"Well Regulated Militia"

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 10:19 AM)Au165 Wrote: ...anyways, back on topic. Revolution, why do people think they can actually pull it off?

The same reason even the most reasonable of us have a tendency to picture ourselves as famous rock stars, actors, heroes, etc.  We are egotistical creatures who tend to revel in the glory of the results without even considering the doldrums and hard work involved in reaching said conclusion.  It's all just hero fantasy.  If I had a nickel for every fantasy people have had where they specifically know kung-fu out of nowhere and thwart some sort of crime taking place in front of their real-life love interest I'd be the richest guy on earth....and then I'd be famous and go thwart a robbery using kung fu I never knew and I'd finally impress that chick I had a crush on in 11th grade (she'd be an adult now, of course in this fantasy).

Sorry, I got lost there for a moment.

[Au165]

(08-06-2019, 10:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: They don't think they can pull off revolution, they feel they can attempt to resist in the case of tyranny.  No rational person at this point thinks we are under actual tyrannical rule, so these people would be pretty much by themselves.

Let's say a rational person believed we were under actual tyrannical rule, then what? Now is it possible? Tyranny does not dictate feasibility. We could be ran by Hitler, it isn't making any difference in their ability to resist, but in fact makes it less likely due to the potential lengths and brutality they'd be willing to go to in order to maintain control.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

It's quite simple when you remove the emotion from it. The entire Bill of Rights delineates rights for US citizens and limits the power of government over them. Bel already touched on the Framers inherent distrust of a standing army. I will add that limiting the ability of the commonfolk to own weapons has been a staple of government since government has been a thing. One of the things that makes the Constitution and BoR so amazing is the hithertofore unheard of scope of the rights defined for the citizens of the US. You cannot impose tyranny on an armed citizenry and the Framers knew this.

To discredit a few talking points. Well regulated meant, "in good working order", i.e. ready to fight at a moments notice. Civilians actually had better firearms than the military when these documents were written, so "weapons of war" is a bullshit talking point. Not to mention that private citizens could, and did, own their own warships. "The founding fathers never envisioned semi-automatic weaponary". Google the Puckle gun.

Lastly, the "what could armed citizens do against a military?" argument is inane for anyone who has studied military history. Starting with the US revolution, armed insurgents have frequently stymied powerful militaries. Viet Cong, Taliban, Mujahaddeen are just a few modern examples of this.

[Au165]

(08-06-2019, 10:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's quite simple when you remove the emotion from it.  The entire Bill of Rights delineates rights for US citizens and limits the power of government over them.  Bel already touched on the Framers inherent distrust of a standing army.  I will add that limiting the ability of the commonfolk to own weapons has been a staple of government since government has been a thing.  One of the things that makes the Constitution and BoR so amazing is the hithertofore unheard of scope of the rights defined for the citizens of the US.  You cannot impose tyranny on an armed citizenry and the Framers knew this.

To discredit a few talking points.  Well regulated meant, "in good working order", i.e. ready to fight at a moments notice.  Civilians actually had better firearms than the military when these documents were written, so "weapons of war" is a bullshit talking point.  Not to mention that private citizens could, and did, own their own warships.  "The founding fathers never envisioned semi-automatic weaponary".  Google the Puckle gun.

Lastly, the "what could armed citizens do against a military?" argument is inane for anyone who has studied military history.  Starting with the US revolution, armed insurgents have frequently stymied powerful militaries.  Viet Cong, Taliban, Mujahaddeen are just a few modern examples of this.

That distrust of a standing army juxtaposed against our current massive standing army is why I think it's kind of comical. Side note, you can impose tyranny on an armed citizenry as long as their arms are lesser than those wishing to impose tyranny (See Syria).

Not inane, but in fact based in reality. Tell me a non 3rd world country that has been overthrown by citizens in the last 30 years without the assistance of the military? You can't, because it doesn't happen. Referencing military actions against governments who didn't possess dominant air superiority, complete control over communication networks, and artillery that can inflict devastating damage from miles away, is simply wishful thinking and furthering the delusion.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 10:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's quite simple when you remove the emotion from it.  The entire Bill of Rights delineates rights for US citizens and limits the power of government over them.  Bel already touched on the Framers inherent distrust of a standing army.  I will add that limiting the ability of the commonfolk to own weapons has been a staple of government since government has been a thing.  One of the things that makes the Constitution and BoR so amazing is the hithertofore unheard of scope of the rights defined for the citizens of the US.  You cannot impose tyranny on an armed citizenry and the Framers knew this.

To discredit a few talking points.  Well regulated meant, "in good working order", i.e. ready to fight at a moments notice.  Civilians actually had better firearms than the military when these documents were written, so "weapons of war" is a bullshit talking point.  Not to mention that private citizens could, and did, own their own warships.  "The founding fathers never envisioned semi-automatic weaponary".  Google the Puckle gun.

Lastly, the "what could armed citizens do against a military?" argument is inane for anyone who has studied military history.  Starting with the US revolution, armed insurgents have frequently stymied powerful militaries.  Viet Cong, Taliban, Mujahaddeen are just a few modern examples of this.

Yeah I think people are thinking meeting them head to head on a battlefield.  What did we kill in Vietnam?  Like 10-1?  

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 10:35 AM)Au165 Wrote: That distrust of a standing army juxtaposed against our current massive standing army is why I think it's kind of comical. Side note, you can impose tyranny on an armed citizenry as long as their arms are lesser than those wishing to impose tyranny (See Syria).

Not inane, but in fact based in reality. Tell me a non 3rd world country that has been overthrown by citizens in the last 30 years without the assistance of the military? You can't, because it doesn't happen. Referencing military actions against governments who didn't possess dominant air superiority, complete control over communication networks, and artillery that can inflict devastating damage from miles away, is simply wishful thinking and furthering the delusion.

Not to mention, the people in this country who are the most willing to fight the military in this scenario are the same ones who find it abhorrent that people would disrespect them by kneeling during the anthem.  So we are going to attempt to kill our military heroes now?  Or is this based upon the notion that as soon as they attack citizens they become evil and are now no longer our heroes?

[Au165]

(08-06-2019, 10:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Not to mention, the people in this country who are the most willing to fight the military in this scenario are the same ones who find it abhorrent that people would disrespect them by kneeling during the anthem.  So we are going to attempt to kill our military heroes now?  Or is this based upon the notion that as soon as they attack citizens they become evil and are now no longer our heroes?

This is kind of the point. All the coup's that have been successful around the world in recent years have required the backing of the military, or in many cases foreign intelligence operative and support, to be successful. If the citizens had the support of the military then it renders the need for the weapons pointless.

In Syria they lacked the military support, and even with outside support, they were/are unsuccessful. That is the Syrian army...that isn't the U.S. Military.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2019, 10:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Not to mention, the people in this country who are the most willing to fight the military in this scenario are the same ones who find it abhorrent that people would disrespect them by kneeling during the anthem.  So we are going to attempt to kill our military heroes now?  Or is this based upon the notion that as soon as they attack citizens they become evil and are now no longer our heroes?

(08-06-2019, 10:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is kind of the point. All the coup's that have been successful around the world in recent years have required the backing of the military, or in many cases foreign intelligence operative and support, to be successful. If the citizens had the support of the military then it renders the need for the weapons pointless.

In Syria they lacked the military support, and even with outside support, they were/are unsuccessful. That is the Syrian army...that isn't the U.S. Military.

You're both speaking like the military is a monolith in which every member thinks the same way.  In such a hypothetical scenario (and hopefully it stays that way) as we're discussing there would be considerable "defection" to the other side within the military as well.  After all, the military are all volunteer citizens.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2019, 10:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I think people are thinking meeting them head to head on a battlefield.  What did we kill in Vietnam?  Like 10-1?  

Yeah, it would never be like that.  Couple that with the fact that large numbers of the military would join the other side in such a scenario.  For those who doubt, read up about the national guard in Detroit.

https://www.michigan.gov/dmva/0,4569,7-126-2360_3003_3009-27393--,00.html

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 10:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're both speaking like the military is a monolith in which every member thinks the same way.  In such a hypothetical scenario (and hopefully it stays that way) as we're discussing there would be considerable "defection" to the other side within the military as well.  After all, the military are all volunteer citizens.

True, I'm going at this with a "what are people picturing?" sort of approach more than anything.  Yes, it makes sense that not everyone in the military is going to agree to wipe out those "traitor" citizens.  So it'll be good troop and brave citizen uniting against bad troop led by our evil dictator president (picture whichever political side you like the least being behind it, I'd assume) in a battle to reclaim the USA!

Truthfully, the reason I don't romanticize these sorts of scenarios is because I know I'm way too much of a cynical comic-relief type to survive through the final reel.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2019, 10:35 AM)Au165 Wrote: That distrust of a standing army juxtaposed against our current massive standing army is why I think it's kind of comical. Side note, you can impose tyranny on an armed citizenry as long as their arms are lesser than those wishing to impose tyranny (See Syria).

Not inane, but in fact based in reality. Tell me a non 3rd world country that has been overthrown by citizens in the last 30 years without the assistance of the military? You can't, because it doesn't happen. Referencing military actions against governments who didn't possess dominant air superiority, complete control over communication networks, and artillery that can inflict devastating damage from miles away, is simply wishful thinking and furthering the delusion.

(08-06-2019, 10:46 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're both speaking like the military is a monolith in which every member thinks the same way.  In such a hypothetical scenario (and hopefully it stays that way) as we're discussing there would be considerable "defection" to the other side within the military as well.  After all, the military are all volunteer citizens.

I almost got into this in my post, but it was long enough as it was. In the case there is a rise of an autocratic leader, sure, you will have military and law enforcement that will side with them. There are always those that will do so for whatever reason. But there are many that sign up to protect, serve, and defend because they believe in doing just that for the people and the Constitution. They will side with the citizens of the country in the case of a revolution. There will be factions. That's how it always works.

(08-06-2019, 10:37 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Not to mention, the people in this country who are the most willing to fight the military in this scenario are the same ones who find it abhorrent that people would disrespect them by kneeling during the anthem.  So we are going to attempt to kill our military heroes now?  Or is this based upon the notion that as soon as they attack citizens they become evil and are now no longer our heroes?

This has always been the thing that has puzzled me. We have Gadsden license plates here in Virginia. I will see a Gadsden plate, a ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ sticker, then a thin blue line flag or Punisher skull with the blue line. I'm always thinking "who do you think is going to tread on you and/or try to come and take it?"

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 10:55 AM)Nately120 Wrote: True, I'm going at this with a "what are people picturing?" sort of approach more than anything.  Yes, it makes sense that not everyone in the military is going to agree to wipe out those "traitor" citizens.  So it'll be good troop and brave citizen uniting against bad troop led by our evil dictator president (picture whichever political side you like the least being behind it, I'd assume) in a battle to reclaim the USA!

Truthfully, the reason I don't romanticize these sorts of scenarios is because I know I'm way too much of a cynical comic-relief type to survive through the final reel.

While some people romanticize it i imagine, it would be awful.  Until we are actually faced with tyranny, any of this is hard to imagine.  

But understand the history of the human race is full of warrior cultures where dying in battle at some point  is the ultimate achievement.  I mean if you were a Norse male that's the only way you got into Valhalla.  Which by the way seems awesome although with my luck I'd probably get there the day before Ragnarok.  

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 10:58 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This has always been the thing that has puzzled me. We have Gadsden license plates here in Virginia. I will see a Gadsden plate, a ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ sticker, then a thin blue line flag or Punisher skull with the blue line. I'm always thinking "who do you think is going to tread on you and/or try to come and take it?"

I assume these people have a fluctuating view of how they view the government, in general.  Lord knows I saw a lot of people go from "It's our patriotic duty to dissent and keep the government in check" during the Obama years to "It's your patriotic duty to shut up and/or get the hell out if you don't like it" when Trump got elected.  Personally, I always try to maintain a skepticism of the government whilst recognizing that ultimately, I am the ***** of the powers that be.  So it goes.

My mainest of main takaways from this stuff is always about the irrationality of fear.  I know plenty of people who own guns because you can never be too careful who also think I'm a wuss for driving the speed limit and buckling my seatbelt.  Hell, some old lady I half know was lamenting that her poor grandson was in jail because he made a mistake and drove while drugged up.  I'm sure if I told her I was more concerned with her grandson killing me than some terrorist on the other side of the earth she'd look at me like I was crazy.

ANyways, I'm doing my usual thing where I start derailing real conversation and wasting time.  Sorry.

(08-06-2019, 11:04 AM)michaelsean Wrote: While some people romanticize it i imagine, it would be awful.  Until we are actually faced with tyranny, any of this is hard to imagine.  

But understand the history of the human race is full of warrior cultures where dying in battle at some point  is the ultimate achievement.  I mean if you were a Norse male that's the only way you got into Valhalla.  Which by the way seems awesome although with my luck I'd probably get there the day before Ragnarok.  

Good point.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to imagine you and I teaming up buddy-cop style to take out a drug cartel in 1980s Los Angeles.  I'll have the funniest one-liners, though.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 11:06 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I assume these people have a fluctuating view of how they view the government, in general.  Lord knows I saw a lot of people go from "It's our patriotic duty to dissent and keep the government in check" during the Obama years to "It's your patriotic duty to shut up and/or get the hell out if you don't like it" when Trump got elected.  Personally, I always try to maintain a skepticism of the government whilst recognizing that ultimately, I am the ***** of the powers that be.  So it goes.

My mainest of main takaways from this stuff is always about the irrationality of fear.  I know plenty of people who own guns because you can never be too careful who also think I'm a wuss for driving the speed limit and buckling my seatbelt.  Hell, some old lady I half know was lamenting that her poor grandson was in jail because he made a mistake and drove while drugged up.  I'm sure if I told her I was more concerned with her grandson killing me than some terrorist on the other side of the earth she'd look at me like I was crazy.

ANyways, I'm doing my usual thing where I start derailing real conversation and wasting time.  Sorry.



Good point.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to imagine you and I teaming up buddy-cop style to take out a drug cartel in 1980s Los Angeles.  I'll have the funniest one-liners, though.

Dammit I'm always the straight man.  

[GMDino]

Anyone who has ever tried to get home after a pro sporting event can attest we can't even get along as a group to move traffic.  In case of a true nationwide emergency we'd be screwed.  Just stay home and hope you can protect yourself until it dies down.  No militia is going to save anyone but themselves.

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 11:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: Anyone who has ever tried to get home after a pro sporting event can attest we can't even get along as a group to move traffic.  In case of a true nationwide emergency we'd be screwed.  Just stay home and hope you can protect yourself until it dies down.  No militia is going to save anyone but themselves.

Good point...Night of the Living Dead taught us this.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2019, 11:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: Anyone who has ever tried to get home after a pro sporting event can attest we can't even get along as a group to move traffic.  In case of a true nationwide emergency we'd be screwed.  Just stay home and hope you can protect yourself until it dies down.  No militia is going to save anyone but themselves.

Not going to lie, this will probably be me. I'm not a fighter. That being said, if you think I won't be carrying a pistol on me at all times in a situation like that you'd be crazy. Shotgun near the door, whole nine yards. If we did have something happen like this it wouldn't just be one of the factions potentially knocking on your door, but opportunistic criminals seizing on the chaos.

[GMDino]

(08-06-2019, 11:16 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Good point...Night of the Living Dead taught us this.

I had the "pleasure" of trying to get out of Morgantown, WV after a football game.  Hours.  HOURS to get more than a couple miles from the stadium.  As we walked the mile to our vehicle I made a Walking Dead reference that each and every group was only looking out for themselves and each car had a driver that thought THEY had the right of way because THEY were in a hurry.

We're doomed.

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 11:19 AM)GMDino Wrote: I had the "pleasure" of trying to get out of Morgantown, WV after a football game.  Hours.  HOURS to get more than a couple miles from the stadium.  As we walked the mile to our vehicle I made a Walking Dead reference that each and every group was only looking out for themselves and each car had a driver that thought THEY had the right of way because THEY were in a hurry.

We're doomed.

If I recall, part of the great depression was caused by banks not having enough money to cover everyone taking their savings out at once but people assumed "If I don't take my money out I'll lose it because everyone else will take their money out and the money will be gone" so instead of the perfect yet unreasonable event of no one taking out their money and things being OK-ish everyone went at once because "everyone else was gonna do it."

It's the old Prisoner's Dilemma puzzle...I've got to screw you over because you are going to screw me over even though you are only going to screw me over because you have to screw me over because I'm going to screw you over.

[GMDino]

(08-06-2019, 11:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not going to lie, this will probably be me. I'm not a fighter. That being said, if you think I won't be carrying a pistol on me at all times in a situation like that you'd be crazy. Shotgun near the door, whole nine yards. If we did have something happen like this it wouldn't just be one of the factions potentially knocking on your door, but opportunistic criminals seizing on the chaos.

Totally.

That's why being in the country is the best bet.  the cities will be hell first, and for awhile until they run out of supplies and start moving out.  By then populations have dwindled and those us of prepared to hunker down have established defenses.


I'm not a doomsday prepper, but I'd lean that way.