In the face of a total fascist police state takeover would you

[el_gato]

prefer to have a gun or not?

go wild!

[Think Globally]

1. not...

No gun ever fed a hungry child.

[Superfly]

2. Unless that gun was used to shoot a cow...

:shrug:

[Spoonman]

3. Mmmmm....

cow...

[Think Globally]

5. Not funny!

We should love animals, not eat them! Violence against people is wrong and violence against animals is wrong.

[Goldmund]

6. So why do you hate plants so much?

[Spoonman]

40. Because they don't taste

as good as animals!!!!!!!!!

[Superfly]

43. Unless those plants are

oregano, thyme, onions, rosemary, and are being used to make the animal taste better!

[Spoonman]

89. Garlic damit, Garlic

I knew you were racist, just like benchley said. You hate Garlic just because it's white and smells! That's why you didn't list it isn't it, isn't it?
Don't lie to us garlic hater, your day will come, garlic will take over the world, and you and your precious oregano will be on the recieving end of things!!!!

On the serious side, why does my wife always look at me funny when she's spicing up a steak and I tell her to "rub the meat gently"?

[Superfly]

94. I knew I forgot something...

I am about to go and beat my meat. We're having flank steak for dinner...what were you thinking?

I'll make sure that I include garlic as part of my "Leave no plant behind" affirmative action in-the-kitchen plan.

[Spoonman]

99. Now that's better!

Do you use a "points system" in the application process?

[Superfly]

102. Yeah.....sure.....

whatever the hell that is....:shrug:

[a2birdcage]

79. This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw..........

"If god din't want you to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat?"

I found that shit hilarious.

[Spoonman]

91. My favorite is

(PETA) People, Eating, Tasty, Animals

[Superfly]

95. Vegetarian...

Indian word for "Bad Hunter"

[demsrule4life]

101. :)

[demsrule4life]

114. My favorite is

So many people are alive today simply because it is not legal to shoot them.

[DoNotRefill]

141. I've got that...

on a T-shirt! I had to stop wearing it because it offended people, and I'm now the nice, reformed DoNotRefill.

[Spoonman]

17. Mmmmm.....

animals....

I think grilled backstrap from last weekends deer hunting trip is going to be on the menu tonight.

[DoNotRefill]

140. OK, then how about using a Colt-Browning Model 1895 machinegun?

It's called a "potato digger" for a reason...

[1a2b3c]

153. Thats funny

A gun has fed a hungry 1a2b3c. But i guess im getting close to 25, which is like almost mid 20's which is like almost 30, which is old.

[Goldmund]

4. No.

When the 2nd Amendment was inacted, the firepower an individual citizen was allowed to own was a comparable match to the firepower of the government. In other words, a batallion of citizen militia could provide significant resistance a batallion of the military.

That has not been the case for a long time. Whatever your stance on the 2nd amendment is, if your reason for supporting it is to resist a potential abuse of power by the state, you're living in a fantasy world -- at least if you assume that the citizenry would only be able to carry weapons that are now legal. To counter the power of the state, you would have to legalize ownership of not only assault weapons, but F-16s and MOABs and other goodies like that.

Which is, of course, out of question.

[Pale_Rider]

7. Not sure if the Iraqi experience would back that up ...

... since the Iraqi resistance front are out-manned and out-gunned but appear to be still quite capable of doing what they can.

[MrBenchley]

8. Gee, the Iraqis were armed to the teeth

while Saddam was in power too...

[a2birdcage]

83. He's talking about now! Think about it.

[kbelzner]

159. Did George Washington refer to guns as "liberty's teeth"?

Claim: Washington referred to firearms as "liberty's teeth."

Example: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... The rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - President George Washington (Address to 1st session of Congress)

The truth is that this quotation, sometimes called the "liberty teeth" quote, appears nowhere in Washington's papers or speeches.

See http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html and also Clayton Cramer, _Firing Back_ 1995.


Warm regards,

Katarina

[Goldmund]

19. A totally valid point.

But I'm not sure if it's applicable to the case of internal unrest, or a takover by a "fascist police state".

Here are some differences:

1) I don't have the statistics, but it's my impression that a lot of what Iraqi guerillas are able to do is done by home-made bombs and mortars, as well as assault rifles. I don't know how many soldiers they've been able to kill using handguns. Again, I don't think many people support legalization of bombs or mortars.

2) The only reason guerilla warfare has been succesful in the past, not only in Iraq but other places as well, is that its impact is political, not military. As a rule, it's waged against a foreign agressor who has a finite, and limited, tolerance for losses. This wouldn't apply in the case of internal unrest.

3) If it really came down to taking up arms against the state, what's "legal" and not wouldn't really matter, would it? I am sure in such conditions, many citizens with access to weapons -- whether they are in the military, or gun manufacturers, or cops, or whatever -- would not be on the side of the "fascist police state" and would be able to organize armed resistance.

4) If you look at relatively recent history (since the military firepower far outstripped the firepower of individual citizens), the only way the state has been defeated by its citizenry is when significant parts of armed forces joined with the citizens against the state.

[Superfly]

57. Rsponses

1) All that stuff not needed. A bunch of teenagers just killed 2 GIs by bashing their heads in with rocks about 2 days ago.

2) Guerilla warfare is on par, tactically, with force-on-force maneuver warfare in terms of psychological and personnel damage. Guerilla warfare deprives the enemy of his most needed commodity...relaxation. It keeps them alert, awake, nervous, which, ultimately, causes the enemy to react/act in erratic and militarily unsound ways.

3) Agree. Everything and anything will become a weapon.

4) Examples?

[Goldmund]

78. Reponses to responses

1) They bashed their heads after they had been shot. "Insurgents" in the car in front of the soldiers stopped the car, got out and opened fire on the soldiers -- the kids followed after that. That said, I'm sure you can dig up cases of any kind of succesful assaults. I think something like 5 soldiers died by drowning in Iraq -- would you argue that since we have rivers in the US, we're safe? The point is that the bulk of the succesful resistance is done by weapons that you would never want legalized in a civil society.

2) Sure, but again, I don't know how that would apply in the case where both the military and the guerilla are on their home soil.

4) Sure. Milosevic in Serbia (non-violent after the military told Milosevic it would no longer obey his orders). Causcescu in Romania (violent, after the military split into pro- and anti- factions). The October Revolution in Russia (also violent, after the military largely refused to obey the Czar). I don't actually know of a single case when the citizenry overthrew its government without previously being aided by the country's armed forces. If I'm wrong, correct me.

[Superfly]

85. I think you are out of phase...

let me help...

"The point is that the bulk of the succesful resistance is done by weapons that you would never want legalized in a civil society."

No, that should read "The point, as a fascist, overbearing government sees it, is that the bulk of successful resistance is done by weapons that the government would never want legalized in any society."

[Goldmund]

93. OK, so let me get it straight

YOU support legalization of what weapons exactly? Do you have a line that you draw?

[Superfly]

96. First, let me ask YOU a question...

which weapons are illegal?

[Goldmund]

103. Why don't you goolge yourself?

I don't understand the point of your question. The point is that the threshold of legality is far, far below of what would amount to a meangingful resistance to the military. The particulars vary from state to state. Why do you ask?

[Superfly]

123. I know the answer already....

what kinds of weapons do think it is illegal for citizens to own?

[DoNotRefill]

143. Let's go through a list of kinds of weapons and their federal legality

for private individuals:

Handguns: Legal, not very regulated
Rifles: Legal, not very regulated
Shotguns: Legal, not very regulated
Submachineguns: Legal, regulated
Machineguns: Legal, regulated
Grenades: Legal, regulated
Landmines: Legal, regulated
Mortars: Legal, regulated
Flamethrowers: Legal, UNREGULATED
Armored vehicles: Legal, regulated if armed, must be "street-legal" to drive on public roads
Tanks: Legal, regulated if armed, must be "street-legal" if driven on public roads
Artillery: Legal, regulated if functional
Artillery ammunition: Legal, regulated ONLY if the explosive charge in the warhead is above a certain size
Missiles: Legal, regulated only if the intact warhead is above a certain size
Fighter aircraft: Legal, regulated by the FAA, also regulated if armed
Bomber aircraft: Legal, regulated by the FAA, also regulated if armed
Lasers: Legal, regulated, but not as weapons
Railguns: Legal, unregulated
Nuclear, Biological, Chemical weapons: Legal, but VERY VERY VERY regulated.

Surprised?

[Superfly]

150. Not surprised at all...

I was asking her a leading question. ALl too often, people comment on this board with little or no practical knowledge of the legality of firearms and other weapons in the US. There are no "illegal" weapons, unless you live in a place like DC, just varying levels of regulation.

B

[happyslug]

135. Guerillas do win wars, but almost never directly.

I once pointed out in this forum that the Bill of Rights starts with the FIRST Amendment which list, freedom of Speech, the Press, Religion, Assembly, and to Petition. All of these rights relate to ORGANIZING. The Second is a Modification of the Constitution’s clauses giving the Federal Government exclusive control over the Militia. That control was feared because without arms no matter HOW well the opposition is organized, it will not be able to overthrow a tyrant who uses the regular forces to stay in power.

Thus the First Amendment was FIRST, for without organization any attempt to overthrow a tyrant would fail. The Second is second for without access to some source of FORCE, no matter HOW well the opposition is organized a tyrant can suppress them.

This brings me to the issue of Guerillas. Guerillas are organized by people in opposition to something (Generally a foreign enemy but can be domestic Tyrants). If the opposition is strong enough it will use direct action (See the Former Soviet Republic of Georgia for example or Serbia when Milosevic was overthrown). Guerillas only appear when such direct action is IMPOSSIBLE, but some sort of resistence is deemed needed. The opposition organize the Guerillas, arms and equips them (as best as can be done) and waits for an opportunity to switch to conventional tactics to take over the Country (as the Viet Cong did in 1964-1974, fought a guerillas actions and than switched to a conventional Attack in 1975 that lead to the fall of South Vietnam).

In the American Revolution similar guerillas bands were used (they were NOT called Guerillas for that is a Spanish term that come into use after Napoleon invaded Spain in the early 1800s, in the 1770s the term used was “partisans”). These kept the British army tied to the main cities unable to gather the horses, food and fodder they needed to do offensive operations in America. It was these Guerillas that won the war for America. For without those horses, food and fodder the British ability to maneuver was restricted, thus leaving them open to a conventional attack whenever the British made a mistake (such as trying to defend Yorktown).

Thus while it is correct that NO Guerilla action ever overthrew a government, it is FALSE to say such action did not LEAD to the overthrow of a Government. In El Salvador the US helped the Government stay in power against the Guerillas, but soon realized that the situation would go on forever unless some sort of compromise between the two side could be reached. This lead to negotiations and a peace treaty. The same thing happened in Guatemala and Nicaragua.

In countries that try to suppress such Guerillas instead of bargaining with them, this requires the expansion of the Army. The Army expands by taking in people it previously would not have do to questions of loyalty (i.e. drafting people who support the Guerillas). These new recruits change the context of the Army. If the Guerillas are at least good to decent soldiers than the Army has to adopt some sort of Small unit tactics to defeat them, that requires giving command power to the new recruits. This changes the army to be more like the Guerillas. This leads to the Army either forcing negotiations OR the Army removing people who oppose negotiations (or in extremes cases switching sides to the Guerillas).

Thus all said, while the Guerillas rarely overthrow a tyrannical government, that Government rarely survives an active Guerilla war against said Government.

This is well known to people who have studied Guerilla Warfare, more than other types of warfare, politicians must be in charge. The Guerilla must not only have a military plan but a political plan as well. In the Chiapas State of Mexico, a insurrection occurred, it has gone from hot to mostly cold as it is more a political movement than a military movement. It has taken some hints at Guerilla activities but prefers to negotiates with the Government over the treatment of the local Mayan Indians. Thus it is following the classic Guerilla position, Politics is WHY you fight, and the sole purpose of fighting is to show you object to how the Government is treating you. Talking is more important than fighting, but by showing they are organized and willing to fight strengthen their hands when negotiating with the Government (They are also waiting to see how NAFTA further harms sections of the Mexican economy and how that will affect the Government).

My point here is that while Guerrillas have rarely overthrown a government, being political as while as military units, they lead to the overthrow either by weakening the Government so much that is falls to a conventional military attack (as in Vietnam in 1975 and China in 1949, Cuba in 1959 and even Afghanistan in 1992) OR the Government seeing its position weakens agrees to terms to end the war acceptable to the Guerillas (Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador). Thus Guerillas do win wars.

[DoNotRefill]

142. A bit of history for you

During WWII, the US government dropped hundreds of thousands of "Liberator" pistols to various resistance movements all over occupied Europe. This was a stamped-metal .45 ACP single shot pistol. even the barrel was stamped, which means that it was a smooth-bore. Sights were primitive to the extreme, making the effective range a few feet at most. To load it, you basically had to take it apart, insert a round (six were stored in the handle) and then reassemble it. Ejection of spent casings was done with a manually operated, non-attached wooden dowel that you had to stick down the barrel. It was a complete piece of crap as far as firearms are concerned, and was guaranteed to fall apart after just a few rounds were fired.

These guns were EXTREMELY popular. Why, when they were absolute crap? The reason is simple. They were easily concealable, since they were roughly the size of a pack of cigarettes. And they were known as "the perfect gun to get a real gun with." Their chosen method of employment was to walk up on a lone sentry, stick the gun into him, pull the trigger (making his body an instant "silencer"), and then take his gear.

Handguns are still issued to American troops by the Military. They're carried into combat regularly. If they have no military use, why is this?

[demsrule4life]

9. Do the math

Military just for shits and grins equal 2,000,000
Let's say 10,000,000 citizens decide they won't put up with a dictatorship. If each citizen can kill one troop citizens win. Also f-16's, tanks and such can't be manned 24/7. Maybe you need to read up more on the Soviet Union Afgan war.

[Superfly]

14. Also, remember that the military is composed of

civilians...wearing a uniform. I doubt that many of *them* would stick around the military to watch it turn into a true-to-life fascist dictatorship.

B

[el_gato]

20. good point super

[Spoonman]

23. Stop it, stop it....

All this is making my head spin....... hang on I'm pro-RKBA.
Never mind.

[Goldmund]

22. Yeah

I agree. Which is the only way a fascist state would be defeated, and it has nothing to do with whether or not I have a 9mm at my house.

[Liberal Classic]

110. When the stormtroopers come knocking

It will have everything to do with it.

[el_gato]

165. no but your personal survival might depend on it

regardless of the overall fate of the nation

[DinahMoeHum]

27. And those same former military citizen-soldiers will be training

regular citizens how to resist.

:kick:

[Spoonman]

30. You bet I will! n/t

[happyslug]

138. We abolished the Draft in 1972

And since that time the Armed Forces have turned to the right. Now the Country as a whole have also turned to the right, but the Military has to an even greater degree since 1972.

Now the chief reason is people who tend to think in terms of the Right Wing tend to like the Military and thus tend to join sooner than someone from the left. With the draft gone, a lot of left wing people no longer ended up in the Military (and after their hitch decided to stay. When I was in Boot My Chief Drill Instructor had originally been drafted. After his first hitch he stayed and was promoted. He said if he had not been drafter he would NEVER have enlisted). I give him as an example of why the armed forces have turned so far RIGHT since 1972. The Draft had a tendency to bring more moderates and liberals into the Military than the volunteer Army does and with the abolishment of the draft the armed forces have become even a more right wing bastion of society.

Thus while, most soldiers do not think themselves as "lifers", there is a stronger tendency to right wing politics in the Military than in Civilian life. I also remind people that the Army of Chile had also NEVER interfered with the Civilian Government and Allende counted on it to continue that policy. The main reason Allende was overthrown was he had refused to arm his own supporters, relying on the Army's promise to support his elected government. The Chillan Army failed to keep that promise.

Thus while I do not think the US Armed Forces would support a coup against an elected President, I believe many of its senior officers would. If such officers are careful with what units they use, you can have a coup in the United States.

DO NOT THINK THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. The US Army HAS marched on the Capital of the US in the Past (Ok in was 1780 and Washington stopped it but part of the Army did start to March). Also in 1782 the Newburgh Conspiracy occurred where Washington’s senior Officers started to conspire to overthrow Congress. They believe Congress was NOT giving them what they needed to supply, feed and equip the Troops. Washington Stopped this with his famous speech on March 15, 1783.

Thus, do we have a Washington in charge of our military? Similar nosie were made in 1862 When Lincoln replaced McClellan, but that was only noise, no apparent effort was made to March. Thus the US has faced a Military Coup (and has been discussed more than once by Senior Military Officers). Could it happen for real? Yes, hopefully it never will, but we have to prepare for such actions.



Revolt during Vietnam”
http://struggle.ws/freeearth/harass_brass.html

Revolt of the Pennsylvania Line Janary 1781:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/hh/7/hh7d.htm
http://www.samizdat.com/warren/rev18.html
http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~bitting/PARevolt.htm
http://www.americanrevolution.org/mutiny.html
http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/Mutiny.html

The Newburgh Conspiracy 1782:
http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall97/wshngton.html

[Goldmund]

21. "If each citizen can kill one troop citizens win."

That is some really flimsy math based on some pretty wild assumptions.

Look at just the present war. 400 American casualties against how many Iraqi? And Iraqis ven had tanks and big guns.

[iverglas]

10. in the face of a giant meteorite falling to earth

... or a tyrannosaurus Rex charging toward you, or the big bad wolf about to eat your grandmother, or pigs flying overhead ...

would you prefer to have a taco, or not?

What colour is orange: true or false?

Have to go, gotta get to the store and pick up a henway.

What's a henway, you ask?

Oh, about 3 pounds.

How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?

.

[el_gato]

11. so I'll take that as a non-response

[iverglas]

12. that's very good!

I assume you have understood that I took yours as a non-question.

.

[Superfly]

15. A non-question that you just happened to respond to?

...:shrug:

[iverglas]

32. nononono

Still not getting the concept, are you?

I asked my own questions. No response to the non-question in sight, as far as I can see. So while I responded to the *post*, I sure didn't respond to the *question*. (That practice is so common around DU, I wouldn't expect it to raise an eyebrow.) Ya see?

Just exactly like how I didn't respond to the post exploiting a personal loss for political gain; I responded to the disgraceful smear leveled at myself and others for not responding to the post exploiting a personal loss for political gain.

Oh, by the way: A fish.

.

[Superfly]

36. Jeeze, I'm just surprised that you haven't

declared this thread silly and not worthy of your time, gone on to write a novella in support, and then posted the lion's share of responses....

Out of character, I have to say...

[iverglas]

66. really?

"declared this thread silly and not worthy of your time,
gone on to write a novella in support, and then posted
the lion's share of responses....
Out of character, I have to say..."

If it's "out of character", then I must have commonly done what you claim.

Perhaps you can link me to some thread in which I have "posted the lion's share of responses". And then, to establish that it is in my "character" to do so, link me to a dozen or so more.

It's nice, I guess, that I make such an impression that despite the fact that in the last month in this forum --

I posted in 33 threads
you posted in 49 threads
DoNotRefill posted in 60 threads
Spoonman (despite his absence) posted in 39 threads
jhfenton posted in 67 threads
Liberal Classic posted in 37 threads
jody posted in 36 threads
shoot, I just can't find anyone who posted in fewer threads than I ...
here we go ... RoeBear posted in 29 threads

-- I appear to be ubiquitous!

Unfortunately, without checking each of those 33 threads, I can't verify the allegation that I posted "the lion's share of responses" in any of them. I'll leave that to you to do, given that you're the one who made the allegation that wants substantiating -- just search for my name for the last month, and count my posts in a thread, and do the fractions, and see when you get a "lion's share" worth.

Or you could abandon the personal comment, and address some content for a bit of a change.

.

[Superfly]

70. Try a word count....

Whereas your presence is (painfully) known in threads where you establish your disdain for even having to post with us peasants, you are (thankfully) absent in many threads.

However, the volume of your post content far outweighs anything anyone ever writes on DU.

[MrBenchley]

84. Better yet, try an idea count

and any one of Iverglas' posts will far outnumber the entire output of the RKBA crowd..

[Superfly]

86. Bench, you do know you are on ignore, right?

so stop trying to respond to me.

[Spoonman]

97. I read it for you,

your not missing anything, as normal.

I've got Iverglas on ignore after the personal attack she launched, and other demonstrations of ignore(ance). I assume I'm not missing much either.?

[Superfly]

100. Nah....although she has been on a rampage

today, I think. I usually read the first five words of what she writes, scroll through 6 pages of "out there" mumbo jumbo, read the last five words, post something to the effect of "well, that was pure bullshit" and then watch the ensuing rage and 45 more pages of gobbletygook.

[Spoonman]

104. I know what you mean

I've tried so hard so many times to find a shread of validy or relevance to the posts, but it always reads the same.

blah blah I am expert, and blah blah Canadian references that have no bearing on the issues.

That combined with the personal attacks forced me to have a change of heart (again) and hit the ignore(ance) button.

[MrBenchley]

106. Gee, you mean you don't know this is a public forum?

That IS hilarious...I mean tragic.

[MrBenchley]

13. A non-response to a non-sense question

[el_gato]

18. well benchley it's a valid question and you should answer it

[MrBenchley]

29. It's a "valid" question

the way Fox News is "fair and balanced."

By the way, who would the main threat be for a "total fascist police state takeover"? Oh yeah, the gun rights crowd....AshKKKroft, Cheney, DeLay, Frist, etc.

[el_gato]

37. yes or no, it's pretty simple

or was miami just some kind of pretend event

[MrBenchley]

41. Gee, who was that in Miami?

Oh yeah, that would be Jebbo Bush, the other white meat....

"During his keynote address at the recent annual convention of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Orlando, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush thanked members for helping to elect his brother president in 2000, CNN reported April 27.
"Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother would not be president of the United States," Bush said.
He added that he and his brother both support the NRA's argument that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment makes bearing arms an individual right with few restrictions."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,563037,00.html

Nice playmates you got there, gato.

[el_gato]

52. back off! your the one that wants to give more power to ashcroft

"oh please mr. ashcroft take away our guns so i'll feel safer!"

[MrBenchley]

Who are you trying to kid, gato?

AshKKKroft is an NRA life member and bitterly opposed to anything but higher gun industry profits.

[el_gato]

67. why do you want to give ashcroft more power?

do you think he needs it?

[MrBenchley]

74. Gato, you're the one pushing AshKKKrofts agenda

you tell us.

[el_gato]

82. boring, same ol yes, no, yes is too, no it isn't, type stuff

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[MrBenchley]

105. And right on the money

You're the one that wants to do exactly what AshKKKroft wants....

[TolstoyAndy]

24. Why is it a nonsense question?

When the Constitution was written, people had a legitimate fear, which had arisen from personal experience, of a power-mad oppressive government violating human rights.

Fast forward to today.

While I strive to be a nonviolent person (and probably wouldn't get a gun, to answer the question), my views on the second amendment have really changed over the last few years. Despite the fact that a lot of guns get into the wrong hands, I am convinced our neighbors who wish to own guns are, in the vast majority of cases, not a threat to me or others.

Banning guns is definitely not the answer to the violence that people commit by using them. Eliminating one part of the Bill of Rights will allow them to claim others should be eliminated, all for our own safety.

Just my $0.02 - respect to all.

[MrBenchley]

34. You mean besides...

the FACT that a "total fascist police state takeover" would pit you and your popgun against overwhelming firepower?

Or the FACT that the idiots who represent the threat of a "total fascist police state takeover" are also pushing the idiotic "gun rights" agenda?

Or the FACT that your best bet to resist "total fascist police state takeover" is peaceful means, truth and the power of persuasion?

[el_gato]

39. tell that to the kids in miami

[MrBenchley]

45. You mean you wanted them to shoot it out with Jeb's cops?

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

Why am I reminded of Tommy the Traveler, suddenly?

[el_gato]

50. no i mean you need to understand the signs of what's coming

if you think this kind of fascist abuse will be limited to ftaa protests you simply refuse to face the facts.

the police state is coming

[MrBenchley]

64. So, gato...

How come you're doinng everything you can to further the aims of this police state you claim to fear so much by adopting their rhetoric?

[el_gato]

69. now your not making sense at all

[MrBenchley]

75. It's very simple, gato

I'm the one opposing what AshKKKroft wants...you're the one pushing exactly what he wants.

I guess that's RKBA "logic": opposing someone is giving them more power, while doing exactly what that someone wants is not.

Every day I get more and more glad I ain't got a speck of whatever the hell RKBAers have going on their heads.

[hansberrym]

139. More history lessons from the dark side.

(Quoting Benchley)
Or the FACT that your best bet to resist "total fascist police state takeover" is peaceful means, truth and the power of persuasion?
(unquote)

Is it a FACT that "persuasion and peaceful means" subdued the murderous impulses of Hitler, Stalin, Pol pot, etc. ?

[solinvictus]

155. State Power

State's have killed more people in the past two centuries than any war. The Ottoman Turks killed millions of Armenians by first (can you guess?) confiscating their weapons. The only group that was able to resist were several armed tribes in the lower Caucausus range who had rifles and the means to manufacture ammunition and light explosives. The Turks could not take them, even with light artillery.

[TolstoyAndy]

154. We agree, Benchley

I said I probably wouldn't get a gun, for the reasons you cite.

It's the power of truth and persuasion that I rely on, even though those are the popguns in today's society when miseducation is the main weapon of freedom's enemies. At best, all I'd be able to do is take out one or two stormtroopers before they did me. All I would have done is leave a couple of kids without fathers.

But I guess we disagree on the point of whether most gun owners are a threat to us and our families.

I have talked to and heard from a lot of conservatives in the past few years. If we evilDUers can't accept the fact that most gun owners are not a threat, we will lose allies who might otherwise help us take down Bush.

They hate his big government intrusion on our civil rights, and his useless evil wars, as much as we do.

Most Americans agree on these issues. Let's get back to peace and prosperity, then we can argue about bootstraps, the homeless, and whether all of us deserve the right to go see a doctor without taking out a second mortgage.

Those are smaller issues than the defunct Bill of Rights which all of us want to resucitate. Most gun owners are on our side on the issues of freedom and personal rights. Many gun owners are horrified at the mistake they made in voting for Bush, or not voting.

Respect to all.

[MrBenchley]

156. Bear in mind

that in a GOOD year, we lose ten times as many citizens from gunfire as we did on September 11...

And that the threat of this "police state" that the RKBA crowd is having conniptions over is coming from those politicans vociferously peddling the bogus "gun rights" argument, and who are hand in hand with the gun industry.

[demsrule4life]

16. "in the face of a giant meteorite falling to earth"

And how many times has it happened?

[TolstoyAndy]

28. How many times has a total fascist police state takeover happened?

How many pieces of documentation do we need to see here every day before we accept it's what the powers that be want to establish here?

I'm still not getting a gun, but I am pricing some nice blankets to lie on when I try to stop the line of tanks. I'm looking at red ones, because when they do try their martial law, these tanks aren't going to stop like the Chinese ones did. No sense leaving stained blankets for for my estate.

[demsrule4life]

31. How many times have we put our own citizens into

internment camps?

[DoNotRefill]

144. Make sure you get a heavy-duty tarp...

to put under them. Wouldn't want to stain the pavement....that's destruction of Government property. :evilgrin:

[Deaner1971]

25. Screw bullets, I get to vote!

This is a legitimate question however, I have a different answer.

Given our democracy, I believe that we would never allow such a dictatorship to occur. We would never give anyone that kind of power (and it frustrates Ashcroft to no friggin end) because we exercise Democracy in its most glorious form.

Let's say a crazed general bypassed Democracy and ordered martial law and a military dictatorship. Still wouldn't work. Every soldier takes an oath to the Constitution (not the President for just this reason) and is obligated (per the UCMJ) to refuse an illegal or immoral order.

Thankfully, it is a decision I will never have to face (in this country).

[Goldmund]

26. Wow, I wish...

...I lived on your planet, dude.

[Spoonman]

33. No lie,

I guess the recent South Carolina incident and the last three years have failed to open some peoples eyes as to the radical swings a government can make!

[Deaner1971]

63. You do

Provided you vote to kick Bush's ass out of the White House this year, recruit three others to do the same, and we get this country back on track.

[Goldmund]

90. Of course I will.

But _we_ have to work so that this "fascist state" does not happen. I'm not one of those who argues that the best thing we can do to prevent this is visit the shooting range once a week -- I think there is a plethora of other options we have, which can actually be effective.

But to claim that we have a "glorious democracy" and that we're therefore defacto safe from a fascist state takeover is an invitation to being docile and passive.

Our democracy is "glorious" only to the level that we work, think, act, feel, and are vigilant, to protect it and further it. We ARE democracy, not some dusty papers or statues of some old men. If we fall asleep and hide behind "oh, glorious US" rhetoric, then that democracy will fall asleep with us.

[Deaner1971]

112. I agree

But no one would have thrown a hissy fit if I hadn't put my Polly-friggin-anna spin on it all.}( You gotta cater to people's misconceptions. I don't think that hunters need to own uzis so, I must be a rose colored glasses, died in the wool, pacifist right???

If anyone doesn't think you have to bust ass to preserve the rights that we take for granted, imagine how different things would be if a few more Dems in Florida had gotten like minded friends to register and vote.

[el_gato]

35. yea wow indeed!

Miami
Diebold
Nov. 2000
Imperial Invasion based on phoney threat
Pat Act

shall I continue?

serious head in the sand there

[Deaner1971]

61. Nice try

Gato,

If you think that this represents a police state, you need to read your history. In a police state we wouldn't be having these conversations.

Nov. 2000 was a sham but, it wasn't a fascist takeover. The Pat Act is a result of a shocked nation rolling over but, that happened after Pearl harbor (Japanese internment camps) too. The "Imperial Invasion posed by a phoney threat" doesn't compare to the "Indian Question" genocides or the War with Mexico in terms of imperialism. It is an abomination but, not on the scale of say Germany (fascist) invading Poland.

I guarantee you that my vote will make a bigger difference in getting this "fascist" out of the White House than your bullets ever will.

By the way, what did your gun ownership do to prevent any of the above?

[MrBenchley]

38. Worth noting that the threat of a "total fascist police state takeover"

comes from the same imbeciles kowtowing to the National Rifle Association and spouting "gun rights" horseshit.

[Goldmund]

42. Absolutely true.

Because the guns don't pose them any real threat in the case of a "fascist police state takeover", but the gun _culture_ definitely helps them get there.

I also completely agree that any violent approach to stopping this potential fascist police state would amount to MAD -- mutually assured destruction, a demise of the US.

[Superfly]

44. Guns don't pose a real threat?

Tell that to the Mujahadin (spelling...).

[Goldmund]

49. Read my post #19

n/t

[MrBenchley]

47. Take a look at those spreading the "gun rights" rubbish.....

Every racist piece of shit, high and low, spouts "gun rights" routinely.

And you may recall Tim McVeigh's attack in Oklahoma City...Tim spent years wandering from gun show to gun show, where he barely stood out among the crazies. Or Buford Furrow and his "wake-up call" attack on a day-care center.

[Spoonman]

51. Hmmm.....

Sounds like a pretty broad brushed statement.
To bad you can't back that up.

Oh well, when you have no foundation on which to build your case, resort to personal attacks.

[MrBenchley]

55. Spoon, I can and HAVE backed that up time and time again

As you well know.

Want me to start listing the names of the racist shitheels who spout that gun rights crap in public AGAIN?

Let’s start with Trent Lott.
Trent Lott led a campus riot to keep blacks out of the U of Miss in the 1960s. In this century, he announced that we wouldn’t have "all these problems" if we still had Jim Crow. If gun control is racist, you’d expect helmet-hair to be four-square for it…but he isn’t. In fact, he’s spent his career pushing the phony "gun rights" issue.

How about John AshKKKroft? Got his career started fighting integration in Kansas City…he’s been noticeably timid in protecting the rights of minorities, and notably gung-ho trampling the Constitution to punish them. Again, he’s not only pro-gun rights; he’s one of the shrillest and most strident proponents of the dishonest "individual rights" revisionist interpretation of the Second Amendment. He’s so pro-gun rights that he refused to let the FBI check to see if terrorists bought guns after 9/11.

Jesse Helms? The old turd used to scream that the UN was trying to ban gun ownership in the US to inflame his inbred supporters. Bob "C of CC" Barr? He’s on the board of the National Rifle Association.

And which side of the debate threw out an ignorant slur in Congress this year about all black people being drug addicts? The gun rights crowd, which at the time was trying to engineer immunity from liability for the corrupt gun industry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A1249-2003Apr9¬Found=true

What about that National Rifle Association? What’s their record on bigotry and tolerance? Well, it’s not so hot…

Outgoing president Charlton "Moses" Heston made big capital of the fact that he marched ONCE with Martin Luther King, Jr. But that didn’t stop him from making racial slurs in front of the far right wing Free Congress Foundation, nor did it stop him from calling for a lynch mob in Michigan in 2000.

But what about the other board members? Well, board member Ted Nugent spewed racial slurs during a radio interview in Denver earlier this year. What did the NRA do about this disgrace? Nothing.

Board member Jeff Cooper calls blacks orang-outangs in public. Several board members have ties groups like English First. Then there’s the publisher of Soldier of Fortune…who can forget all the stirring calls for brotherhood and racial tolerance in SOF magazine (snicker)?

But the NRA is just one group. What about other gun rights groups?

Well, about the next largest is Gun Owners of America…which is pretty much a goober named Larry Pratt. Larry is so racist that even Pat Buchanan had to back away from him in public.

How about racist groups like Aryan Nations or the KKK? Nope, again, you’re talking about big gun rights supporters. Railing about gun control makes up a large part of their message.

Here’s the Texas KKK:

"The so-called gun control bill enacted by the government is nothing but anti-self defense laws designed to disarm law abiding citizens. The right to own guns as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution must be protected. Gun ownership is NOT a privilege, it’s a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT!!! The Texas Knights work to completely restore the right of all law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms."

http://www.texaskkk.com/platform.htm

Here’s a tip: if your rhetoric is indistinguishable from the KKK’s, you ain’t fooling anyone.

[Spoonman]

59. Yea surrrrre.....

and pigs fly and I'm hung like John Holmes!.

[MrBenchley]

65. You may not be John Holmes

but you certainly remind one of his most famous "talent"...

[Spoonman]

76. Your right

He was very open and honest.

Thanks, now wipe that Brady Campaign Repuk off your chin.

[el_gato]

60. what a joke, zero-sum logic

all gun owners are trent lott loving ted nugent fans

that is simply not valid bench and you know it

[MrBenchley]

68. Peddle it elsewhere gato....

The plain fact is that the people representing the threat of a police state are ALSO the ones spouting this idiotic and dishonest "gun rights" horseshit.

[el_gato]

73. your statement is flat out wrong

There are alot of people out there concerned about this.

[MrBenchley]

77. Not even close to true, gato

The plain fact is that the people representing the threat of a police state are ALSO the ones spouting this idiotic and dishonest "gun rights" horseshit.

John AshKKKroft
George Bush
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Tom DeLay
Trent Lott
Bill Frist
etc., etc., etc.....

[el_gato]

88. NEWSFLASH: I can prove you wrong are you ready?

are ya?

[MrBenchley]

107. Hand us another BIG laugh, gato...

AshKKKroft is pushing just what you're pushing...

"Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Ashcroft was asked why the Justice Department had refused to give the FBI access to federal gun records to see whether any of the terrorist suspects detained by the FBI had recently bought weapons.
This was hardly an overreaching request. In fact, an al-Qaida terrorist manual that Ashcroft brought before the committee urged terrorists in countries where they operate to buy firearms and learn to use them.
Ashcroft explained that the law specifically prevents him from giving the FBI access to the records, "and I believe we did the right thing in observing what the law of the United States compels us to observe." Upon repeated questioning, he refused to support a measure that would change this law."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/dec01/4644.asp

"During this inimitable period of domestic inquisition against terrorism, it's appalling to learn that Attorney General John Ashcroft reversed established Justice Department policy - banning law enforcement from their established right to check the FBI's National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS). Examination of the NICS audit log could help investigators determine if 1,200 detainees - most of them illegal aliens and all "suspects" connected to Sept. 11 - have sought to purchase firearms. In our "different world" gun records are sacrosanct, according to Ashcroft, an appalling commentary about just how tightly handcuffed he is to the gun-lobby in general, and the NRA in particular.
Ashcroft's strong support of gun rights and his longstanding opposition to the government's use of background check records are no secret. It's also no secret that Ashcroft is a proud, card-carrying lifetime member of the NRA. In a love letter to the National Rifle Association last spring, Ashcroft said the original intent of the Second Amendment "unequivocally protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms." His view was a 180-degree shift; diametrically opposing established Justice Department policy and directly conflicting with longstanding Supreme Court legal precedent and historical evidence. The Supreme Court put the debate over individual vs. collective gun rights to bed back in 1939, but Ashcroft nevertheless ignored it and used his pulpit to perversely aggrandize the NRA. To be sure, Ashcroft's trinket is no substitute for judicial precedent. His letter merely provided life-saving oxygen to reignite the NRA's smoldering Second Amendment fire."

http://cgi.citizen-times.com/cgi-bin/story/3102

"In the complaint, filed today with the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General and the D.C. Court of Appeals, they called for a full federal investigation.
The allegation stems from a May 17 letter from Ashcroft to the National Rifle Association, the country's largest gun-rights advocacy group. In it, the attorney general described his view that the Constitution protects the private ownership of firearms.
"et me state unequivocally my view that the text and the original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms," he wrote in the two-page letter addressed to NRA Executive Director James Jay Baker.
"While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise," Ashcroft wrote.
Ashcroft is a longtime member of the NRA and was a staunch opponent of gun-control measures during his tenure as a U.S. senator from Missouri. The legal interpretation Ashcroft offered is one espoused by countless gun rights' advocates both in and out of government. "

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Ashcroft_NRA_010703.html

"The gun-show loophole was part of the price extracted by the gun lobby for getting a law through Congress requiring licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks on gun purchasers. Since it took effect in 1994, background checks have blocked 689,000 purchases by felons, drug addicts, fugitives, illegal aliens and other unsavory characters.
But "private" sales at gun shows are exempt from the requirement, and clearly criminals and terrorists know it. Nevertheless, the gun lobby continues to defend the loophole, saying its closure would amount to the harassment of sportsmen.
That's just one of the ways gun-rights politics has made life easier for terrorists. Shortly after Sept. 11, the FBI asked the Justice Department to scan its gun background checks to see whether any of 186 people picked up in its terrorist investigation had bought weapons. Two had, in fact.
But the next day the Justice Department decided it shouldn't be giving the FBI such help. Attorney General John Ashcroft, long a gun-rights advocate, insists that privacy language inserted in the background-check law prohibits the sharing of the information — even when illegal aliens and potential terrorist suspects are involved.
That shouldn't be surprising. As a senator from Missouri in 1998, Ashcroft voted to require the destruction of such records immediately after a background check was completed. The amendment was defeated, but Ashcroft is now in a position to implement policies that amount to the same thing."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2001-12-13-nceditf.htm

[el_gato]

115. pro gun anti police state

There are alot of people out there who think we are headed down the road to total fascism, they believe in the 2nd ammedment, and don't support bush.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archive_police_state

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr062702.htm

But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?

Let me make a few observations:

Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.

One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.

The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.

http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm

http://www.policestate21.com/

[MrBenchley]

117. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

Who's pro-gun?

pResident Turd
Cheney
AshKKKroft
Trent Lott
Tom DeLay

And who's rolling over to do exactly what they want? The RKBA crowd.

[el_gato]

121. so you run away again hmmm......

ha ha hahahahahahha

:beer:

ahhhhh that was tasty

[MrBenchley]

128. Not going anywhere

Sitting here laughing my ass off at you dodging the issue.

I'm the one opposing what AshKKKroft wants...you're the one pushing exactly what he wants.

I guess that's RKBA "logic": opposing someone is giving them more power, while doing exactly what that someone wants is not.

So we're not supposed to notice that the "fascist threat" you're wailing about comes from the same racist pieces of shit you're supporting?

[el_gato]

164. benchley wants to give ashcroft more power, makes no sense

of course benchley supports racist shitbags like ashcroft
so what do you expect?

when you want a corrupt government to take away more of our rights you must be supportive of it, nothing else makes sense, regardless of phoney double talk

[el_gato]

58. yep more baseless smears

[iverglas]

71. yes! it's a baseless smear!

It's an allegation that someone has made a baseless smear, made WITH ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF ITS TRUTH!!

Who will identify the baseless smears in Benchley's post? Who will step up to that plate? Who will stop hiding behind unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing, and PROVE IT?

Where's the fucking beef, oh all ye big brave hunters?

.

[el_gato]

92. open your eyes and take a look

he uses smear by association repeatedly in almost every post

any body who believes in gun ownership must also be a major supporter of racist shitbags hence we all must be racist shitbags too

that is benchley's logic and if you can't understand that well it's not my problem but it is well understood by those who come down to the dungeon

[MrBenchley]

109. Too frigging funny...

So we're not supposed to notice that the fascist threat you're wailing about comes from the same racist pieces of shit you're supporting?

[el_gato]

116. you prove my point bench and you bore me

[MrBenchley]

118. You have no point worth hearing, gato....

So we're not supposed to notice that the fascist threat you're wailing about comes from the same racist pieces of shit you're supporting?

[el_gato]

122. why do you run from the facts?

I guess the good folks at Democracy NOW! and Common Dreams and the Union folks at Miami are racist pieces of shit to you but I disagree.

[MrBenchley]

126. You haven't got ANY facts, gato

and you're pimping the same agenda that the people who threaten us with that "police state" you're so het up about are pushing.

"the good folks at Democracy NOW! and Common Dreams and the Union folks at Miami "
Gee, how many of them are waving guns around? Or lying about the Second Amendment?

Democracy Now! (which is a news service) did a big sympathetic interview with Michael Moore...

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/15/1543216&mode=thread&tid=25

And you bringing up Common Dreams is just hilarious...sounds like they're not fooled by "gun rights" and what it really means either...

"A House debate over gun rights legislation erupted into a racially charged dispute yesterday when a Republican lawmaker from Wyoming seemed to equate African Americans with drug addicts or people undergoing drug treatment. "

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0410-11.htm

[el_gato]

127. I'm officially bored with you now

you say the same stuff over and over and ignore anything anybody else has to say

I won't bother myself with you anymore today

buhbye

[MrBenchley]

129. You've been a big laugh for weeks...

And pretty much all of what the RKBA crowd has to say is worth ignoring.

[el_gato]

162. that very statement shows how partisan you are

you are only here to argue your "side" with no regard for the truth whatever it may be

[Goldmund]

62. That's being too generalizing

I do agree with you that the political factions threatening what we liberals see as "fascist police state" and those that trumpet "gun rights" largely overlap.

But people on this board who own guns or support gun rights (I'm not one of them) should be enough to stop you from making broad-brush generalizations.

[MrBenchley]

72. Maybe yes, maybe no....

I invite you to make a test of your own...think of any public figure who is racist or bigoted, and check out their stance on guns. I've yet to find one who doesn't spout "gun rights."

Conversely, think of any public figure or organization you admire...and see if they don't turn up on the NRA's idiotic enemies list.

[DoNotRefill]

145. The ACLU....oh, wait...

Bob "C of CC" Barr works for them....Damn! ANOTHER racist organization!!!

[MrBenchley]

148. Wow, refill....

you must REALLY be getting desperate...

[Spoonman]

80. MAD

- mutually assured destruction, a demise of the US.

MAD - Democratic candidate supporting gun control, by by presidency, hello four more years of the US going down hill!

Yep, your analogy fits!

[Spoonman]

81. MAD

- mutually assured destruction, a demise of the US.

MAD - Democratic candidate supporting gun control, by by presidency, hello four more years of the US going down hill!

Yep, your analogy fits!

[Goldmund]

98. This isn't a political thread,

but an analytical one, or a philosophical one, or an ideological one maybe.

There are plenty of things that I would want to see in this society that would never fly on a political level. I wasn't arguing that the democratic presidential candidate should be against gun ownership. I'm only saying that I am.

[Spoonman]

48. Worth noting that the threat of crime

comes from the same imbeciles sucking off the registered republicans of the Brady Campaign , and spouting "gun control" horseshit.

[MrBenchley]

53. Say what?

[Goldmund]

54. eh?

I don't get what you're saying.

[Spoonman]

56. Never mind,

just wipe off your chin.

[demsrule4life]

87. So you don't think that Bush is a threat to our freedoms?

only gun owners like me?

[MrBenchley]

108. Gee, it's pResident Turd that's pushing "gun rights"...

along with the rest of his ugly crowd...

"During his keynote address at the recent annual convention of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in Orlando, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush thanked members for helping to elect his brother president in 2000, CNN reported April 27.
"Were it not for your active involvement, it's safe to say my brother would not be president of the United States," Bush said.
He added that he and his brother both support the NRA's argument that the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment makes bearing arms an individual right with few restrictions."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,563037,00.html

Nice playmate you got there, dems.......

[demsrule4life]

111. Bush don't give a shit about gun rights

or any of your rights either. Hell most of your buddies at Highroadrage.org feels the same.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51297

[MrBenchley]

119. Too frigging funny for words, dems...

Those loonies are sore because this unelected drunk isn't crazy enough to suit them.

Man, what a rancid bunch of pinheads over there.

[Liberal Classic]

113. I give you my word, Benchley

When the Ashcroft stormtroopers start knocking on doors, I'll give you one of my guns. All you have to do is ask. :)

[MrBenchley]

120. Hahahahahahahaha!

Funniest post yet....

[demsrule4life]

124. You always attack ashkkkcroft

then it seems to me you defend him. Damn no wonder I'am confused.

[MrBenchley]

130. Gee, dems.....

"then it seems to me you defend him"
Sure that's not aphasia or something like that?

Besides, I'm not the one pimping his dishonest gun rights agenda on a public forum.....

[demsrule4life]

131. So there is no threat of Asskkkroft or Bush taking any of my

rights away?

[MrBenchley]

132. Too too funny

You have to wonder why someone fretting about that would want to pimp for any part of their demented agenda....

[demsrule4life]

133. I will keep my guns no matter what they say or do

just don't understand why you are supporting them.

[MrBenchley]

134. Gee, dems...

the only one supporting their agenda here is YOU.

[Liberal Classic]

125. I hoped you'd get a kick out of it :)

Of course, when the AshKKKroft® stormtroopers knock on your door you are welcome to use harsh language and obscene gestures.

Which would you prefer, a pistol, shotgun, or a rifle?

:P

[DoNotRefill]

146. I would give him one too....

but I would remove the firing pin without telling him. Hope they videotape it....I'd LOVE to see the look on his face...

[demsrule4life]

147. The loudest noise in the world is when you pull that trigger

and all you get is a click.

[MrBenchley]

149. I suspect some of the RKBA crowd

spend all day pulling their triggers...and getting nothing but clicks...

[demsrule4life]

151. That is true

it is called dry fire practice. The top shooters dryfire practice more then they do live fire.

[dvddrone]

46. Yeah, I think I'd like to have a gun...

I'm no fan of the 2nd - I think it's out-dated, irrational and ought to be amended via the proper process. I used to just loathe the neo-cons and scoffed at their silly scare tactics. The good old days. This insane clown posse has actually "suspended" the Bill of Rights. Now I'm scared. A gun wouldn't save me and it won't re-institute the Bill of Rights, but if the totalitarian Ashcroft thugs came knocking on my door...

Elizabeth

[solinvictus]

137. The Clash from "The Guns of Brixton"

"When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun? "
Pretty much says it all, doesn't it? It really is about the choice that you would have to make and your willingness to effectively resist tyranny. I have no sympathy for the Tokyo Rose contingent here who tell everyone not to resist.

[DavidMS]

136. I'd...

accutaly perfer a computer and a good knowlege of old school computer hacking. Also include a frendly country that will let me set up at the bottom of a old missle silo with security more serious that that deployed at "Universal Exporters."

Then let me at your code!

The regieme (trusting systems more than people) would have a never-ending string of database corruption and errors. Immagine poluting a database of known 'terrorists' with random people who support the regieme? or slightly changing addresses in a DMV system? There are endless ways of rooting their systmes and being a BOFH. http://bofh.ntk.net/Bastard.html

Immagine convincing the system to automaticly install a new bios that randomly puts the very expensive server into hellen keller mode (http://www.houghi.org/jargon/Helen-Keller-mode.php).

Guns are nice in a civil war, destroying their IT infracture is nicer (and less likely to get you killed, and does way more damage than killing a few flunkies with a lether-trenchcoat fetish).

But again that's just me. I took a programing class in High School and it wasn't my thing.

[slackmaster]

152. I'd rather just...

Sing!

[DBoon]

157. Unbreakable crypto

With some good anonymizing proxies, in a freenet configuration. These are in high demand in the PRC, for the same reasons.

A fascist state wields its power by controlling communication and all sources of information. Being able to safely communicate with others raises hope, and provides the ability to collectively do something. It forces the government to conduct its operations with some public exposure. Fascists, like cockroaches, prefer the cover of darkness.

One person with a gun is nothing. A bunch of people organized can bring down a government. Look at the role that fax played in defeating the "dead ender" coup in Russia.

When you have something that allows people to communicate and coordinate their opposition en masse, then START talking to me about guns.

[DBoon]

158. Why I hate questions like this

In the event of a homegrown American fascist-like dictatorship, I would bet many bucks that most American gun owners would support the government.

A true fascist-like government would appeal to traditional American values, would blame "cosmopolitan" liberals for all its trouble, and present itself as the friend of the average God-fearing white American guy. This type of government would warn citizens to be vigilant against traitors (in the Ann Coulter sense). It would no doubt sponsor citizen's "freedom militias" so that Joe Average could defend themselves against the foreign menace and their liberal sympathizers. The Nazi SS was just such a militia, and in the early 1930's outnumbered Germany's official army.

A fascist government would feed the egos of gun owners, appeal to their innermost fears and desires, and make them believe that they are defending freedom against a foreign menace and traitorous liberals.

[el_gato]

163. so if they showed up at your front door

what would you do?

[Emoto]

160. I'd prefer to have one.

Wouldn't you rather die on your feet than live on your knees?

It bears mentioning that our nation's heritage is that the first shots fired in our revolution were because (brit) government troops came to take away our guns. This spirit is not dead.

[solinvictus]

161. Lexington & Concord

Yep, the Brit governor ordered the colonials to disperse. Idiot.