Obama wants your semi auto rifle, but...

[irishScott]

The American public can't muster the will to go vote, they certainly aren't going to participate in armed rebellion.

"Yet." To both. Affect even fat, happy Americans' personal lives too much and they'll vote in droves. Just look at SOPA. Or guns for that matter. Anything where people have skin in the game, they vote.

As for armed revolution, yeah things would have to REALLY go to shit (the Constitution would essentially have to die) before that happened IMO. But it could happen. Our country was founded by approximately 1/3 of the colonial population in active rebellion.

 

[OGOC]

The American public can't muster the will to go vote, they certainly aren't going to participate in armed rebellion.

That doesn't answer my question.

Should the American people have the right to arms capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government even if they may be too lazy to do so?

I see things like "your deer rifles won't have a chance against tanks and machine guns" said a lot. Usually said by gun banners and people who hate the Second Amendment and hate freedom. And the reason citizens (supposedly) won't have a chance is because those are the same people who have done their best to gut the Second Amendment and gut the constitutional right to bear arms uninfringed in the first place.

Someone wants to say deer rifles are no good against a tyrannical government? Fine, then give everyone back their real assault rifles, for starters.

 

[Smoblikat]

The civilians with rifles in Libya didn't have a chance without outside military support.

The civilians with rifles in Syria don't have a chance without outside military support.

The civilians with rifles in Egypt didn't have a chance without the military's support.

Every one of those is a case that civilians with rifles do nothing but get a lot of civilians killed, if on their own, without military support.

In the case of the US it's far, far, far worse for civilians up against by far the most powerful forces in the world.

The guns pretty much do nothing for security, only causing the innocent to be killed.

So your reasoning is that everyone is bigger than me so its a waste of time trying to defend yourself?

Not exactly going to get on that horse after you fall off, are you?

 

[JTsyo]

"Yet." To both. Affect even fat, happy Americans' personal lives too much and they'll vote in droves. Just look at SOPA. Or guns for that matter. Anything where people have skin in the game, they vote.

As for armed revolution, yeah things would have to REALLY go to shit (the Constitution would essentially have to die) before that happened IMO. But it could happen. Our country was founded by approximately 1/3 of the colonial population in active rebellion.

Point being, they can change what they want to by voting instead of resorting to armed rebellion but there isn't even enough support for that.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Seriously though, I find it extremely interesting to see so much opinion on the Syria situation fall along party lines.

I don't see it that way at all.

This, as with other recent issues, is highly divisive, cuts across party lines and has made some strange bedfellows.

Fern

 

[irishScott]

Point being, they can change what they want to by voting instead of resorting to armed rebellion but there isn't even enough support for that.

Of course there isn't. We're nowhere near the point where voting and taking responsibility is worth it in most peoples' minds. That kind of abstract responsibility takes time, thought and effort that they'd rather spend on other things. When those other things start to become impacted, they'll vote. Until then the lunatics run the asylum, and those of us who care do what we can.

 

[kage69]

Libs like to say that it is impossible for an insurgency to take on the US military, despite the ample evidence to the contrary, evidence that they can't help but be aware of given their protests against the Iraq War.

I'd love to see some examples of that, but I think this is another case of you purposefully misrepresenting the position of those you disagree with.

Liberals were not the ones touting the efficacy and superiority of the US military in the run to invade, in fact they were largely warning the pro-war hawks that occupations don't work, that no war is cheap, and that neocon pet dreams won't trump sectarian hate that's been simmering for centuries.

 

[chucky2]

You might want to let all the Dems who voted for going into Afghanistan and Iraq then, they seemed to have no problem beating those drums along with the Politician Rep bretheren. You'd think they'd have really voted No given all this 'absolutely known and forewarned knowledge' Libs have.

 

[kage69]

You might want to let all the Dems who voted for going into Afghanistan and Iraq then, they seemed to have no problem beating those drums along with the Politician Rep bretheren. You'd think they'd have really voted No given all this 'absolutely known and forewarned knowledge' Libs have.

I think it's just precious how you guys refuse to stop conflating Iraq with Afghanistan, and Dems with liberals, even after having it spelled out for you for years.

Actually I'd like to think if you guys were so sure of your views and recollection of those heady pre-invasion days, you'd be providing something in the way of support regarding any of your Dem or Liberal boogeymen of note claiming this 'absolute knowledge' and of being 'forewarned.' Care to back any of that up, or are you content to play the Some People Say game with nehalem and just make shit up?


Riiight. It was those blood thirsty Dems and liberals! Cheering everyone on to Iraq with tales of being greeted with flowers, and that the war will pay for itself - shouldn't be more than a paltry $80billion! What insurgency? They want us to come over there!

lol It's like the second Cheney left office hundreds of thousands of republicans suffered memory altering head injuries.