How would an assault rifle stop the government from going 1984?

[Brown_Pride]

I'm saying, I find it funny that all the Veterans and military people are saying there is a chance, and we should fight back, and all the others who have never experienced military life or combat are saying it's impossible. The people who know how the military works should be the most afraid it would seem, but that isn't the case for some odd reason.

not that i disagree but most people in the military are morons .

I'll hold on taking tactical advice from a former Major or >. Not that your PFC cousin is wrong, but he probably also thinks he can take out a tank with his bare hands.

 

[Type Username Here]

The problem with Huxley's model, just based on those images is that in many ways it has more to do with people than the government. We are all here right now with intellectual curiosity despite growing up in the digital age (the younger guys like me especially who were the first ones to use the internet in elementary school). That's more reflective of complacent parenting and societies not encouraging people to seek out more. Those parents did not grow up in this generation so the deterioration of society, if we follow that model stems from cultural decay that predated the advent of mass technological communication and entertainment. Obviously the government had some role in all of these things.

Sure, but it's easier to see it come to fruition when you realize that the government is essentially bought and paid for by the corporations which DO provide these things, especially media conglomerates. The Democratic Party is essentially in the pockets of the RIAA, MPAA, etc..

 

[Type Username Here]

not that i disagree but most people in the military are morons .
.

Source?

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Doesnt matter what type of government you think is best. If its run by a demon you and your friends will suffer, friends.

Someone like Mao is looked at as a hero by some because he took land from the rich and gave it to the poor but even he starved tens of millions of people he was so called liberating from their oppressors. If you dont want to kill and hurt people you should go along to get along even if you have to pretend in order to survive.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Source?

Marine Corps Insists Marines Are Too Dumb to Know This Is a Nazi Flag - National - The Atlantic Wire

It's all anecdotal

 

[Blackking]

not that i disagree but most people in the military are morons .

Most people in the world are what you would consider 'morons', so what are you saying?

Morons that have knowledge of strategy, weapons, tactics, and who aren't weak b1tches... is the side I would chose over regular 'morons'.

 

[Type Username Here]

Marine Corps Insists Marines Are Too Dumb to Know This Is a Nazi Flag - National - The Atlantic Wire

It's all anecdotal

That's your evidence?

Also, the type of intelligence is relative. Someone may not know how to do algebra but they might know how to set up a successful ambush.

I've taken a shyt load of Calculus, Discrete Mathematics, and Differential Equations and I can tell you from a personal standpoint, that some of things I had to learn to do in the Marine Corps were much more difficult from an educational standpoint. But it's all anecdotal.

 

[No1]

consider the ratio of people looking at shyt vs not though.

FOr every one of "Us" (people with intellectual curiosity) there are 1000 "Them".

Sure, but it's easier to see it come to fruition when you realize that the government is essentially bought and paid for by the corporations which DO provide these things, especially media conglomerates. The Democratic Party is essentially in the pockets of the RIAA, MPAA, etc..

You're missing the point, I'm saying the target is wrong. The amount of "us" vs. "them" isn't something that is rapidly shifting. It's more or less been the same since the CRM came to an end. Media conglomerates are nothing more than money-making institutions, most do not have a conscience. Their objective is to provide returns for the shareholders. Want to change how corporations operate, then change the shareholders and their interests. The problem is that the people who are the shareholders in the current regime, favor the status quo. All they care about is profit, even if there are corporate laws that allow CEOs to make value judgments.

The government's error was in allowing these conglomerates to even exist (see the Telecommunications Act under Clinton). Obviously that came down to money, like everything else in politics. But at the same time, there was no public outcry WHILE this was happening. People weren't aware. The point is, the second a society becomes solely reliant on its government to tell it what it should and shouldn't care about, it becomes flawed. The populace has always been largely ignorant and suffering from collective action problems, it only reacts in moments of despair. You're blaming the government (which is in bed with big money) for big money taking advantage of people's own ignorance and failure to ask why to turn a profit. I don't see how blame isn't 50-50 between the populace and the private sector/government.

 

[Brown_Pride]

You're missing the point, I'm saying the target is wrong. The amount of "us" vs. "them" isn't something that is rapidly shifting. It's more or less been the same since the CRM came to an end. Media conglomerates are nothing more than money-making institutions, most do not have a conscience. Their objective is to provide returns for the shareholders. Want to change how corporations operate, then change the shareholders and their interests. The problem is that the people who are the shareholders in the current regime, favor the status quo. All they care about is profit, even if there are corporate laws that allow CEOs to make value judgments.

The government's error was in allowing these conglomerates to even exist (see the Telecommunications Act under Clinton). Obviously that came down to money, like everything else in politics. But at the same time, there was no public outcry WHILE this was happening. People weren't aware. The point is, the second a society becomes solely reliant on its government to tell it what it should and shouldn't care about, it becomes flawed. The populace has always been largely ignorant and suffering from collective action problems, it only reacts in moments of despair. You're blaming the government (which is in bed with big money) for big money taking advantage of people's own ignorance and failure to ask why to turn a profit. I don't see how blame isn't 50-50 between the populace and the private sector/government.

The telecommunications acts, IMHO, has been on of the worst pieces of legislation since the creation of our country. It was the first major step, IMHO, towards the end. I wouldn't even blame teh government or private sector honestly.

This is a classic case of the scorpion and the frog. Ultimately the frog should have known better.

Corporations and governments only have the power the people give to them. If we're gonna blame anyone then responsibility rests solely on the shoulders of the people.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Marine Corps Insists Marines Are Too Dumb to Know This Is a Nazi Flag - National - The Atlantic Wire

It's all anecdotal

real real quick

can someone tell me whats the difference between the nazi flag and the kiss letters??? no ignorance no ignorance

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

wtf is anyone doing about all the horrible shyt happening all over the world?

You're either blind deaf or dumb

this is the most peaceful time in the history of mankind

there are so many people, its incredible we haven't blown the planet up already

 

[Listen]

With this gun control talk lately, my question has always been not weather or not the US Government could have the ability to 'take over' the country, and if they are somehow trying to disarm the people with legislation...but rather 'WHY' would they ever do it?

What exactly is it that Washington is looking for that they don't already have today? What would they gain from invading their own country by force with an Army made up COMPLETELY from civilians of the country it would be attacking?

They already have lobbyists and super Pacs and the electoral college, voter fraud, tv commercials, internet groups, etc to manipulate a voting process to attempt to get people in office who will do what they want.

Why would they ever need to go further than that?

They are the most power people in the most powerful nation who can manipulate their minions into saying yes to shyt they want already. Violent force on those same said people makes zero sense to me.

 

[Fillerguy]

You're missing the point, I'm saying the target is wrong. The amount of "us" vs. "them" isn't something that is rapidly shifting. It's more or less been the same since the CRM came to an end. Media conglomerates are nothing more than money-making institutions, most do not have a conscience. Their objective is to provide returns for the shareholders. Want to change how corporations operate, then change the shareholders and their interests. The problem is that the people who are the shareholders in the current regime, favor the status quo. All they care about is profit, even if there are corporate laws that allow CEOs to make value judgments.

The government's error was in allowing these conglomerates to even exist (see the Telecommunications Act under Clinton). Obviously that came down to money, like everything else in politics. But at the same time, there was no public outcry WHILE this was happening. People weren't aware. The point is, the second a society becomes solely reliant on its government to tell it what it should and shouldn't care about, it becomes flawed. The populace has always been largely ignorant and suffering from collective action problems, it only reacts in moments of despair. You're blaming the government (which is in bed with big money) for big money taking advantage of people's own ignorance and failure to ask why to turn a profit. I don't see how blame isn't 50-50 between the populace and the private sector/government.

They dont hear you thought. Its always some secret cabal or society thats "forcing" us to indulge in wants. We never stop to think that maybe we're the problem.

 

[Shogun]

not that i disagree but most people in the military are morons .

I'll hold on taking tactical advice from a former Major or >. Not that your PFC cousin is wrong, but he probably also thinks he can take out a tank with his bare hands.

not to change the subject, but stereotyping all members of any group is a slippery slope. I don't think I have to go into specifics on that....

Also, in regards to the reality of a combat situation, I'll take a PFC's experience over a high ranking officer any day.

Regardless, several of you are correct in saying that if the US Military had zero regard for collateral damage then they could easily put down and armed insurrection. That simply wouldn't be the case for several reasons. Inflicting mass civilian casualties would only strengthen the resolve of the revolting movement, and add numbers to it's ranks. History has proven this time and again.

moreover, the US Gov't, no matter how tyrannical in this hypothetical scenario, would not engage in whole sale destruction of its own infrastructure.

Similarly, no matter how evil you may be convinced that the average US Soldier/marine is, that's the exception, not the rule. For every maniac that slaughters innocent civilians, there's literally thousands of soldiers doing the right thing. Many of you stereotype soldiers as all being flag-waving "rethugs". Well, best believe there's nothing a flag waving good-old-boy hates more than a federal government using its might against individual states, let alone the private citizens. Believe that.

Ultimately, its ridiculous to say that an armed population provides no limitations on the strength of its government, even in modern times.

Now, like i stated at the beginning of this thread, I also understand and agree with many of the arguments in favor of banning assault rifle. I think the big point to come to grips with is that this is not a black or white debate. It falls into a grey area that everyone needs to genuinely consider both sides of.

I own an assault rifle. Do I need it? No. Honestly, its a toy. I use it for recreation at the range. I know I'm responsible enough to keep i secured and it use it safely. Hell, I store it disassembled. Do I trust that all Americans are responsible enough? fukk no.

Think of it like a tricked out race car. Do you really need a car that can get up to 200 mph or whatever? No. Should it be mandated that all cars max out at 65 MPH? I don't think so...but I could make a pretty strong case that it would save lives, and should be federal law if I were so inclined.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

With this gun control talk lately, my question has always been not weather or not the US Government could have the ability to 'take over' the country, and if they are somehow trying to disarm the people with legislation...but rather 'WHY' would they ever do it?

What exactly is it that Washington is looking for that they don't already have today? What would they gain from invading their own country by force with an Army made up COMPLETELY from civilians of the country it would be attacking?

They already have lobbyists and super Pacs and the electoral college, voter fraud, tv commercials, internet groups, etc to manipulate a voting process to attempt to get people in office who will do what they want.

Why would they ever need to go further than that?

They are the most power people in the most powerful nation who can manipulate their minions into saying yes to shyt they want already. Violent force on those same said people makes zero sense to me.

Not to mention, if guns were the impediment to unbridled power, they would have taken them long long ago. If anything, gun owners feel a false sense of power, as though the govt is scared of them; when really the govt is doing whatever it wants regardless of what they think.

Like you said, and I said, its more logical for the country to be as prosperous as possible, as the govt is able to capitalize on all of it and keep people distracted. I dont think too many people were having these kinds of conversations ~10 years ago.