Stand up against the Government!

[Jarod]

if you believe that to be the case, you're then stating that we the people would nuke ourselves, right?

No!

Maybe the simple "no" should be enough but you seem so unable to read the words I type I will explain more.


I said in a different situation it might happen. A different situation might be one where the people are not running the government, or a small group of people who dont care about another group of the people might. You keep trying to twist my words to suggest I am saying stuff I am not saying.

 

[Jarod]

Jarod, I've been out of the military for less than 3 years. I've ran over 100 convoys. No. We. Don't. We stick to ROADS. Roads lead to cities. Cities are where we wanted to occupy and supply. Ergo, we did not destroy the roads. The REBELS however, blew up a fuck ton of stuff. I got stock away from base for a week because the only bridge in the region was blown up. Guess who was hurt more by that one?

UGH, I did not say the military does use ATV's... You idiot, I said IF they used ATV's.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

UGH, I said IF! You guys are impossable to discuss things with because you pretend to see only what you choose and not what I write. Smarter unless you can discuss without using fake arguments I am no longer going to engage you in discussion.

fake arguments? dont get all pissy because I shoot your theory full of holes. you say that in this instance, we the people control the government. this must mean that at some point you believe the government could then control we the people. wasn't this something the founders tried to prevent from happening?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No!

Maybe the simple "no" should be enough but you seem so unable to read the words I type I will explain more.


I said in a different situation it might happen. A different situation might be one where the people are not running the government, or a small group of people who dont care about another group of the people might. You keep trying to twist my words to suggest I am saying stuff I am not saying.

a simple no should suffice.

now, given that you've just admitted that there's a 'possibility' of the government turning on 'we the people', don't you think that it would be prudent for 'we the people' to be able to take back the government?

 

[/MSG/]

UGH, I did not say the military does use ATV's... You idiot, I said IF they used ATV's.

Well what if I summoned a dragon? I mean, since we're conjuring stuff that doesn't exist, I'm using dragons.

 

[Jarod]

fake arguments? dont get all pissy because I shoot your theory full of holes. you say that in this instance, we the people control the government. this must mean that at some point you believe the government could then control we the people. wasn't this something the founders tried to prevent from happening?

You try to make it look like I say something different than I am saying... then you want to shoot what you are pretending I am saying down. I guess if that makes you feel good, go for it.

I do belive that in the world of possabilities the Government could some day in the future be controled by a faction of the people and not the people in general.

 

[Damocles]

I like how you abandon a discussion with name calling. That makes a very good point. Really strengthens your argument.

I've already noted why I think you are a loon, your post simply didn't answer it, repeated what you had said before and then said "I disagree".

Well, good for you. The government absolutely would not send our military against 100 Million armed citizens anywhere. It would be suicide. They wouldn't nuke us, because we are the government. They need your support, would you support a nuke on Tallahassee? I doubt it. If the government became tyrannical, they'd lose to an armed citizenry, especially considering the military too is made up of citizens.

 

[Jarod]

a simple no should suffice.

now, given that you've just admitted that there's a 'possibility' of the government turning on 'we the people', don't you think that it would be prudent for 'we the people' to be able to take back the government?

I agree that such a thing would be nice and if we lived in fantasyland I would say it would be possable. The only thing that is going to allow citizens to take a government back in the current world situation is peacefull non-violent protesting.

 

[Jarod]

I've already noted why I think you are a loon, your post simply didn't answer it, repeated what you had said before and then said "I disagree".

Well, good for you. The government absolutely would not send our military against 100 Million armed citizens anywhere. It would be suicide. They wouldn't nuke us, because we are the government. They need your support, would you support a nuke on Tallahassee? I doubt it. If the government became tyrannical, they'd lose to an armed citizenry, especially considering the military too is made up of citizens.

You said that I am a loon because I belive that the Government would use nukes against the people.. I had not said that.

 

[Damocles]

Well what if I summoned a dragon? I mean, since we're conjuring stuff that doesn't exist, I'm using dragons.

This made me LOL for real...

 

[/MSG/]

I agree that such a thing would be nice and if we lived in fantasyland I would say it would be possable. The only thing that is going to allow citizens to take a government back in the current world situation is peacefull non-violent protesting.

 

[Damocles]

You said that I am a loon because I belive that the Government would use nukes against the people.. I had not said that.

It would be the only equipment they have that isn't threatened by an armed and educated citizenry intent on its defeat. Shoot, dudes with donkeys and a few AR-15s blow up that wonderful undefeatable equipment regularly in places you think we are winning wars in. The US does not have enough equipment to take on 100 Million armed citizens, they'd be overwhelmed.

If you didn't say that, then you simply said, "That equipment we regularly lose elsewhere would magically become undefeatable if it were used against the citizens of the US!"

Which would still make you a loon.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You try to make it look like I say something different than I am saying... then you want to shoot what you are pretending I am saying down. I guess if that makes you feel good, go for it.

I do belive that in the world of possabilities the Government could some day in the future be controled by a faction of the people and not the people in general.

some day in the future, but you don't think it is now. whatever. the question that I had asked was if the mere possibility exists for the country to be taken over, be even a small fraction or rogue element, should 'we the people' retain the armament necessary to wrest control of our country back from them?

 

[Jarod]

Damocles, you dont belive that it is in the world of possabilities that some time in the future an insane person could possably garner control of the government and then use nukes against the people?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I've already noted why I think you are a loon, your post simply didn't answer it, repeated what you had said before and then said "I disagree".

Well, good for you. The government absolutely would not send our military against 100 Million armed citizens anywhere. It would be suicide. They wouldn't nuke us, because we are the government. They need your support, would you support a nuke on Tallahassee? I doubt it. If the government became tyrannical, they'd lose to an armed citizenry, especially considering the military too is made up of citizens.

This is full of contradictions. If the gov't needs our support, what does it matter if it's nukes or conventional weapons they're using? They wouldn't use them - because they NEED OUR SUPPORT. Because we have elections, and checks & balances, and if we the people don't like what our gov't is doing, there is a lever we're able to pull to change that.

The idea that arms are needed in case we don't like what the gov't is doing is just as loony as anything you're pointing to.

 

[/MSG/]

It would be the only equipment they have that isn't threatened by an armed and educated citizenry intent on its defeat. Shoot, dudes with donkeys and a few AR-15s blow up that wonderful undefeatable equipment regularly in places you think we are winning wars in.

Some don't even have ARs, they have to get by with these.

 

[Jarod]

It would be the only equipment they have that isn't threatened by an armed and educated citizenry intent on its defeat. Shoot, dudes with donkeys and a few AR-15s blow up that wonderful undefeatable equipment regularly in places you think we are winning wars in.

UGH, you are doing the same thing... I did not say we were winning any wars anywhere. You are simply feeding your ego by pretending I am saying something I am not saying, then knocking down the false premise you set up.

 

[/MSG/]

UGH, you are doing the same thing... I did not say we were winning any wars anywhere. You are simply feeding your ego by pretending I am saying something I am not saying, then knocking down the false premise you set up.

So when you said we weren't defeated in Afghanistan, you meant something other than winning?

 

[Jarod]

some day in the future, but you don't think it is now. whatever. the question that I had asked was if the mere possibility exists for the country to be taken over, be even a small fraction or rogue element, should 'we the people' retain the armament necessary to wrest control of our country back from them?

I dont belive we can "retain" the armament necessary because we dont even now have the armament necessary.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I agree that such a thing would be nice and if we lived in fantasyland I would say it would be possable. The only thing that is going to allow citizens to take a government back in the current world situation is peacefull non-violent protesting.

I didn't ask you those other questions. you said that it's possible, not that it would be fairyland. did the jews non violent protest against the nazis get them back to their ghettos?

I ask again, is it possible that a rogue element or group could ignore the constitution and take over the government, thereby controlling the country? a yes or no will suffice.