[nineveh_redemption]

They say it's the land of the free. They say it's the home of the brave. I beg to differ. The government is slowly taking away our rights, one by one, until we'll all be placidly watching our country slowly eat itself apart. We are not free. We do not lift a hand against our precious God-blessed country. This is not the home of the brave. And it's a damned shame.


Between the desire, And the spasm
Between the potency, And the existence
Between the essence, And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom

For Thine is, Life is, For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.


And it's a damned shame.

[w00t]

You live in a democracy. If you want change, start a change, peacefully. Violence will alienate too much of the population for your message to achieve anything.

[nineveh_redemption]

w00t
If the people were with me, no alienation would exist. Non-violence has existed for millenniums, and it's brought about change. But there is still need of change, and any non-violent wishes for change have been oppressed. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen tried non-violence for a long time, and they resorted to their successful, violent revolution. I'm not against non-violence, and I certainly propose it as a first measure to attempt the return of out rights, but nothing seems to be working. And I don't think I live in a democracy anymore.

[w00t]

Fighting fire with fire doesn't really work. It can patch it for a moment, but it doesn't last. Look at how well all those countries are going right now, government-wise.

I hope your not one of the people that are convinced all these acts being passed around internet monitoring are interfering with your rights, because they aren't, I could go into detail of why Internet access isn't a right, but I don't feel like it at the moment.

Or, if your one of the people complaining about gun regulation, keep in mind two things.

One, everyone else thinks you're a country full of backwards minded people when you think the solution to gun violence is to arm more people.

Two, your country wasn't founded by people that believed the common people should have supreme power over the government, in any form. There's a reason that your electoral college makes the final vote, not the actual people. "The right to bear arms" was probably meant more in a "people have a right to have the means to protect and feed themselves" than anything else. I'm not saying guns should be banned, but I've yet to hear of an occasion where a 100 round magazine on an automatic rifle was needed to hunt or protect oneself.


As for conspiracy theory in general, entropy is a bitch. There are infinitely more ways for knowledge of conspiracy to become public than there are for aforesaid knowledge to remain unknown to those not party to the conspiracy, making the odds of ANY conspiracy remaining secret for any substantial length of time around the same as the odds of one of the atoms in my finger suddenly being anywhere else.

[Dismas]

Fighting fire with fire doesn't really work. It can patch it for a moment, but it doesn't last. Look at how well all those countries are going right now, government-wise.

I hope your not one of the people that are convinced all these acts being passed around internet monitoring are interfering with your rights, because they aren't, I could go into detail of why Internet access isn't a right, but I don't feel like it at the moment.

Or, if your one of the people complaining about gun regulation, keep in mind two things.

One, everyone else thinks you're a country full of backwards minded people when you think the solution to gun violence is to arm more people.

Two, your country wasn't founded by people that believed the common people should have supreme power over the government, in any form. There's a reason that your electoral college makes the final vote, not the actual people. "The right to bear arms" was probably meant more in a "people have a right to have the means to protect and feed themselves" than anything else. I'm not saying guns should be banned, but I've yet to hear of an occasion where a 100 round magazine on an automatic rifle was needed to hunt or protect oneself.


As for conspiracy theory in general, entropy is a bitch. There are infinitely more ways for knowledge of conspiracy to become public than there are for aforesaid knowledge to remain unknown to those not party to the conspiracy, making the odds of ANY conspiracy remaining secret for any substantial length of time around the same as the odds of one of the atoms in my finger suddenly being anywhere else.

On your 2nd point, I must mention that the founding fathers did believe that the people should be allowed to violently intervene if the government isn't serving the people. Read a bit more on the second amendment if you disagree with me. I am not necessarily saying we should have supreme power over the government, but I'm saying we should be able to make sure that the government serves the people if necessary. Because the government has disarmed the people so much, it would be very hard, even with the number of citizens to stop armed forces. Am I saying I need a 100 round weapon to hunt? No, I can use a rifle. Am I saying I need a 100 round weapon to prevent intruders from hurting my family? No, I can use a shotgun. Am I saying I need a 100 round weapon to protect myself outside? No, I can use a pistol. Am I saying I need a 100 round weapon to prevent people from taking my rifle, shotgun, or pistol? Definitely.

Our government claims to be democratic, but democracy is an ideology, and it is unlikely it will ever be achieved. Much like communism, it's entirely utopian. It's almost impossible to have a government fully represent all of its citizens. However, I strongly believe people should be armed in order to make sure that the government does its best to represent all of its citizens and protect their rights (as mentioned in the constitution). When people give up their freedoms, the only way to gain them back is generally through force. If you give up your weapons, you give up all possibility of gaining back those freedoms. I am not saying our government will go corrupt tomorrow, next year, or even in the next hundred years. I am saying it will happen eventually, and when it does I want the citizens of the United States of America to be equipped to stop it.

Edit:

[3SidedSquare]

Something I noticed about nonviolent resistance, is the government must violently be suppressing people, or it's just a bunch of guys sitting in front of a few police (just to be sure stuff doesn't get out of hand). For a violent revolution to occur, the general population must be upset. But we do live in a democracy, and you must use you're influence to change the people in office, or, if you don't like any of em', run for political office yourself. You'll just be branded as a terrorist if you try to start a violent movement.

[w00t]

... Am I saying I need a 100 round weapon to prevent people from taking my rifle, shotgun, or pistol? Definitely...

Going to need more than 100 rounds to shoot down a plane. Or a helo. Or sink a ship. Unless you're arguing that people should be able to buy tanks, helicopters, and warships, the time of violent revolution in the civilized world has passed.

[Dismas]

... Am I saying I need a 100 round weapon to prevent people from taking my rifle, shotgun, or pistol? Definitely...

Going to need more than 100 rounds to shoot down a plane. Or a helo. Or sink a ship. Unless you're arguing that people should be able to buy tanks, helicopters, and warships, the time of violent revolution in the civilized world has passed.

Certainly not. A simple m1919 Browning would be capable of taking down a plane or sinking a ship. High caliber sniper rifles (which aren't even used for mass-murder) are capable of highly damaging vehicles as well. You seem to think the American people are incapable of defending themselves in the event and it sounds like you are saying "why try?" In all honesty, I have no issues with people being able to purchase armed helicopters or even tanks as long as the people purchasing them are sane and have proper licensing. While the murder of 20 school children might sound unforgiveably barbaric, the enslavement of a nation sounds even more barbaric to me.

[w00t]

Britan has some pretty tight gun laws, most policemen don't have guns. Didn't stop us from putting up one hell of a riot when we thought a kid had been wrongly abused.

And yes, an M1919 browning would likely down a plane. Wouldn't sink a ship, realistically. It has the same problem as privately owned warships and warplanes, though, being the prohibitively high price tag. At around 400 million for the newest fighter jets, and much more for warships, we'll always be outgunned by state-backed military.

[Dismas]

Britan has some pretty tight gun laws, most policemen don't have guns. Didn't stop us from putting up one hell of a riot when we thought a kid had been wrongly abused.

And yes, an M1919 browning would likely down a plane. Wouldn't sink a ship, realistically. It has the same problem as privately owned warships and warplanes, though, being the prohibitively high price tag. At around 400 million for the newest fighter jets, and much more for warships, we'll always be outgunned by state-backed military.

As you say, a large amount of people fighting for a cause can be very powerful. That is why I am saying I would like our citizens to be armed. It is more efficient to use firearms and makes it harder for the government to abuse its power. The riots ended for a reason. Unfortunately, in this situation force and violence are the most effective means to preventing corruption. Not to be wishy-washy, but in the scenario you are giving me it is unlikely people would fight face-to-face with the military. Guerilla warfare tactics would likely be utilized. Also, it is possible for an m1919 to sink a ship, although it would be notably hard to do (unless it was carrying fuel or other vehicles).

While an elementary school full of dead children is horrifying, I find unarmed and defenseless citizens to be more horrifying. In the event a government becomes corrupt, it is much better for the citizens to be armed than not. Am I wrong?