posted January 07, 2013 07:01 AM            

Are all NRA supporters so brainless to think that the US Government cannot put down any armed citizen's revolt with the sophisticated weapons they have?

The US Government has
1. Laser Weapons from Satellites that can blind any bunch of attackers for several dozens of meters.
2. Microwave weapons that fry the guns, making them impossible to hold.
3. Drones to blast armed revolt.

If the US government wants to put down an armed revolt, they will, even if every protestor is armed with a dozen AK 47s.

The only weapon for a true US Citizen is True Knowledge. With the true knowledge, let every citizen vote for a Ron Paul type in any political party. There will not be the need for guns nor gun control if the right people are elected.

------------------
Astrology Articles

posted January 07, 2013 07:22 AM            

It doesn't work that way. If it was all about who had the better weapons and troops then the American Revolution & Russian Revolution would've failed (granted, many members--but not all--of Russia's military joined the peasants in the Revolution as they were abused conscripts who had been ordered to open fire on their own family & friends and the soldiers said "to hell with you" and joined the peasants against the Tsar) and Viet Nam would either belong to America or China.

Also, if it was so bad that it came to massive civil unrest and armed resistance then likely elections will no longer matter.

Other complications is that members of the police & military would defect to the people (and in all likelihood many civilians would work for the government, from snitches to fresh deputies). And even if the government did attack in all its might & fury sparing no punches it would effectively destroy itself by destroying transportation, infrastructure, and the ability of people to support the Beast (from raising crops to paying taxes).

Oh yes, lasers and microwave weapons aren't likely to be used effectively (even if they do a better job using it in the USA than they did in Iraq and Afghanistan the technical support would likely be vulnerable to being struck, perhaps even stolen or subverted, by guerrillas), and drones have already been hacked by college students as a project and as tech savvy as we are I believe a massive organize resistance would find the government in way over its head as many of their tech support are fairly incompetent compared to the civilian sector (especially once guerrillas managed to abduct some government tech support with the correct pass codes and specs) and plenty of kids love to crack computers and other tech just because they're bored (I've even seen digital road signs that were hacked a few times to display either racist or silly comments, almost certainly done by some underage teenager, though maybe college). Heck, bored teens have even successfully cracked CIA computers (Anonymous hit them pretty hard, IIRC), and IIRC one such kid who was caught from having bragged about it after was 12 when he did it.

That said, my impression of the NRA is that they're actually more likely to back a military junta or dictatorship (unless Obama is dumb enough to declare himself dictator), especially as it wouldn't happen without an excuse of being under attack by foreigners or other dangerous elements that many NRA members would love to be heroic against. That is if blatant tyranny of the sort to cause massive civil unrest comes I expect the majority of the NRA to back it instead of oppose it, especially if the dictator is conservative. And I also bet that if such a massive revolt were to happen that the United Nations would talk about taking action (they'd be afraid of us but they might be even more afraid of some maniac controlling our military and nukes as well) and that would really rile up the NRA who loathes the UN (and doesn't care much for Canada or Mexico either).

That said, if we ever get invaded then the NRA types will likely prove very useful. But I just don't ever see us being invaded (though in part because most countries shudder at the weapons we sell over the counter in some places).

x

posted January 07, 2013 01:00 PM            

lexx

pixie - during the revolution many military trained folk were on the side of the revolution. the fact that their agenda was basically to BECOME the people they were rebelling against is lost on most these days, history recalling only the valour and liberty-loving PROFESSED AIMS of the revolution...

randall - still wondering whom you would call the far left media?

posted January 07, 2013 03:12 PM            

Why in the heck would your neighbor need a ak 47, seriously?

posted January 07, 2013 03:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
The violence didn't bounce right back, as you put it, Kat. Even the far left media agree that the number of mass shootings are the same each year.

---

Actually Randall ... acc to several journalists being interviewed on the Charlie Rose show ... (my go-to guy if I want to get a modicum of truth on a range of subjects, including politics ... I generally don't watch the news stations), the consensus and gist of that discussion was the following--

... back in the 90s, gun violence had increased to such an extent that an assault weapons ban was put in place. This did result in a decrease in gun violence which stayed less (no numbers or percentages were discussed) through the duration of the ban.

And since the weapons ban has expired, we are (and have been) again seeing an increase in killings.

I think this is similar to what Katatonic was saying in her earlier post. I too have heard this ... Charlie Rose is one of the most respected journalists today (I'm an avid watcher of his show and I still don't know which side he leans toward politically).

And he usually invites people from both sides of the aisle for political discussions on his show.

.

.

------------------
~ I have a DO NOT DISTURB sign on my imagination ... because I want to frustrate the twins ... Convention and Dogma

~ The moment I cease to seek the truth, or settle for the truth in the moment ... that is the moment I cease to be a seeker, and become a fundamentalist instead.

~ The truest acts of charity are never disclosed ... they remain a secret between Man, the doer and God.
Because Man knows that each charitable act is an opportunity for him to revel in God just as God avails of His chance to revel in Man through every act of charity.
For them both to continue to rejoice in each other, Man knows he cannot allow worldly accolades to distract him. So he continues to act in kindness ... secretly.

posted January 07, 2013 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
@ lexx Therein lies the rub. Assault weapons are for killing people. Nothing more nothing less. I legally bear arms and I`m pro second admendment but down with assault weapons of mass destruction.

Why in the heck would your neighbor need a ak 47, seriously?

---

Most of the conservatives say they want to own guns for hunting purposes. Does anyone need an AK47 for hunting? Puh--leese! Why would anyone want a military caliber gun in their possession ... one that can shoot multiple rounds in a few seconds.

Does self protection from intruders in homes really require destruction of one's home too? Because that is what an AK47 will do ... kill the intruder with a dozen (unnecessary) bullets and also destroy parts of your home too.

I think the current outcry for a ban is for assault weapons ... which I support because I think it is completely unnecessary for individuals to own assault weapons.

As for the paranoia expressed in the opening post ... I can't even begin to process that type of thinking.

This fear mongering, paranoia, and hate is EXACTLY what the NRA wants to push on regular citizens for their obviously ulterior motive of continuing to make blood money for political power.

.

.

------------------
~ I have a DO NOT DISTURB sign on my imagination ... because I want to frustrate the twins ... Convention and Dogma

~ The moment I cease to seek the truth, or settle for the truth in the moment ... that is the moment I cease to be a seeker, and become a fundamentalist instead.

~ The truest acts of charity are never disclosed ... they remain a secret between Man, the doer and God.
Because Man knows that each charitable act is an opportunity for him to revel in God just as God avails of His chance to revel in Man through every act of charity.
For them both to continue to rejoice in each other, Man knows he cannot allow worldly accolades to distract him. So he continues to act in kindness ... secretly.

posted January 07, 2013 04:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by iQ:
The only weapon for a true US Citizen is True Knowledge. With the true knowledge, let every citizen vote for a Ron Paul type in any political party. There will not be the need for guns nor gun control if the right people are elected.

---

YES!! Truly peaceful people hunt for the TRUTH based on FACTS, instead of gunning others down with AK47s.

I mean srsly, all of you against a ban on assault weapons, do you really support the mass killings that are going on ...?

@ Lexx

.

.

------------------
~ I have a DO NOT DISTURB sign on my imagination ... because I want to frustrate the twins ... Convention and Dogma

~ The moment I cease to seek the truth, or settle for the truth in the moment ... that is the moment I cease to be a seeker, and become a fundamentalist instead.

~ The truest acts of charity are never disclosed ... they remain a secret between Man, the doer and God.
Because Man knows that each charitable act is an opportunity for him to revel in God just as God avails of His chance to revel in Man through every act of charity.
For them both to continue to rejoice in each other, Man knows he cannot allow worldly accolades to distract him. So he continues to act in kindness ... secretly.

posted January 07, 2013 04:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
randall i was interested in YOUR opinion of who qualifies as "far left media". stop dodging, it won't hurt to answer i promise!

---

Says Nurse Ratchett

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 07, 2013 05:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
pixie - during the revolution many military trained folk were on the side of the revolution. the fact that their agenda was basically to BECOME the people they were rebelling against is lost on most these days, history recalling only the valour and liberty-loving PROFESSED AIMS of the revolution...

---

Of course they were, military conscription of males is pretty much the rule rather than the exception, even for America (where it's been a bone of contention). Females, too, in some places. Even many nations like Germany that pretty much disdain their military have requirements to serve in the military (though Germany just did away with that requirement, but then too many were wiggling out of it anyway). And even to this day where our conscription doesn't go beyond Selective Service registration for males, military experience is very common among the civilian population today, especially among NRA types.

And it was about impossible not to have military (or at least combat) experience at the time of the American Revolution given the conflict with natives in the American colonies and all the warfare (typically Catholic vs. Protestant which caused brutal civil wars as well as nation states declaring wars on each other over it and thus a big reason for the separation of church & state in our Constitution) raging in Europe at the time. Even plenty of women were forced to become involved on the battlefield and as spies, and even more were forced to defend themselves from rampaging soldiers trying to plunder them or after some recreational rape.

posted January 07, 2013 06:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
funny that one thing no one has lobbied for is SS for the ladies, even though they demand equal rights once inside the military.

---

Given the huge problem of rape in the military I'm glad for it, even if disturbed by the fact that technically females are prohibited from registering (not that I ever heard of anyone actually prosecuted for doing so).

posted January 07, 2013 06:00 PM            

As I said, I own guns, I know their purpose. Yet I have yet one single satisfactory answer from those who own assault guns, why? WHAT will you shoot?.

When a person can answer it coherently and sanely, I may understand their owneship.

And please, don`t mix assault weapons with repeating clips against a 12 gauge or 22. Much less any 9 mil. There is a hundred person difference in how many you can shoot.

A rifle can bring dinner home, an AK47 will bring the whole darn forest down.

posted January 07, 2013 06:15 PM            

I've thought about having an AR-15 for purely sentimental reasons (memories), but not any practical reasons. Of course it's like at the bottom of my list of guns to get and I probably never will even if they remain legal as they're too expensive and impractical. Arguably they'd be useful in an insurrection, but in such unlikely circumstances I'd rather loot a standard rifle from the enemy as it would be easier to find ammo for it and using it would be less likely to draw attention (at least if the occupiers hear it in the distance they may assume its their own people using it).

But guys are different, I've seen it in gun ads for men & women. Whereas gun ads aimed at women show her as small needing an equalizer against a much larger male attacker gun ads aimed at men show the man with the advertised gun as bigger, stronger, faster, even if he's shown as defending himself against an attacker he'll still be bigger in the ad, because the gun is what makes him powerful, and being more powerful is why he'll survive. I've seen plenty of men who put on pounds/kg of accessories to their guns because they have to have the best, because that makes them the best (in short, a metaphoric ******* contest). So with that in mind I believe that's why many want AK-47s, AR-15s, etc. It's all about the perceived power.

posted January 07, 2013 06:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
ami as you know i have no power to jump through the screen and bite randall,

what you may not know is that i wouldn't if i could...

---

Yea, I forgot about the screen

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted January 07, 2013 06:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
@ lexx Therein lies the rub. Assault weapons are for killing people. Nothing more nothing less. I legally bear arms and I`m pro second admendment but down with assault weapons of mass destruction.

Why in the heck would your neighbor need a ak 47, seriously?

---

posted January 07, 2013 06:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
@ lexx Therein lies the rub. Assault weapons are for killing people. Nothing more nothing less. I legally bear arms and I`m pro second admendment but down with assault weapons of mass destruction.

Why in the heck would your neighbor need a ak 47, seriously?

---

quote:

---

Originally p[osted by Lexxigramer:
I agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones: Most of the conservatives say they want to own guns for hunting purposes. Does anyone need an AK47 for hunting? Puh--leese! Why would anyone want a military caliber gun in their possession ... one that can shoot multiple rounds in a few seconds.

Does self protection from intruders in homes really require destruction of one's home too? Because that is what an AK47 will do ... kill the intruder with a dozen (unnecessary) bullets and also destroy parts of your home too.

I think the current outcry for a ban is for assault weapons ... which I support because I think it is completely unnecessary for individuals to own assault weapons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
As for the paranoia expressed in the opening post ... I can't even begin to process that type of thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Linda Jones:
This fear mongering, paranoia, and hate is EXACTLY what the NRA wants to push on regular citizens for their obviously ulterior motive of continuing to make blood money for political power.

---

posted January 08, 2013 08:56 AM            

quote:

---

There have been 20 mass shootings per year every year for the past 30 years. No rise and no fall despite any ban or lack thereof.

---

posted January 08, 2013 09:16 AM            

quote:

---

Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings* across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and 7 of them have taken place in 2012. We've mapped them below, including details on the shooters' identities, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed.

---

An excellent article and includes weapons used.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

quote:

---

In article for the Boston Globe, criminologist James Alan Fox said mass shootings — any incident in which four or more people are killed — have not increased. Figures from the FBI and police reports suggest there have been peaks and valleys in the number of incidents and victims over the past 30 years, but not a specific incline.

He says there are an average of about 20 incidents of mass shootings each year over that period, and an average death toll of about 100.

---

*mass shootings defined as 4 or more. Sad isn`t it.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/2012-year-in-review--newtown-tragedy-caps-a-year-of-mass-shootings-182337084.html