Oh Dear Lord

[DemDealer]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/armed-rebellion-poll.php?m=1

This is one of those subjects directly related to Gun Control that rarely gets brought up here, though is frequently the talk to the town in RW circles. Now we have a poll bearing some of it out.

Three in 10 registered American voters believe an armed rebellion might be necessary in the next few years, according to the results of a staggering poll released Wednesday by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind.

The survey, aimed at measuring public attitudes toward gun issues, found that 29 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties.” An additional five percent were unsure.

Eighteen percent of Democrats said an armed revolt “might be necessary,” as compared to 27 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans. Support levels were similar among males and females but higher among less educated voters.

18% of registered Democrats.

At what price is truly radical gun control to be bought? War with a third of the nation? What a wake up call this should be to the voices that scorn compromise.

[mwrguy]

1. Big talk from gun show bubbas

Maybe .01% would actually fight, and they'd be crushed by the professionals.

[holdencaufield]

3. I don't know how well you know the demographics of the military ...

... but if it came to it -- most of the professionals would be fighting on the side of the "bubbas"

Most of the military comes from the ranks of the "bubbas"

[JohnnyBoots]

5. They never

Seem to grasp this fact. I don't know why they continue to piss away political capital on a subject they can't win. Of course gun ownining Democrats will be blamed for the huge losses in 2014, not the over reaching gun grabbers.

[aquart]

77. ARE YOU ACCUSING THE US MILITARY OF ARMED INSURRECTION?

Are you saying we should fear the people who are willing to die to protect us?

Your lack of respect for their honor and sacrifice is beneath contempt.

It's beneath a rock.

[holdencaufield]

80. No, I'm saying that ...

... the honourable men and women of the US Military would fulfill their oaths to defend the Constitution if it was attacked.

I would, however, accuse you of a flagrant violation of SHIFT KEY use.

Remember what Jefferson said, "A little fake outrage, from time to time, is a good thing" (or something like that).

[bluedigger]

84. Bull puckey.

Let's look at your demographics.

Total active duty strength is 1.4 million. Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard have negligible ground combat skills or equipment, so that leaves us with around 750,000 Army and Marines. Now remove roughly 25% minorities and you get ~ 560,000. Let's take another 10% as females less likely to participate in insurrection. So we are at just over half a million. Now, what percentage of those are going to rebel against the government? "Most"? That would be 300,000 or so, with huge holes in unit cohesion across all ranks and abilities. Good luck with that, facing loyal units with the support of the civilian government.


http://www.statisticbrain.com/demographics-of-active-duty-u-s-military/

As a former member of the US Army I find your assumption of widespread disloyalty in the ranks highly insulting.

[holdencaufield]

85. The only thing I'm assuming ...

... is that the men and women of the armed forces are very loyal to their country, and less loyal to an individual. After all, this is America, not Germany.

The only possible scenario I can even image for armed rebellion would be if a sitting president chose to blatantly ignore the Constitution and remove or subjugate the checks and balances that provide stability to our system. Who didn't even consider that a potential scenario when Bush II was in office?

I believe, and for good reason, that if such a thing ever happened, they would uphold their primary vow to "support and defend the Constitution" if it came into conflict with the vow to follow the orders of the CinC. Anything else would in fact be disloyalty.

[CreekDog]

119. buhbye Holden, the fetishization of armed insurrection got you PPR'd (along with OP)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=171399&sub=trans

this group probably has the highest rate of PPR's on DU, interestingly, often the PPR's are for people the majority of the group here agrees with.

[Blue_Tires]

131. He still lasted for 3,000 posts and there are dozens just like him

Of course everyone turns a deaf ear when I try to point out how hard it is to get rid of a known, unabashed shit stirrer on the 'new' DU...

[Lizzie Poppet]

9. What makes you think all (or even most) of the professionals would fight for the government?

You do realize that today's US military has a very pronounced rightward lean and is pretty strongly pro-gun-rights, don't you? In the event of a genuinely widespread insurrection, a large portion (probably a slight majority) would end up on the insurrectionist side. Bank on it.

[mwrguy]

34. Our military is full of traitors?

Good to know.

I thought it was full of professionals that swore to follow the orders of the civilian commander in chief.

Maybe we need to rethink who we let into our military.

[Robb]

38. No. It's a fantasy promulgated by those who washed out, or never served.

The US military is many things, but a hotbed of sedition it is not. Real soldiers know the difference between duty and running around in camo playing at insurrection.

[sylvi]

40. If we come to the point where there is widespread insurrection in this country

conditions will probably exist that convince the military that those who govern us are the traitors.

[holdencaufield]

41. Members of the military are sworn firstly ...

... to " ...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and -- swearing to obey the orders of the CinC and the officers appointed over me follows the duty to support and defend the Constitution and "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

If those oaths were ever in conflict, I would leave it to your imagination as to which they would chose.

[actslikeacarrot]

71. More dems and libs should sign up.

I'm not kidding, most of the 18 and 19 year olds that sign up are apolitical, but become more "right wing" because of the myth that democrats are against the military and against gun ownership. The right wing has controlled the narrative for far too long when it comes to the military.

[RGinNJ]

79. I'm a Dem...

I served for 20 years in the Navy. I also did not know more than a handful of people who would quit their duties to support any kind of rebellion against the US government. The people I served with did take their oath and pride in our country most seriously.

[Ghost in the Machine]

87. Well right here is where you're wrong... well, your WHOLE POST to be exact.. you said:

Thu May 2, 2013, 05:11 PM
mwrguy

34. Our military is full of traitors?

Good to know.

I thought it was full of professionals that swore to follow the orders of the civilian commander in chief.

Maybe we need to rethink who we let into our military.

I take it you've never been in the Military and taken the Oath?

You take the Oath by swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against *ALL ENEMIES*, BOTH FOREIGN AND *DOMESTIC*.

See, we have that little law that the Military CAN NOT BE USED AGAINST U.S. CITIZENS, therefore, ANY President who would order troops to move against citizens would be considered a Domestic Enemy. Troops also have the right to disregard any ordered deemed illegal, and this would be a BIG ONE!

Perhaps it's YOU who needs to "rethink" a few things, starting with your very poorly, misguided view of our Military and our Soldiers, those brave men and women who VOLUNTEERED to protect our Constitution and our Country. The only TRAITORS would be the president who gave that order, and the troops who followed it. After that, you can think about other things you may need to "rethink". If you get stumped, let me know and maybe I can help you out some more.....

Ghost

[mwrguy]

88. Yes, the military can be used

against citizens if they take up arms against the government.

Posse Comitatus has plenty of exceptions, and can always be repealed if need be.

If a bunch of gun nuts declare war then they'll get war. Ol' Roscoe and Cooter might start having second thoughts after a JDAM gets dropped on their double-wide.

[gejohnston]

89. aside from the classist bullshit,

it gets more complicated than that. The planes wouldn't be able to get off the ground withing two weeks. Mall ninjas and wantabes sit around pondering tactics and specific weapons. Professionals stay awake at night worrying about logistics.

[Ghost in the Machine]

94. Putting your classism and region bashing/mocking aside, you seem to forget another thing...

This Country was *FOUNDED* on violence. First, by the white men who came over here and declared this land "theirs", but how could they have "discovered" it, if there were already others living here?? They declared the Native Peoples as "savages", just because they *dared* to protect their land, tribes, homes and families against the the intruders who were murdering them and taking everything they had. They gave tribes smallpox infected blankets as "gifts" and wiped out whole colonies of Native People.

Once they wiped out a region and took it over, they soon started revolting against their own home country because of of their excuse of "taxation without representation" and waged a war for independence. Remember that? They celebrate it every year! A war started because a bunch of rich, white aristocrats didn't want to pay their fair share of taxes.

Pull your head out of the sand long enough to look around and see what's *really* happening now. We have a bunch of old, white, rich aristocrats that don't want to pay their fair share of taxes... and a "government" that is bought and paid for by these people, a government kowtowing to the elite, while wiping out the middle and lower class. Corporations are considered people now, "people" exempt from the campaign contributions set against the *real people", aka "the common folk", "little people", however you wish to phrase it. Well guess what happens when they get tired of being the "whipping boys"? Consider the words of Thomas Jefferson:

God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787

{excerpted} Entire quote here: http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Tree_of_liberty

As for your derogatory uses of "Bubbas" and "Ol' Roscoe and Cooter" and their "doublewides", do you have delusions of superiority or something, or are you Mr. Richie Rich living in a McMansion in a gated community?? I live in the South, but I'm far from a "bubba", "good ole boy" or "redneck". I'm just an old hippie trying to make it through life on this big ol' rock floating in the Universe. I live in a mobile home, but I've also got 15 acres of land, with woods, a small wetlands area and food plots for the deer, turkey and other wildlife that hangs around.

Oh, and by the way.. I am one of those who DID take that Oath, about 30 years ago. Have YOU ever taken that Oath?? If not, why not? I still stand by that Oath today. I firmly believe that *if* there ever is another armed rebellion in this Country, it'll be started by some rich, privileged elitist heading our "government". I'm certain there will be a percentage of Gung-Ho G.I. Joes who follow along, but the majority of our troops would refuse and either lay down their arms, or side with 'We, the People". Your mileage may vary....

Ghost

[Lurks Often]

14. Might want to look at a map of military bases,

virtually all of the major military units that are actually combat units are based in red states and most of the senior people in those units have spent years living in those red states.

Might want to remember a lot of those "gun show bubbas" are former military and some are combat veterans as well.

[gejohnston]

15. senior officers rotate

more than anyone else. They haven't lived there for years.

[Lurks Often]

16. Yes and no

A senior NCO or officer below the rank of major general will spend the majority of their career serving in a unit that matches their specialty/career field, so if someone is in a tank unit, their going to spend a lot time rotating through the same units. The same would apply to someone assigned to the 82nd Airborne or 101st Air Assault.

The soldiers are going to follow their platoon sergeants and platoon leaders and those will follow their company commanders and so on. It is going to be the division commanders that will ultimately decide which side they are going to be on, not the 3 & 4 star generals in Washington DC & the Pentagon.

[gejohnston]

17. not really

It might be true in the army, but no so much in the Air Force. Junior and field grade officers will rotate to various joint, staff, and instructor jobs as "career enhancing" experiences to get promoted. Of course, the pentagon is full of dead end jobs for Lt Cols.

[Lurks Often]

23. Let's hope we never find ourselves in this hypothetical civil war n/t

[aquart]

78. Plan to walk into an off-post bar and congratulate our soldiers for treason?

That is what you are saying they're up to, isn't it?

[Lurks Often]

108. No, not sure where you got that from n/t

[holdencaufield]

2. "At what price is truly radical gun control to be bought?"

Besides the mind-numbing irony singularity that would be having an armed rebellion to forward the cause of gun control. I think they had better stick with activism. If the DU member who are pro-gun control are any indication, they would lose horribly in a stand-up gunfight. Knowing how to USE a gun is pretty much the most basic skill required if you are planning an armed rebellion. They not only don't know which end of the weapon is the dangerous end, they believe that guns spontaneously fire without human intervention.

It would be like bringing a teddy bear to a gunfight.

[devilgrrl]

117. Holden Caufield is a phony

as are you. Good riddance.

[geek tragedy]

128. +1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=171399

[Arkansas Granny]

4. What "radical gun control" has been seriously proposed? The only thing I'm aware of is

universal background checks and we can't even get that through the Senate with 90% public approval rating. That's about as radical as requiring a driver's license before you can operate a vehicle on public roads.

There will be no radical gun control measures passed. The radical gun control measures will not even be brought up for a vote. Speculating on these radical gun control measures is what keeps people riled up and makes them go out and buy even more guns. There are some people who make money using fear to motivate actions of others.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Registration

BTW, fear is among the best of motivators.

Have a quote: "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority...the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

[Arkansas Granny]

8. Since we can't even get universal background checks, I don't think that there is much to fear about

registration happening anytime soon, if ever.

BTW, I see the motivation of fear on a regular basis when the men I work with are crying because they can't find ammo at their local gun shops. They have been whipped up to such a state of anxiety (without a shred of evidence) that they are in constant fear that the government is going to start confiscating their weapons on a wholesale basis so they are stockpiling weapons and ammo. This fear has been a windfall for gun and ammo manufacturers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. The prevailing thinking...

...is that UBC failed due to the possibility of establishing a registration like database of guns purchased. In view of the recent legislative failures, I don't see registration happening but failing to adequately preclude it in pending legislation looks like a road to failure. IMHO there are too many pro control politicos out for popularity, approval and the chance for a "win". Many pieces of legislation that might make some positive progress are poisoned with unacceptable provisions or a lack of protection for individual privacy as highlighted by the ACLU's stance on registration.

BTW, love your sig line.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Well, in the case of the Manchin-Toomey background check, a gun registry was absolutely forbidden.

And I quote:

http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

SEC. 103. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title, or any amendment made by this title, shall be construed to-
(1) expand in any way the enforcement authority or jurisdiction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; or
(2) allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a Federal firearms registry.

I don't know about your definition of "adequately precluding a gun registry," but Manchin-Toomey fits mine. So maybe there's a different reason you could come up with?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

104. The prohibition:

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-

(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-

(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or

(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.

...is focused on the AG rather than simply issuing a general prohibition.

[Bolo Boffin]

116. I provided you a link and a direct quote of a "general prohibition" in Manchin-Toomey

There's nothing about the AG in my direct quote of the amendment. "Directly or indirectly" Manchin-Toomey cannot be used to start a Federal gun registry, period.

Try again.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

121. re: Manchin-Toomey

"There's nothing about the AG in my direct quote of the amendment."

No there isn't.

""Directly or indirectly" Manchin-Toomey cannot be used to start a Federal gun registry, period."

Nothing in Manchin-Toomey prohibits a department other Justice/AG from 'consolidating or centralizing records'.



[font color="red"]If there is a provision where all departments and agencies are specifically prohibited from gathering, consolidating, maintaining any government database of completed transactions please provide a quote.[/font]

[Bolo Boffin]

122. beep beep beep "Moving goalposts. Careful!"

You said "if only there had been a general prohibition," Manchin-Toomey would have been acceptable.

But Manchin-Toomey did have a general prohibition and I provided you the link and a direct quote.

NOW you want a very specific prohibition, specifying wording and all. Too late: your bullshit has been called.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

123. Semantics...

...carry on.


I said if there had been a general prohibition as in a clause, paragraph or section which in general prohibited any government agency or department from establishing a registry or comparable database, UBCs would have IMHO been acceptable.


The bill actually contained a specific prohibition (not a general prohibition) aimed narrowly at the Justice Department and specifically mentioning the AG.


I'd like to have a civil exchange. It just seems that you mistook what I was saying.

[Bolo Boffin]

130. If you'd like to have a civil exchange, stop moving the goalposts.

Manchin-Toomey clearly has what you claimed it needed to have in order to pass. Now you need more and feel free to amend what you actually said to include this new special requirement.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

132. Think of me as you wish.

Having a friend beats having an argument even if I think my point was valid. I'm sure you understand what I've explained now. If the misunderstanding is due my description then fine.

If your weather is like mine here near Philly it looks like a great weekend. Enjoy.

[CreekDog]

18. yeah registration of cars has turned the USA into a gulag hasn't it?

[gejohnston]

19. there is no car prohibiton lobby,

registering cars provides funding for roads.
Gun registration does little to nothing.

[CreekDog]

20. there are lots of groups that want to ban, restrict, limit and regulate cars

[gejohnston]

21. they don't seem very vocal

what I hate are drunks on jet skies.

[CreekDog]

22. well you just said there aren't any

seems like you don't know what you're talking about.

[gejohnston]

35. Can you name one?

Do they have the astro turf power of a corporate foundation and a couple of billionaires behind them?
Didn't think so.

[CreekDog]

43. Gun rights groups spent more than 10 times what gun control groups spent --your argument is FALSE

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/02/lobbying-nra-national-association-for-gun-rights/2130047/

WASHINGTON — Gun rights groups pumped $3.8 million in federal lobbying this year — a 122% spike in spending over the final months of 2012 — as they fought to roll back gun-control measures advocated by President Obama and Democrats in Congress in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., tragedy, a new analysis shows.

Gun-control groups also increased their lobbying activity dramatically, but their spending, totaling nearly $276,000 in the first quarter of 2013, represents a tiny fraction of what gun rights groups are investing in the legislative fight, according to the tally by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money.

but then, you just post whatever will stick, you have never cared whether it was true.

[gejohnston]

45. cool story

BTW, average people send their tens and twenties to gun rights groups. Gun control groups, not at all. BTW, can you answer my question?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. CNN sure spun that story. Even so called journalists should be able to do math and present an

honest story.

[DonP]

29. Sure there are. Name a few of the major national car ban lobbies funded by billionaires?

[CreekDog]

30. seems like you're moving the goal post, but who is the billionaire that wants to ban all cars?

[DonP]

31. I figured there must be one funding car ban organizations like Bloomie pays for all that gun control

But a few names of those national car ban organizations you mentioned will suffice to prove you actually were telling the truth ... and the Amish and Hutterites don't count.

[CreekDog]

32. Bloomberg is trying to ban all guns? When did that happen.

or are you saying that Bloomberg is trying to regulate guns the way many prominent environmental organizations have pushed to regulate cars and their emissions?

of course, maybe you can point us to your posts on environmental issues where you explain this in more detail since obviously you have thought long and hard about this analogy.

[DonP]

33. That's what I thought. No wonder you guys need a safe haven.

But OTOH, with people like you to support it, it's reassuring that there won't be any new national gun control legislation passed for another 22 years.

[CreekDog]

44. please tell us how much the billionaire spent to lobby for gun laws.

also tell us how much gun rights groups spent.

oh here:

WASHINGTON — Gun rights groups pumped $3.8 million in federal lobbying this year — a 122% spike in spending over the final months of 2012 — as they fought to roll back gun-control measures advocated by President Obama and Democrats in Congress in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., tragedy, a new analysis shows.

Gun-control groups also increased their lobbying activity dramatically, but their spending, totaling nearly $276,000 in the first quarter of 2013, represents a tiny fraction of what gun rights groups are investing in the legislative fight, according to the tally by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/02/lobbying-nra-national-association-for-gun-rights/2130047/

[DonP]

52. "His group says it has spent $12 million in the months since the Newtown Conn., school shootings"

From that notorious right wing nut source NPR.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/27/179318906/bloomberg-aims-his-money-at-gun-control-opponents

Seems like somebody is either lying or can't add things u8p with their shoes on. I know which one I'm betting on.

Oh and look, once again he's targeting Dems with his money, What a great supporter you gun control "fans" have in Bloomie. Maybe we should all lobby to have all of the Bloomie supporters PPRd' huh? After all, so far he's spent all his money against Dems in primaries.

"Bloomberg, the founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is trying to make sure Pryor pays. Bloomberg plans to pour money into months of TV ads, radio ads and mailings to defeat the Arkansas senator."

Good luck with your hero.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. To compare apples with apples...

...that comparison would require an enumerated right to keep and drive motor vehicles.

Your opposition to a current ACLU position is noted.

[CreekDog]

25. are you an ACLU member?

how long have you been?

i am.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. no, why do you ask? n/t

[CreekDog]

27. you're lecturing me on insufficient support of the ACLU?

and you aren't even a member?

and you don't seem to have posted to support any other position they've taken.

so why are you lecturing me on this?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. re: "you're lecturing me on insufficient support of the ACLU?"

No, not me.


I think it's great that you support the ACLU. I'm pointing out that you don't agree with their position. I find that position, like most of theirs, to be in agreement with the Bill of Rights.

[benEzra]

11. Umm, outlawing the most popular civilian rifles in the United States?

Outlawing hundreds of millions of over-10-round magazines, going back to the 1860's, owned by 40+ million people?
Making it a 5-year Federal felony to leave at gun at home with your significant other?
A national gun registry?

And last time I checked, the 'NY SAFE' act wasn't just proposed, it *passed*.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. DiFi's latest AWB is pretty radical.

The good news is that it failed, getting only 40 votes.

[Robb]

7. You seem to be having trouble here.

You're using "compromise" to describe saying "do what we want or we'll start an armed rebellion."

You're describing "hostage negotiation." You want to accede to the twisted wishes of people SO FUCKED UP they're planning sedition?

[DemDealer]

12. When the numbers start to broach into the multiple-tens-of-millions

I don't think you can any longer reasonably address the concerns of those people as some sort of fringe statistical outlier to ignore, however much you might disagree with them. And if you try, you're goading them into making good on their threat.

Let me repeat that. We're debating the wisdom of goading somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 million people (I'm lowballing the poll numbers deliberately), including about 1 in 6 fellow Democrats, to armed conflict.

How is the possible rationality of that even on the table? There's no legislation you could pass that would be remotely worth it even in the most biased of cost><benefit calculations.

[mokawanis]

36. They won't make good on their threat

they're talking shit, and they won't resort to armed conflict. If they did make good on their threats they'd get their asses kicked 8 ways to Sunday. Anyone who talks armed rebellion as a response to gun control laws is foolishly talking tough and blowing smoke up their own asses.

[holdencaufield]

37. So .. just to be clear ...

... it is your impression that people who hate guns and don't know anything about them will prevail in an armed conflict with those who do? You might want to re-think that tactical scenario. One does not bring a Teddy Bear to a Gunfight.

If you're not familiar with our country's history, you should at least, as a Democrat, be familiar with the history of this country's labour movement.

The Homestead Strike, Blair Mountain, Ludlow Mine, Matewan, if you were raised in a union family, these names should be as familiar to you as your own. All examples of American workers taking up arms to secure their rights. Many of these battles were very one-sided but eventually they resulted in the Union movement we have today.

I suspect that if there were a wholesale federal effort to confiscate guns, you would once again see armed Americans standing up for their rights and not accepting servitude.

[Bjorn Against]

46. Those who would engage in armed conflict or support it are the worst form of human scum

If a gun nut shoots me because they decide that it is a good idea to start killing people who disagree with them they are the loser, not me. Anyone who would support this shit is no better than Tim McVeigh, fuck all those who want armed revolution. If an armed revolution does begin I will be involved in non-violent resistance to that revolution, if they want to murder my unarmed person in cold blood then I will let them live with the consequences of murdering an innocent person and the public shame that brings.

[holdencaufield]

49. Citizens of the US are unique in the world ...

... for possessing not just rights, but the right to defend their rights.

I can see how that might make those who hate the idea of civil rights very uncomfortable.

[Bjorn Against]

53. You do not have the right to shoot people

There is no right to armed revolution. Period.

[holdencaufield]

54. Tell that to THESE guys

Fighting against tyranny isn't a right for Americans, it's an obligation.

[Bjorn Against]

55. You are not only promoting murder, you are claiming it is an obligation

You can act all patriotic by putting up that picture, but there is nothing patriotic about murdering your fellow Americans.

[holdencaufield]

57. Are you unaware of the definition of murder?

Warfare isn't, by definition, murder.

[Bjorn Against]

61. And since when did you have the power to declare war?

[holdencaufield]

62. Never said I did ...

... a government who forcibly denies the civil rights of its citizens has in effect already declared war on them.

[Bjorn Against]

64. If you think that the government passing laws you disagree with is the same as declaring war...

You don't know what war is. What you are promoting is not war, it is terrorism. Advocating war against your fellow Americans is horrible in itself, you are pretending armed insurrection is war when it is really terrorism.

[sylvi]

73. I think it's truly pathetic

I think it's truly pathetic that you felt you had to run back to GD and try to raise a rabble and a witch hunt by dishonestly proclaiming people in this thread were "promoting an armed insurrection".

Your alerts failed as badly as your arguments so you thought you'd stir a little shit, eh? If you thought you were right why didn't you go to ATA and wait for a response from them before trying to sow hate and discontent on a false premise? How sad.

[holdencaufield]

60. What a shame ...

... your alert didn't work.

[cali]

96. every one of your posts in this thread is disgusting.

every single one.

[holdencaufield]

106. Feel free not to read them ...

It's a free country ... for now

[Bjorn Against]

127. Don't worry, she won't be reading them any more. No one will.

[Bjorn Against]

115. Yes, what a shame

You will never be able to promote right wing terrorism on this site again.

Good bye.

[armueller2001]

111. You must have slept through history class.

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.."

Declaration of Independence.

[Bjorn Against]

120. Actually you must have been the one sleeping in History class

Because if you had been awake you would have known that the Declaration of Independence was a revolt against the British, not the Americans. I challenge you to find me a current law that gives you the right to shoot Federal Agents. I warn you though, the admins have made it clear that support for terrorism is not welcome on this site and have already banned three posters in this very thread, if you want to avoid getting banned yourself I would suggest you don't defend armed insurrection.

[CokeMachine]

124. I thought you were leaving DU.

Wasn't that you that wrote a CBCDU thread earlier in GD? I do see you edited it though.

A line has been crossed, I have always said I will not associate with groups that advocate violence
I have long been a peace activist for several years now and I have always promised myself that I would live by my principles and if I ever got involved with a group and that group started advocating violence I would immediately disassociate myself from it.

I have been in many disagreements with people on this site before, but I can handle disagreement. I refuse however to tolerate threads which promote taking up arms against the government if they pass gun control legislation.

Tonight there is a thread in the gungeon in which a few different DU members are promoting an armed insurrection, I did not think this type of thing would be tolerated on DU but I was wrong. I alerted on three different posts which explicitly promoted acts of terrorism and all three of them were allowed to stand.

I know this is a Meta thread so it will probably be locked, but I need to do two things before I step away from DU. I needed to speak out and condemn those who allowed the violent rhetoric in the gungeon to stand, and I needed to say good bye to all the wonderful people who have made DU such a great discussion board.

I know that the gungeon people are promoting armed revolution are in the minority at DU, most of the people here have been great. Some of you I have cheered on and others I have disagreed with. Both under my current name and my former alias of MN Against Bush I have participated in many great discussions here and I wanted to thank everyone who participated in those discussions without promoting violence.

Maybe I will action taken to stop the violent rhetoric on DU and I will be able to return, but until DU takes a stand against violent rhetoric I can no longer participate in this site.

I wish those of you who have consistently stood for peace the best, I will miss all of you.

[Bjorn Against]

126. The three worst offenders that inspired that post were all banned today

I see no reason to depart when the issue has been resolved.

[mokawanis]

66. So many goofy assumptions

You seem to be saying that every single gun owner in the US is prepared to fight to the death and kills cops, civilians, and soldiers to keep their guns. Gun owners in one camp, teddy bear owners and everyone else in the other. Complete and utter rubbish, as is your ridiculous scenario of a wholesale federal effort to confiscate guns. The only person I've heard mention that in a while...is you.

[whathehell]

101. Thank you. n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. Asses kicked by whom?

The military? The US military these days is pretty distinctly right-leaning, politically (and its officer corps even more so).It's often drawn from families who have guns. Which do you think is more likely: that they're going to obey orders to fire on those insurrectionists...or join them? I suspect a bit of both...but I wouldn't underestimate the latter category.

The biggest ramification (militarily) of such a scenario is not necessarily that the insurrectionists would have soldiers on their side. Instead, it's that the complex weapons and communications systems that constitute a modern military's biggest advantage over "irregulars" would be rapidly subject to breakdowns. Those systems require considerable logistic support, and the fragmented military that would result from a genuine rebellion would quickly lose the ability to provide that logistical support.

The police are much more likely to follow orders (largely) en masse to fire on insurrectionists. Cops have an incredibly insular, "us vs them" culture, and we've already seen how slavishly they tend to follow the orders of the powers-that-be. But they're utterly inadequate to the task of quelling a widespread insurrection.

I hope (and would pray...except I'm an atheist) that this never comes to pass. It would be a nightmare...and the end of this society.

[Bjorn Against]

48. So we are supposed to cave to the demands of terrorists?

Because anyone who would engage in armed insurrection is by definition a terrorist.

[holdencaufield]

50. You might want to invest in an dictionary

I take exception to the fact that my ancestors who fought for their rights in the union movement, often against armed union-busting thugs, were "terrorists".

[Bjorn Against]

51. You might want to invest in a dictionary because it very clearly defines this as terrorism

terrorism
? Use Terrorism in a sentence
ter·ror·ism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism?s=t

An armed revolution is by definition the "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"

[holdencaufield]

56. "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes"

Welcome to the last 7,000 years of diplomacy.

By this definition, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FD Roosevelt and pretty much every other American President was a terrorist.

[Bjorn Against]

58. You told me to invest in a dictionary, I showed you the definition that is in the dictionary

There have been many state sponsors of terrorism throughout history, read Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and you might see that the people you mentioned are not the saints they are often portrayed as.

Yes, armed revolution is terrorism.

[armueller2001]

112. So if a government becomes tyrannical

the citizens should just roll over and allow anything?

Would Jews in 1940's Germany be justified in fighting back? or no?

[Blue_Tires]

109. where are you getting that "tens of millions" bullshit?

I suggest you take a refresher course on opinion polling, flawed methodologies, how potentially serious the poll answerer may or may not take it, and how easy it is to skew numbers...

[rrneck]

13. I didn't see anywhere in that poll

that explained why people expect an armed rebellion. Rather, it pointed out the relationship between gun ownership and that expectation.

“The differences in views of gun legislation are really a function of differences in what people believe guns are for,” said Cassino. “If you truly believe an armed revolution is possible in the near future, you need weapons and you’re going to be wary about government efforts to take them away.”

Given the fact that we have an African American Democrat in the White House, the 44% figure for Republicans seems a bit low. It is probably driven by partisan angst as much as anything else. Had this poll been taken in 2005 the numbers would probably have been reversed.

But given the fact that we have an African American Democrat in the White House, why do 18% of Democrats think armed insurrection will be necessary? And, given the above quote, they probably own guns. Add to that 27% of independents who also probably own guns and the gun control debate begins to look like a real loser for Democrats.

Why would upwards of one fifth of Democrats feel the need to arm themselves for a revolution? Possible reasons could be:

1. Defense against right wing gun nuts.
2. Economic upheaval due to economic disparity.
3. Socioeconomic upheaval due to resource depletion.
4. Socioeconomic upheaval due to global warming related disasters.
5. The need to used armed resistance to wrest control from the 1%.
6. Defense against a kleptocracy bent on a return to Gilded Age labor economy.

How many of the above possible reasons could become a reality? Given what we know about current socioeconomic trends and the general attitude Democrats have against gun ownership, are the 18% of Democrats who expect to have to initiate an armed insurrection (and who are probably already armed to make the attempt) forward thinking Democrats or Democrats clinging to a vision of the world that has come and gone?

[sylvi]

42. There will be no widespread insurrection in this country on the gun issue alone

When it comes to draconian limitations on guns or outright confiscation, the wise gun owner will simply hide their weapons, or pack them in Cosmoline and bury them.

Gun confiscation would merely be a symptom of a much larger problem. The guns would come out when that larger problem became intolerable.

[Bjorn Against]

47. And who decides when it is intolerable? The teabagging NRA gun nuts?

Those who believe there should be an armed revolution are pond scum.

[sylvi]

59. So there's no circumstances under which you personally would be willing to fight for your freedom?

Enjoy your chains, if it ever comes to that.

[Bjorn Against]

63. I will fight as Gandhi fought

I will not murder.

[sylvi]

67. Gandhi's methods worked for his time and situation with the British in colonial India.

They are not universally applicable.

And fighting for your life and freedom is not "murder".

[Bjorn Against]

68. Nonviolent resistance is far more likely to work than guns

Good luck taking down a drone with your assault rifle or using your gun to defend against chemical weapons. Taking up arms against your fellow Americans is murder, the fact that you disagree with them about guns does not change that.

[sylvi]

69. "Disagree with them about guns" has nothing to do with it.

No one is going to go to war over guns alone, especially not liberals against liberals. Americans have already taken up arms against Americans twice, only they weren't going by the label "Americans", they were Colonials against Loyalists, and the Union against the Confederacy. Both times the cause of freedom was preserved.

[DemDealer]

72. That depends on what your fellow Americans are doing

The difference between murder and self defense, or in the larger scheme between "rebellion" and "collective defense" lies in the intentions of the aggressor. If someone who is not entitled to comes to take your life or freedom, killing that person to stop them is not murder.

Many of what we'd call otherwise normal people talk about a revolution in context as a sort of "constitutional law enforcement." Not destroying the government (as the idea is oft represented), but using force to make it obey the rules of the constitution that its obligated to follow. And like it or not they consider the second amendment a major sticking point, because to many of them it is the #1 rule our recent governments have set out to break. These are the same people who were talking about a civil war under Bush because of renditions, torture, and a fear he was going to cancel elections, and who talked about it under Clinton in fear of a national gun confiscation and after Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Possibility of Civil War II is not a viewpoint unique to the far right, in my experience. The center has a large body of people who don't like ANY of their rights being caught in the right <> left tug of war. For some the issue is the TSA, for others the endless wars, and many more the destruction of privacy and the rise of a police state. The one thread they all have in common, again in my experience, is that guns become the magic button issue because, as it was once put to me by a coworker (paraphrased)- "If they get the guns, we can't stop them from doing whatever else comes next. We're just done. We'll never, EVER let them get that far."

[armueller2001]

113. On a smaller scale,

would you use violence to defend your family from harm?

[Blue_Tires]

133. So if it was you against everyone else

would you go down shooting? or is discretion the better part of valor?

(since we're talking hypothetical circumstances, of course...)

[Bay Boy]

65. If the right wing whackos

didn't start up an armed revolt when Obama was elected in 2008 or re-elected in 2012 then they never will.

[sylvi]

70. No they're not.

Not even right wingers are that stupid and injudicious. There won't be a widespread insurrection by righties as long as there's a functioning ballot box (or one they've rigged).

What concerns me is Democrats who only view the concept of "armed resistance" through the narrow prism of a handful of goons charging up the steps of the White House to oust President Obama because they don't like the current state of affairs. They would quickly be cut down and rightly so.

True tyranny in this country is much more likely to come from the right wing oligarchy, years down the road, when the people can no longer live on the crumbs tossed at them and government has to become more and more oppressive to keep them in line. We work to avoid that, but we should prepare for the worst.

[Blue_Tires]

134. There wouldn't be a widespread insurrection of RWers, period

1. There's way too few of them
2. Most of them are all-talk/no balls cowards happy to cheerlead from the sidelines
3. People like me know even in the one-in-a-billion chance they succeeded, their very first course of action would be to round up pretty much everyone who isn't a heterosexual white protestant and execute/imprison/enslave/deport us all -- So I'd have to stop them before they even started...

Besides, what is ultimately gained by forcibly ousting the oligarchs in Washington while leaving their puppetmasters comfortably in charge in their corporate boardrooms??

[geek tragedy]

74. Those contemplating armed rebellion are a bunch of racist rightwing bedwetting

fucknuts who are freaking out over having a liberal black man leading their country.

Same shitheads who whine about Obamacare being an assault on liberty.

And, yes, the loyal US military would dispatch any sliver of those McVeigh wannabes straight to hell were they to act on their neo-fascist impulses.

[Rowdyboy]

75. +1000

Took the words right out of my mouth

[DevonRex]

82. Yes. The military IS loyal. I was IN it so I KNOW and I won't hear any bullshit otherwise. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. So I was...

Under what scenarios do you think the military would fire on civilians.

[Pholus]

100. When the civilians fire first. Duh.

Likely if you had polled it out there were many with confederate sympathies at the Fort Sumter garrison. I'm pretty sure that Lt. Farley didn't sort that out before sighting in.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

118. Thoughtless response to a serious question...

Under what conditions would a military unit attack civilians? Not a single event like Kent State, but a full fledged attack?

Under what conditions would a organized civilian group attack a military unit or government as in a real rebellion (LA riots don't count)


I am one of those who does not believe that real rebellion is possible at this point in our society. We may have areas that are temporarily without rule of law due to as disaster like Katrina, but a real rebellion? I just can't see it.

[Pholus]

135. A thoughtless answer?

You asked under what circumstances. I answered your question. A military unit always defends itself regardless of the identity of the attacker.

Considering the answer "thoughtless" compared to some unstated criteria of being "serious" simply means that you didn't articulate the question with restrictions appropriate to the answer you were seeking. Poor performance, professor, not measuring up to even the poorest implementation of the Socratic method.

[Lizzie Poppet]

105. Then plug your ears.

Oh, obviously members of the federal military would never defect to the other side in an insurrection. After all, history shows us that this never occurred in, say, the Civil War.

Oh, wait...

[aquart]

76. Very funny.

Ask them where they plan to be during this revolt and if their affairs are in order.

[Cali_Democrat]

81. Gun nut fantasies always amuse the hell out of me

Bubba, Cooter, Duke and Slim would be thoroughly demolished if they tried to start an armed insurrection.

They may have guns, but they certainly dont have brains. Warfare is about much more than owning an assault rifle with a 30 round mag.

Dumbshits.

[Zulan]

83. Stop dehumanizing people

most "bubba's" and other derogatory terms are normal Americans like you and me. Sure they disagree politically, but that does not mean they are about to go on a rampage! Nor does that mean they are stupid. I don't have to agree with them, but they are fellow Americans!

And the same goes with the US military. They are Americans the same as you and I, and have done nothing to deserve derision about being right leaning heaped on them! They are not about to rebel or pick sides.

don't let this crap distract you from making life better for all Americans, however we can.

[mwrguy]

86. No, they are not like me.

I can't speak for you, but I am nothing like the gun-fondling bigots that are so gung ho to tear down the government.

[Zulan]

136. Yes, they are.

You are reacting to a stereotype that is used to drive wedges between us. I know a lot of republicans, and none of them are gun fondling anarchists.

Its all media inventions for the most part. Are there a few of them? Sure. But not enough to matter.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

93. Lets do some scenario analysis here, and ignore the bullshit survey...

Under what circumstances would the US military attack US civilians within our borders? What would be the scenarios?

Then the converse. Under would circumstances would the US civilian populace, or portions of it, violently rebel against the government to the point where the military would be used. Not talking about things like the Rodney King riots and looting, but serious revolution.

Modifiers to consider:
A peacetime military is heavy in Nat Guard and Reserves, which are made up of local residents. How much more or less likely would they be to participate or attack locals?

[jeepnstein]

102. I knew a Kent State National Guardsman.

He said that the minutes and hours after the shooting broke out he began to seriously question everything. His orders, his leadership, mission, nothing made much sense any more. They went there to keep the peace and wound up shooting a bunch of hippies instead. And by his analysis they weren't even hippies who needed to be shot. It was one of those traumatic events that convinced him he would not and could not fire on civilians no matter what. And since I know one of the victims fairly well I would have to agree that he didn't need shot at all seeing as how he wasn't even part of the protest.

They might shoot once, but then they'd fall into factions among themselves. That would be when the real trouble would begin. I hope I never see it.

My great Grandfather was part of Blair Mountain. His impression was that when you take away everything from a man you should expect him to not take it well at all. Unfortunately that is what is happening today. We are under pressure from every side to give away our freedoms, our economic opportunities, our religious liberty, our rights to speak freely, just to make the government and it's benefactors more comfortable.

[ileus]

97. Is this the thread where everyone want's to fight the government?

[Cali_Democrat]

129. A few gunners here have been tombstoned

I guess the admin didn't like what they were saying.

[Pholus]

98. Let's see what else "about a third" of the population believes:

That dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time.

That REALLY believe in creationism.

That Ghosts are real.

That Fox is the most trusted channel in the news.

29% is less than double the number that STILL believe that Elvis is alive and Obama is a Muslim and that the Moon Landings were faked or that the Sun revolves around the Earth and that environmentalists caused the gulf spill.

The overlap between the fraction simultaneously having ALL of those beliefs is pretty decent.

So why don't you relax for a moment. If teh stupid wants a fight -- or more importantly or relevantly WANTS THE CIVIL WAR ROUND TWO -- then you give it to them. But let the kooks make the first move so history is clear about who the bad guys were.

[Pholus]

99. One MORE poll....

23% of Americans sympathized more with the Confederacy than the United States in this 2011 poll. So how far off is 23% from 29%?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/12/civil-war-still-divides-americans/

Let's be completely clear here. This polling is not new, nor is it about some imagined "gun tyranny." I'd be careful about the banner you think you're unfurling cause it looks like the "Stars and Bars."

[DrDan]

103. just a lot of hot air - the same insecurities that bring these folks guns will keep them from ANY

form of civil disobedience. Paranoid and insecure.

"higher among less educated" - pretty much says it all.

[Turborama]

110. Gun troll has been nuked by MIRT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=298824&sub=trans

[hrmjustin]

114. Informing not gravedancing you all that holdencaufield has been PPR'ed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=171399&sub=trans

[gejohnston]

125. History Channel put it best