everything we want and they are never going to get everything they want; that's life. That's how it's supposed to work.

Stop being so damm paranoid, the whole world is not out to get us (you). If you look at the big picture, we have it pretty damm good here in America.
When California passes its own version of the AWB (similar to NYS) will you be prepared to walk back those statements?
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03-25-2013, 4:56 PM
GayGuns's Avatar
GayGuns GayGuns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 513
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Don'it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Loud and proud, huh? Feel free to us the regular size font.

That site has a lotta

.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03-25-2013, 4:58 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wazdat View Post
I seem to remember the guerrilla mujahideen in Afganistan holding off the Soviet Army for over 10 years. Even though nearly 1 million Afghans died, the Soviets did not succeed.
Yes, but their goal was not the overthrow of the sitting government. Their goal was to prevent their own destruction.

The goal of the revolutionaries would be to overthrow the sitting government. In that scenario, tyranny remains as long as they don't succeed.


This is why you can't use Afghanistan (or Iraq) as an example of how the revolutionaries would win. Winning requires a military victory for the revolutionaries. Nothing less will do. It's not enough for the revolutionaries to merely exist, they must win in order for liberty to be restored. As long as the sitting government remains in power, tyranny remains intact. Elimination of tyranny is the entire purpose of the revolution in the scenario we're speaking of, and that cannot happen until military victory is achieved.

Another crucial difference is that in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, the enemy of the insurgents is an outside force. That outside force has the option of retreating, of leaving the country in question, when the politics of the situation gets too questionable. That is not an option for the government in the case we speak of. In the case we speak of, the only way the government can disengage is to cease to exist. That is a much higher cost than the mere egg in the face that the Soviets got when they withdrew from Afghanistan. When the very existence of the government is on the line, the government will do absolutely everything in its power to win. There are no stops it will not pull out to achieve that. If the Soviet government's existence were on the line in Afghanistan, they would have gone to much greater lengths than they did, including the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons if necessary.


Quote:
Even now, we're being labelled "Patriot Terrorists".
And that should come as no surprise at all.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03-25-2013, 6:08 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
No, the "war on terror" will never end because the objective of that is not even theoretically achievable. That's why it's being fought: to make it possible for the government to engage in a war without end, to give it the pretext it needs to eliminate every last right we have because "we're at war".
Absolutely correct!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
It's much harder to locate one guy and neutralize him without the aid of the NSA, homeland security, etc., than it is to locate and neutralize a larger group of people with the full surveillance and investigative resources of the U.S. government,
Think there may be a clue here somewhere KC?
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 03-25-2013, 6:56 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
Think there may be a clue here somewhere KC?
No, not really.

At the end of the day, Dorner was a nuisance to law enforcement. They treated him like a significant nuisance, to be sure, but a nuisance nonetheless.

When someone becomes a real threat to the federal government, they won't be treated as a nuisance. They'll be treated as a real threat. What do you think happens to such threats abroad? The answer is that they're eliminated by any means necessary. And so it will be with revolutionaries.


And keep in mind: despite all that happened, at the end, they did get Dorner. They won, he lost. It's as simple as that.


And lest you think that what I said above implies some weakness, it doesn't. What centralization there is will be very heavily protected using technologies that are essentially unassailable with the weaponry that will be available to a civilian uprising. Remember: the capabilities in question are designed to survive and function during a real war against an aggressor armed similarly to the United States government.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 03-25-2013 at 6:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 03-25-2013, 7:34 PM
Extra411 Extra411 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

kcbrown, I feel you are overlooking an important factor.

You describe the government as a single entity, when in fact it's anything but a single entity. A lot of people seem to believe the hypothetical outcome of "people vs the government", when America's own civil war demonstrated that when the chips fell, it was states vs states (with their own set of people and governments).

So my question is, why do you believe a second civil war would be anything different than the first one? Wouldn't history repeat itself, and some states will forcibly secede and form their own union with their own interpretation of the constitution?

Unless the government can unify itself first under a one-party dictatorship, I simply don't see a "people vs government" situation. Now, I understand some people believe we're "on the way there", but I don't share that opinion (at least for the moment and foreseeable future).
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 03-25-2013, 8:37 PM
Meplat's Avatar
Meplat Meplat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 6,919
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra411 View Post
kcbrown, I feel you are overlooking an important factor.

You describe the government as a single entity, when in fact it's anything but a single entity. A lot of people seem to believe the hypothetical outcome of "people vs the government", when America's own civil war demonstrated that when the chips fell, it was states vs states (with their own set of people and governments).

So my question is, why do you believe a second civil war would be anything different than the first one? Wouldn't history repeat itself, and some states will forcibly secede and form their own union with their own interpretation of the constitution?

Unless the government can unify itself first under a one-party dictatorship, I simply don't see a "people vs government" situation. Now, I understand some people believe we're "on the way there", but I don't share that opinion (at least for the moment and foreseeable future).

To start with during the civil war there was at least something like parody in the classes of weapons both sides were using. The North by and large had an edge in some areas but not a huge one. Now consider that US civilians are basically limited to weapons Tec that was in existence only 30 years after that conflict. Then think of the scariest weapon that you know of the US government having, now multiply that by the ones we don't know about yet.

Oh; it will be different.

The states don't have the resources to keep up with their entitlements, no way they can even think about military parody with the feds.
__________________
Take not lightly liberty
To have it you must live it
And like love, don't you see
To keep it you must give it

"I will talk with you no more.
I will go now, and fight you."
(Red Cloud)
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 03-25-2013, 9:36 PM
Extra411 Extra411 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat View Post
To start with during the civil war there was at least something like parody in the classes of weapons both sides were using. The North by and large had an edge in some areas but not a huge one. Now consider that US civilians are basically limited to weapons Tec that was in existence only 30 years after that conflict. Then think of the scariest weapon that you know of the US government having, now multiply that by the ones we don't know about yet.

Oh; it will be different.

The states don't have the resources to keep up with their entitlements, no way they can even think about military parody with the feds.
I'm not sure I understand.

If the events were to play out akin to the first civil war, there should be very little weapon disparity, because the "military" will be split into state-allegiance as well. Let's not forget, some of the people that fought for the south used to belong to the same "US" military as their northern counterparts. Both sides also had to draft a lot of militia.

Let's say that hypothetically at some point red states and blue states split. Do you really think Texan soldiers are going to fight for the (hypothetically blue) feds? Where's this assumed federal monopoly on technology coming from?
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 03-25-2013, 9:42 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra411 View Post
kcbrown, I feel you are overlooking an important factor.

You describe the government as a single entity, when in fact it's anything but a single entity. A lot of people seem to believe the hypothetical outcome of "people vs the government", when America's own civil war demonstrated that when the chips fell, it was states vs states (with their own set of people and governments).

So my question is, why do you believe a second civil war would be anything different than the first one? Wouldn't history repeat itself, and some states will forcibly secede and form their own union with their own interpretation of the constitution?
The problem is the disparity in strength of arms.

During the Civil War, the federal government wasn't nearly the centralized powerhouse that it is today. Indeed, it is in large part because of the outcome of the Civil War that the federal government now has the power it does.


Today, the federal government directly controls arms that are vastly more advanced and capable than those that even the states control. So unlike the Civil War in which the arms controlled by the federal government were not significantly better than those controlled by the states, the war we speak of here will be enormously lopsided in favor of the federal government. This advantage is not limited to arms. It extends to surveillance, intelligence gathering, and communications.


Quote:
Unless the government can unify itself first under a one-party dictatorship, I simply don't see a "people vs government" situation. Now, I understand some people believe we're "on the way there", but I don't share that opinion (at least for the moment and foreseeable future).
If the Republicans continue to self-destruct, as I believe they will, then a one-party dictatorship is an inevitability. Third parties will continue to be "unelectable" because at the end of the day, what makes a candidate "electable" is that candidate's ability to get media exposure that doesn't make the candidate look bad. Since the media is privately owned and highly consolidated, this puts the media directly in the driver's seat with respect to which candidates wind up being the primary contenders. Third parties, particularly the ones that would reverse the disastrous course we're on, haven't a chance because their candidates are not willing to sell their souls to the media. Make no mistake: those who own and run the media want this country to be on the course it's on. Bloomberg himself is one of the people who runs the media, and is a perfect illustration of exactly what I speak of here.


The bottom line is this: we currently live under what amounts to a two party dictatorship. We haven't seen a major party be a significant supporter of liberty for well over 50 years. The only difference between that and a one-party dictatorship is that the latter is more obvious. But both are ruinous to liberty, and that should be obvious by the fact that there is damned little that anyone can do these days that is not in some way forbidden or regulated by government.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 03-25-2013, 9:53 PM
Extra411 Extra411 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Today, the federal government directly controls arms that are vastly more advanced and capable than those that even the states control.
I will have to disagree with this. The federal government cannot control arms that are physically residing in a state that is not under its control.

Quote:
If the Republicans continue to self-destruct, as I believe they will, then a one-party dictatorship is an inevitability.
I believe that's far too pessimistic and assumes all factors must always continue on a single course.
Let's not forget Democrats were the party of pro-slavery. Let's also not forget Democrats were the party of anti-woman suffrage. If they can turn around from such devastating political positions, what makes you think Republicans won't rebound the same way? Frankly gay rights or abortion or whatever deemed "unsavory" that the Republican party represents, are NOTHING compared to what the Democratic party used to represent.

Quote:
The bottom line is this: we currently live under what amounts to a two party dictatorship. We haven't seen a major party be a significant supporter of liberty for well over 50 years.
Perhaps, but I'm still cautiously optimistic. When viewing American history as a whole, I believe we did make good progress, even if we took some steps backwards. Some people had thought the country was done for with Lincoln, or FDR, but it wasn't. Yes, they advanced federal powers, but as a whole, I support (most of) their decisions under the situation at the time.
Time will tell how America's future will turn out, but I certainly don't believe that it's inevitably doomed.

Last edited by Extra411; 03-25-2013 at 10:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 03-25-2013, 11:14 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra411 View Post
I will have to disagree with this. The federal government cannot control arms that are physically residing in a state that is not under its control.
That's true as far as it goes, of course. However, you presume that those arms which reside in a given state can be used by that state against the federal government. Modern control technology makes it possible for that to be precluded.


Quote:
I believe that's far too pessimistic and assumes all factors must always continue on a single course.
Must I remind you that the singular course in question has been followed for nearly 100 years? A trend that long is not easily departed from, much less reversed entirely and for an equivalent time. For such a thing to occur, something substantial and fundamental would have to change. But change of that nature generally does not occur except through violent revolution. History is littered with the corpses of those who have tried to force such changes through other means.


Quote:
Let's not forget Democrats were the party of pro-slavery. Let's also not forget Democrats were the party of anti-woman suffrage. If they can turn around from such devastating political positions, what makes you think Republicans won't rebound the same way?
Because those who control the Republican party, the neocons and the ultra-religious, will not give up their control willingly. Both groups are driven by religious zeal, not reason.

Moreover, their religious fervor and the policies they stand for make for a useful foil for their opposite number. So not only is it logical that those who control the Republican party will hold onto their control for their own reasons, it's logical that they will be helped by the very media complex that controls the overall process. A relatively powerless opposite party is useful for maintaining the illusion, however thin, of a "choice" in government.

Understand this: it is the death of liberty that those who control the media wish for, because they believe the people cannot be entrusted to rule themselves. And you need only look at Bloomberg himself to see that.


Quote:
Frankly gay rights or abortion or whatever deemed "unsavory" that the Republican party represents, are NOTHING compared to what the Democratic party used to represent.
Yes, but the change in the Democratic party occurred during a period of time when the parties were not controlled by monolithic outside forces. That is no longer the case.


Quote:
Perhaps, but I'm still cautiously optimistic. When viewing American history as a whole, I believe we did make good progress, even if we took some steps backwards. Some people had thought the country was done for with Lincoln, or FDR, but it wasn't. Yes, they advanced federal powers, but as a whole, I support (most of) their decisions under the situation at the time.
Oh, we've made good progress in some ways. We've gained liberty for specific groups, but have lost liberty for all.


Quote:
Time will tell how America's future will turn out, but I certainly don't believe that it's inevitably doomed.
Inevitably doomed? Perhaps not. But I believe that doom is as close to inevitable as it ever gets.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...

Last edited by kcbrown; 03-25-2013 at 11:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 03-26-2013, 6:19 AM
The Shadow's Avatar
The Shadow The Shadow is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,213
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So far I've read several posts that say "no one is coming for your guns". And in an attempt to make you buy in to their premise, they tell you that you're crazy if you believe that. Interestingly enough, several government officials said that about Obama in his first term. And now in his second term, he and the other gun grabbers are attempting to implement more gun restrictions. Even Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, used the term, confiscation, when he talked about MANDATORY registration.

In California, the dems have the upper hand in Sacramento, and they know it. Because of this, they are sponsoring as many anti-gun bills as they can. Leland Yee wants to ban the bullet button and effectively make EVERY OLL illegal. There's even talk of banning shotguns, and making mere possession of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds illegal.

Right now there are pro-gun politicians in D.C. that are fighting for us, but they are few in California and other states with a strong anti-gun regime. Remember what Feinstein said, they know they can't outright take the millions of guns that we own off of the streets, so their strategy is to dry up the supply by putting laws in place that prevent you and me from passing our firearms down to our kids, and preventing future purchases of the firearms they want to take from us. And we know that if laws like that are implemented, there will be government officials setting up more "Hotlines" like what New York has created, to get your neighbors to snitch you off if they see what they believe is an "illegal" firearm. Like New Jersey, government officials will be "compelled" to go to your house because a citizen called with concerns, and those government officials will tell you that they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't investigate.

Right now there are government officials that monitor and post to this forum, and they are saying the samethings that other government officials said about Obama. They also claim to be staunchly supportive of the 2A, but since, according to government officials and the politicians that are currently in office, the Supreme Court said that the 2A is not unlimited, they feel they can create and enforce laws that are enacted until the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional to do so. That means, if the state legislature puts a law in place and makes it illegal for you to own a particular firearm, even if the government official, who is staunchly supportive of the 2A disagrees with it, the law will still be enforced, and if confiscation is ordered, the government official who claims to support the 2A will confiscate your firearms if ordered to do so.

To bottom line it, this isn't a matter of if, it's a matter of when. It isn't a matter of taking firearms away, remember, our government officials support our right to own firearms...of the type they think we should own...and in a manner that they think we should be allowed to own them...locked in a safe...approved by the government...with a trigger lock on it...and an insurance policy...that uses ammunition that's taxed beyond what people can afford...and in quantities that the government allows...and serial numbered. It's a matter of taking away firearms that are useful for self defense, and as an effective deterrent against a tyranical government. And until such time as the Supreme Court says that banning specific classes of firearms, and specific calibers is unconstitutional, our pro 2A government officials will continue to push for more gun control and wrap it in a nice neat package labeled as safety, or anti-crime, or "for the children".
__________________
Speaking about the destruction of the United States. "I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide. Abraham Lincoln Speech at Edwardsville, IL, September 11, 1858

Godwin's law
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 03-26-2013, 3:34 PM
POLICESTATE's Avatar
POLICESTATE POLICESTATE is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, PRK
Posts: 17,823
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Great read, too bad the author also just got red-flagged for summary execution when the time comes. But he may be better off...
__________________
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.


Government Official Lies
. F r e e d o m . D i e s .
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 03-26-2013, 3:47 PM
Joe Bishop Joe Bishop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: N.Cal
Posts: 228
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I think that you, all, us and everyone should send that script to everyone in Congress and especially Senator Graham and John McCain; I don't trust any of the Republicans or Demowits to support the Constitution of the United States except a few like Ted Cruz TX and state that if we go down in gunfire in support of our Civil Rights that we will take one of you as company to the bastions of Hell.

Remember the NRA is the largest Civil Rights lobbying group ever! Support them and the Second Amendment Foundation!
__________________
"I've made a lot of money in my time, most of it spent on guns and women, the rest of it I just wasted."
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 03-26-2013, 9:53 PM
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,876
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbapug1 View Post
So tell me, what kind of resistance is needed other than suicide?

Simple non compliance? Or active IRA or Tim McViegh type actions? Up until after Sandy Hook I thought McViegh was a nut case, now I think he was a hero, a true patriot, someone fighting back agaisnt the faceless murderers in our government, our biggest threat to freedom. Screw Al Quida, they have nothing on Obama and Bush.
Are you serious? McViegh killed 168 people, including 19 children in the building's daycare center and you think he's a hero?




.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 03-26-2013, 10:09 PM
bodger's Avatar
bodger bodger is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,853
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Are you serious? McViegh killed 168 people, including 19 children in the building's daycare center and you think he's a hero?




.
Thank you.
McVeigh was a deranged scumbag and coward who murdered children and other non-combatants who didn't have a chance to fight back if they even could.

McVeigh's main beef was with the Army because he didn't have the gonads to be a Green Beret. I'd bet he and his accomplices all would have all pissed their pants in a stand-up firefight. Good riddance.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 03-26-2013, 10:54 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,677
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Are you serious? McViegh killed 168 people, including 19 children in the building's daycare center and you think he's a hero?




.
I don't for a minute think that McVeigh's actions were correct, because the time and situation wasn't right for it.

But do any of you really believe that, in the event the population has to resist tyranny through force of arms, they will be able to avoid killing innocents? That destroying the government's ability to remain in power can be done without some children losing their lives in the process?

If that time ever comes, I guarantee that those who fight against the government will cause innocent lives to be lost, no matter how hard they might try to avoid it. Indeed, an evil government of the type that will need to be fought against through force of arms will intentionally put innocent people in harm's way precisely because it will cause those who fight against it to reconsider.


So if it is on the basis of innocent lives being lost that you declare someone unfit to be called a "hero", then I suggest you wake up to the real world, because in the real world, such people will die no matter how hard the good guys attempt to avoid it.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. Your oath to uphold the Constitution is a joke unless you refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

I hope I end up having to donate another $1000 to CGF... However, this $500 is one I hope to not have to donate...
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 03-26-2013, 11:19 PM
Ishoot's Avatar
Ishoot Ishoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,178
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbapug1 View Post

...Simple non compliance? Or active IRA or Tim McViegh type actions? Up until qafter Sandy Hook I thought McViegh was a nut case, now I think he was a hero, a true patriot, someone fighting back agaisnt the faceless murderers in our government, our biggest threat to freedom. Screw Al Quida, they have nothing on Obama and Bush.....

...
Something is wrong with this...this coward kills 168 men, women and children, injures over 800 and you call him a hero and a patriot. If you think that the end justifies the means, no matter the costs..then you have lost your way. Freedom and justice are just meaningless words to use to pretend that you still fight the good fight.
__________________
"If you're going through Hell, keep going."
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 03-26-2013, 11:20 PM
sunaj sunaj is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central valley
Posts: 330
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You know they are gonna' burn you at the stake publicly first-right?

sunaj

BTW at least two unexploded bombs were removed from the Federal Building by the police bomb squad,
while Timothy McVeigh was involved I believe he was also a patsy

Last edited by sunaj; 03-26-2013 at 11:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 03-26-2013, 11:33 PM
Ishoot's Avatar
Ishoot Ishoot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 1,178
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I don't for a minute think that McVeigh's actions were correct, because the time and situation wasn't right for it.

But do any of you really believe that, in the event the population has to resist tyranny through force of arms, they will be able to avoid killing innocents? That destroying the government's ability to remain in power can be done without some children losing their lives in the process?

If that time ever comes, I guarantee that those who fight against the government will cause innocent lives to be lost, no matter how hard they might try to avoid it. Indeed, an evil government of the type that will need to be fought against through force of arms will intentionally put innocent people in harm's way precisely because it will cause those who fight against it to reconsider.

So if it is on the basis of innocent lives being lost that you declare someone unfit to be called a "hero", then I suggest you wake up to the real world, because in the real world, such people will die no matter how hard the good guys attempt to avoid it.
I'm not sure you using "hero" correctly in a sentence. Terrorists all over the world would be proud of your stance....I'm sure that's exactly what they're thinking when they planting IED's against our troops and their own people. No matter the costs, they justify "collateral damage" as the price they are willing to pay for freedom. Hey good luck strapping that vest on.
__________________
"If you're going through Hell, keep going."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:38 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.