Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:13:49 PM UTC-8, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.

"It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the men of Lexington and Concord, as well as the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the guerillero has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength."

- Col. Jeff Cooper

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 11:13 PM, Tim wrote:
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 at 7:53:26 PM UTC-8, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.


Richard, a coup is one thing, disarmament of the free citizen is another. an overthrow would be hard to pull off, and a disarmament would be even harder. I dont' think it would be that easy for US soldiers to willingly fire on US citizens. especially on such a basis. Few kids are gonna fire on people from their home town regardless of who wrote the orders.

Not really sure, but round where I live, If disarmament of the public came push and shove, I'd say things might get pretty bloody. On both sides.



Who's talking "disarmament"?

Personally (and no offense) I think the people shouting the most about
gun ownership to protect themselves against their government in the USA
have been drinking too much NRA juice.

I thought this tread evolved into a citizens right to bear arms, instead of a coup. Hmmm, I mighta missed something.

I don't yell that much do i Richard?


?;^)

Though I may contribute from time to time, I actually cant remember ever starting a firearm thread.

Very Refreshing
 

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

===

Hopefully all of that is hypothetical and a determined electorate
could eventually vote the rascals out. That's the fundamental
premise of democracy. If all else failed however I would not
underestimate the power of a determined group of people to set things
right, nor would I underestimate the possibility of the military
helping out. It has happened many times in many different places.

Of course all of that would be accompanied by massive civil
insurrection, and whether or not you called it a civil war or not is
mostly a matter of semantics. I hope it never happens but I don't
think you can rule it out. People in the hinterlands are really fed
up with the Washington power elite. What if the farmers decided to
withhold their output, burn the wheat fields and kill the cattle? The
city folk would starve in no time at all and they would quickly learn
that food does not come from the grocery store.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 12:13 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

===

Hopefully all of that is hypothetical and a determined electorate
could eventually vote the rascals out. That's the fundamental
premise of democracy. If all else failed however I would not
underestimate the power of a determined group of people to set things
right, nor would I underestimate the possibility of the military
helping out. It has happened many times in many different places.

Of course all of that would be accompanied by massive civil
insurrection, and whether or not you called it a civil war or not is
mostly a matter of semantics. I hope it never happens but I don't
think you can rule it out. People in the hinterlands are really fed
up with the Washington power elite. What if the farmers decided to
withhold their output, burn the wheat fields and kill the cattle? The
city folk would starve in no time at all and they would quickly learn
that food does not come from the grocery store.



I really think (or at least hope) that as a civilization we are far more
advanced to think that kind of thing can happen. A farmer can't survive
in today's world without a market for his crops. He needs the benefits
of other industries and businesses to live and he needs the revenues
received for his produce. There might be temporary holdouts as a form
of demonstration but it can't last for forever.

One thing nice about a competitive, capitalistic society. If one group
or business gets too demanding or greedy there are others ready to grab
a bigger share of the market.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/2015 3:18 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/1/2015 10:33 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

Harry was the one who brought up this civil war thing.


Actually I mentioned it just in case someone brought it up. :-)

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 2:53 AM, wrote:
On 2 Feb 2015 03:39:54 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 19:15:13 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


Tim, that's a wonderful historical statement, true for it's time. It's
more of a tradition now though. I don't care how many guns are
privately owned, there's no way they could be used to fend off the US
military if our government somehow decided to become "tyrannical".
Heck, they can't agree on how many sugars to put in a coffee.


Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.

I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.

Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..

Because it worked out so well for the South the last time southerners took
on the Union army.

Different time, different issues different economic model.
If they fought that war again, it might be New England and Coastal
California against the rest of the country.
http://media.cq.com/elections/2014/



Wishful "libertarian" thinking.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very Refreshing
 

On 2/2/15 3:24 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:13:43 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:53:25 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Considering the number of conservative southerners and westerners who
are actually the ones to join the military, why would you think they
would fight the citizens if the government became tyrannical?
You would be more likely to have a military coup.


I agree a few thousand guys in a compound somewhere will not stand
much of a chance but a million well armed guys could cause some
serious problems. Particularity if the military was less than
enthusiastic in quelling them.
Our military is yet to win a single "asymmetric" war even when they
were motivated to do it..


I think your hypotheticals originate in la-la land. By it's nature and
governmental structure it is impossible to even imagine a military
"coup" in the USA today and we aren't going to have another Civil War.

===

Hopefully all of that is hypothetical and a determined electorate
could eventually vote the rascals out. That's the fundamental
premise of democracy. If all else failed however I would not
underestimate the power of a determined group of people to set things
right, nor would I underestimate the possibility of the military
helping out. It has happened many times in many different places.

Of course all of that would be accompanied by massive civil
insurrection, and whether or not you called it a civil war or not is
mostly a matter of semantics. I hope it never happens but I don't
think you can rule it out. People in the hinterlands are really fed
up with the Washington power elite. What if the farmers decided to
withhold their output, burn the wheat fields and kill the cattle? The
city folk would starve in no time at all and they would quickly learn
that food does not come from the grocery store.

I think we went a long way towards doing that (voting, not shooting)
as evidenced by the election map I linked. It is actually amazing how
small the pockets of liberal democrats really are.

http://media.cq.com/elections/2014/



Isn't it amazing how easy it is to push Americans to vote for
Republicans against their own interests when the only thing the GOP has
to offer is fear and hate?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.