On May 16, hal wrote:
some will, some won't. *Most will desert rather than fire on decent
Americans. *


http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene...tate%27&st=cse

Sam

On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:45:54 -0700, TravIsGod wrote:

too late how? *There's about 200 million guns in America in private
hands. *Americans can raise a civilian army of probably close to 100
million people. *So it's never too late. *Our standing Army is about
half that, and if there was a revolution probably well more than half
of those would desert and fight for The People. *

No they wouldn't. They would respond with crushing force to any
revolt and with weaponry that is light years beyond what civilians
have. They would obey orders without question and "do their jobs"
just like the police do when they mow down civilians. They never
apologize. The military is littered with people who enlisted because
they wanted to kill people. Do you honestly think they give a ****
about Constitutional Law and these principles?

I mean you saw that AA-12 auto shotgun didn't you? You think a bunch
of lousy hunting rifles are going to stand up to fully armored marines
packing **** like that with frag rounds or something in it? You can
barely blow up a humvee anymore with a freaking shaped charge IED, wtf
is the civilian populace going to do against the tactics and materiel
of the armed forces? Paramilitary forces like the police or SWAT,
perhaps, but the regular army? After what they've learned in
counterinsurgency in Iraq, you seriously think any militia here has a
****ing chance in hell?

When I brought up a similar argument on another forum, besides the claim
of mass defection among the military, one of the things that was
suggested was supply lines.

In the U.S. campaigns in other nations, the Military is supplied by a
friendly and cooperative civilian infrastructure at home in the U.S. The
argument was made that a despotic, tyrannical, Military would be
immediately deprived of its support infrastructure here in the U.S. and
would only be able to continue operations until food and ammo ran out.

I admit that it's an interesting argument. But in the end, I still think
that the laws have subverted one of the foundational intents of the 2nd
and this needs to be reversed.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

On May 18, 9:31*pm, Rabid Weasel Lawson law...@NO11707SPAM
+dayton.net wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 13:45:54 -0700, TravIsGod wrote:
too late how? *There's about 200 million guns in America in private
hands. *Americans can raise a civilian army of probably close to 100
million people. *So it's never too late. *Our standing Army is about
half that, and if there was a revolution probably well more than half
of those would desert and fight for The People. *

No they wouldn't. *They would respond with crushing force to any
revolt and with weaponry that is light years beyond what civilians
have. *They would obey orders without question and "do their jobs"
just like the police do when they mow down civilians. *They never
apologize. *The military is littered with people who enlisted because
they wanted to kill people. *Do you honestly think they give a ****
about Constitutional Law and these principles?

I mean you saw that AA-12 auto shotgun didn't you? *You think a bunch
of lousy hunting rifles are going to stand up to fully armored marines
packing **** like that with frag rounds or something in it? *You can
barely blow up a humvee anymore with a freaking shaped charge IED, wtf
is the civilian populace going to do against the tactics and materiel
of the armed forces? *Paramilitary forces like the police or SWAT,
perhaps, but the regular army? *After what they've learned in
counterinsurgency in Iraq, you seriously think any militia here has a
****ing chance in hell?

When I brought up a similar argument on another forum, besides the claim
of mass defection among the military, one of the things that was
suggested was supply lines.

In the U.S. campaigns in other nations, the Military is supplied by a
friendly and cooperative civilian infrastructure at home in the U.S. *The
argument was made that a despotic, tyrannical, Military would be
immediately deprived of its support infrastructure here in the U.S. and
would only be able to continue operations until food and ammo ran out.

Whoever said that needs to examine the history of civilian revolts in
other despotic nations.

Trav

On Mon, 18 May 2009 18:34:40 -0700, retrogrouch wrote:

On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:31:00 -0400, Rabid Weasel Lawson
wrote:


In the U.S. campaigns in other nations, the Military is supplied by a
friendly and cooperative civilian infrastructure at home in the U.S. The
argument was made that a despotic, tyrannical, Military would be
immediately deprived of its support infrastructure here in the U.S. and
would only be able to continue operations until food and ammo ran out.

I admit that it's an interesting argument.


Bah, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Supply lines may the weal link, but
it's a common logistical problem that militaries are used to dealing
with.

Supply lines in Afghanistan and Iraq are controlled by U.S. Civilians and
originate in the U.S. The argument made is that the U.S. civilians would
no longer support those supply lines. They'd simply disappear and the
military would wither on the vine.

I'm not saying I support or oppose the position, either way. What I'm
saying is going "bah, it's a common problem" while doing the Dogbert wave
doesn't explain why it wouldn't be an issue.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk

hal wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 08:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Appledog
wrote:

It's a good question. Unfortunately it's far too late for us north
americans, and indeed most people in the world.

too late how? There's about 200 million guns in America in private
hands. Americans can raise a civilian army of probably close to 100
million people. So it's never too late. Our standing Army is about

Standing army is 500,000 or 0.5% of the 100 million people.

half that, and if there was a revolution probably well more than half
of those would desert and fight for The People.

hal wrote in message ...
On Sat, 16 May 2009 08:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Appledog
wrote:

It's a good question. Unfortunately it's far too late for us north
americans, and indeed most people in the world.

too late how? There's about 200 million guns in America in private
hands. Americans can raise a civilian army of probably close to 100
million people. So it's never too late. Our standing Army is about
half that, and if there was a revolution probably well more than half
of those would desert and fight for The People.

You'd be lucky to get a tenth of that out ready to fight & die.
Your standing army is 50 million strong??? What are you smoking.......
probably more like a million .....or less.

On May 16, 7:24*pm, "Don White" wrote:
hal wrote in messagenews:qa5u059mirm4jq86rd2qch5r9cop03lgd1@4ax .com...
On Sat, 16 May 2009 08:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Appledog
wrote:

It's a good question. Unfortunately it's far too late for us north
americans, and indeed most people in the world.

too late how? *There's about 200 million guns in America in private
hands. *Americans can raise a civilian army of probably close to 100
million people. *So it's never too late. *Our standing Army is about
half that, and if there was a revolution probably well more than half
of those would desert and fight for The People.

You'd be lucky to get a tenth of that out ready to fight & die.
Your standing army is 50 million strong??? *What are you smoking.......
probably more like a million .....or less.

Pssst, dummy! 0.5% of 100 million isn't 50 million..........
Damn you are stupid.

wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 08:58:00 -0700 (PDT), Appledog
wrote:

Although it's somewhat comical it does raise the issue of who,
precisely, is going to revolt, and how.

It's a good question. Unfortunately it's far too late for us north
americans, and indeed most people in the world.


I had the experience in the 70s to be standing in a work pay line with
a number of coworkers, when one of the classic American haters started
mumbling about "revolution" because of the taxes out of his pay check.
He was standing next to an Iranian refugee who'd fled the Ayatollah
and likely the Shah's prisons too.

The Iranian turned and asked him "WHo's your state Senator? _ DO you
know?" Silence. "Who are you representatives?" Silence. "Who is on
your city council?"

"You don't even know what you would be rebelling against. Fool."



You don't need the name of the Sheriff or the killer to know that a
murder is wrong.

It made me realize most of America's discontents are ignorant of
government and disconnected. They haven't a clue what government
does. Their frustration is from the daily struggle to get by. They
have all this anger and no knowledge. The demagogs tap it from time
to time, but it is at it's heart ignorant and therefore unguided.

They assume that government will take care of its self as the people are
doing. Realizing that government is as incompetent as a two year old is
the first lesson everyone needs.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 11:24:51 -0700, wrote:

On Fri,


-- Hal Turner

http://www.halturnershow.com/ Hal Turner Show

Martin


Nothing vague about Turner's comments!

ted


Wow. Incitement to violence. A call for assassination. This ****er
should be locked up.

You are a bit "light" understanding the limits of free speech as
defined in case after case by SCOTUS. Such comments are o.k.
and we all should be glad for that situation. As a matter of history,
America was founded on political violence, i.e., lynching of tories,
attacks on British troops, destruction of private property.

ted

On May 16, 10:42*am, wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 09:34:32 -0700, wrote:
Wow. Incitement to violence. A call for assassination. This ****er
should be locked up.

You are a bit "light" understanding the limits of free speech as
defined in case after case by SCOTUS. Such comments are o.k.
and we all should be glad for that situation. As a matter of history,
America was founded on political violence, i.e., lynching of tories,
attacks on British troops, destruction of private property.

It's funny you should call a lawyer of 20 years practice with a lot of
Constitutional law background, a bit light from your seat.

It's from that background and knowledge base I used the words
"incitement to violence". They mean something very specific.

Enjoy:

* * * * The First Amendment & Advocacy of Violence: An Overviewhttp://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/overview.aspx?id=11452

. . .Justice Louis Brandeis, joined by Justice Holmes, concurred in an
opinion that read more like a dissent. He wrote:
* * "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free
speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the
function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.
To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground
to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced.
There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended
is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil
to be prevented is a serious one."

He added, “even advocacy of [law] violation however reprehensible
morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the
advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate
that the advocacy would be immediately acted upon.”

And then there is Brandenberg:
The case gave rise to the Brandenburg test to determine when speech
transgresses the line from mere advocacy, which is protected by the
First Amendment, to incitement, which is not. That test anticipates
that the unprotected speech intentionally produce a high likelihood of
real imminent harm.http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=11452

Free speech is sacred unless the comments result in an immediate
action from the
speakers audience that cause harm or property damage.

"He added, “even advocacy of [law] violation however reprehensible
morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the
advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate
that the advocacy would be immediately acted upon.”

Martin