This is the 21st Century. No 'army' can secede:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://freeadam.net/2013/05/24/adam-kokesh-march-50-state-capitols/

So that idiot who wanted to bring around 10,000 armed people to the Capital to provide a demonstration of willingness to 'defend' rights by provoking a firefight in the event that this demonstration without a permit had gone off now revealed his true colors.He's called for an army of secessionists to menace the United States. Except that this is the 21st Century. No army can menace a government that can spy on its enemies from space. No army can succeed in such an endeavor here, and if such idiocy must be unleashed, it is only justifiable if it can win its war that it sets for itself to fight. In the 21st Century no such thing like this is possible.

The people who agitate most loudly for the Second Amendment as a license to commit treason neglect that the Constitution empowers the Feds to use all due force in the event of a domestic insurrection. Of course I expect that there'll be a lot of comments to this arguing that his call for an army of treason to march on state capitals really isn't a call for that, that never say what it really is. That's predictable. So would be the prospect that once again, like that damn fool earlier in the Obama Administration that threatened to 'do something' if Obama didn't resign and Ted Nugent, who predicted he'd be dead by now that nothing at all happens. But this is why people can be and are skeptical of the so-called Second Amendment crowd. Because the right to keep and bear firearms is no guarantee against a tyranny these days, and any pretense it is will end up with a lot of dead people and a war already lost. And it's even more interesting how the people who damn Communists, Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as the Taliban, also turn around during these kind of discussions and argue that they should emulate the folly of the people they hold as terrorists and the antithesis of freedom and of all that is best in humanity.

Comments

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/transparency.jpeg)

I think the government knowing they are out there is pretty good insurance that we won't have to use them against the government.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

Interesting, despite all their AK47 waving in the news, most Muslim countries are far behind us

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

The main difference is most Muslim countries don't have a large anti-government segment of the population. They're much more homogeneous societies than the U.S., thus less chance of anti-government sentiment.

They also do not have between 70 and 89 firearms per 100 individuals.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, we can see this in the Arab Spring, the PKK, the instability of Pakistan, the guerrilla movements in Bangladesh.....

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

All those places you also claim could not succeed without outside help.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

It's hard to say that they don't have anti-government sentiment.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You just said that they didn't have anti-government sentiment. I'm sure Hosni Mubarak, Mahmoud Abbas, the rulers of Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Indonesia are surprised to learn that Islam can't produce anti-government sentiment. Especially Gadafi and the Turks.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I don't know where I was going with this. Point conceded.

It must be the guns, then.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bd: I think the government knowing they are out there is pretty good insurance that we won't have to use them against the government.

So you figure "vote the way we want or we'll shoot you" is a good way to run a democracy, do you?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I can't stop you from putting words into my mouth (You obviously enjoy doing it) but I can call you out on it and correct you. What I meant was that many firearms in that many hands would worry any sane, reasonable government.

That whole 'NRA lobbying' issue rears its ugly head again here, too. The NRA only has five million members, but that means there's about 72 million other gun owners out there, too. You can cry all you want about gun lobby, but that is still a lot of gun owners. And the thing about guns is: you own them because you want to.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bd: What I meant was that many firearms in that many hands would worry any sane, reasonable government.

You were not citing the proliferation of guns in the United States as having a salutary effect on our government's respect for freedom when you said "I think the government knowing they are out there is pretty good insurance that we won't have to use them against the government"?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

That hardly translates to what you said.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how else to interpret it. What do you think the pronoun "they" refers to?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

The knowledge that there are so many firearms out there alone probably means there will never be any governmental power play to get them. In that manner I suppose I would say it is salutary. But I don't know that I can say that it has a widescale effect on other policies. I just don't regularly see mobs of armed rednecks pressuring lawmakers to deregulate tobacco or mandate prayer in school or force any other policy.

[paft.livejournal.com]

bd: The knowledge that there are so many firearms out there alone probably means there will never be any governmental power play to get them. But I don't know that I can say that it has a widescale effect on other policies.

If using physical intimidation to force the government to refrain from passing gun control laws works, why would that approach not be expanded to other policies?

bd: I just don't regularly see mobs of armed rednecks pressuring lawmakers to deregulate tobacco or mandate prayer in school or force any other policy.

I don't see them succeeding. I do see them trying, and hurting an awful lot of people perceived as proxies for the government in the process. Given the history of right wing violence in this country, why would that be unlikely?

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

If using physical intimidation to force the government to refrain from passing gun control laws works, why would that approach not be expanded to other policies?

Indeed. So either they don't think it will work, they're not to that point yet, or on some level they know it is a bad idea.


I don't see them succeeding. I do see them trying, and hurting an awful lot of people perceived as proxies for the government in the process

This march is really not a good idea. That I agree with. But I do think that free societies work best when the people lend power to the government bottom-up, not the government lending power to the people top-down.