Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah. Terrorists, home grown or otherwise, aren't going to be using standard means of communication. If the government really assumes they would, we are much worse off than even I ever thought (And I'm about as pessimistic as you can get.....)

 daedalus wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:


Perhaps they should have defined 'Arms' then.

Well, since they, presumably, didn't mean "bear arms", but to bear "arms", what alternate definition of Arms could you derive that doesn't involve swinging around detached Humerous bones?

I'll assume you're being deliberately obtuse, but indulge you anyway.
They never define arms; do they mean swords, muskets, rifles, etc, but stop at artillery? Does it mean only things that can be carried on one's person? Can a militia have a cavalry detachment, for instance? Or an artillery section? More in line with modern times, can I have a tank or nuclear bomb? More realistically (because I could carry it on my person), can I walk about with a minigun or a canister of nerve gas?
Our laws generally rule out the latter examples. Why? Because of interpretation. Which is both the point and subject.

 deathholydeath wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:


Perhaps they should have defined 'Arms' then.

Well, since they, presumably, didn't mean "bear arms", but to bear "arms", what alternate definition of Arms could you derive that doesn't involve swinging around detached Humerous bones?

I'll assume you're being deliberately obtuse, but indulge you anyway.
They never define arms; do they mean swords, muskets, rifles, etc, but stop at artillery? Does it mean only things that can be carried on one's person? Can a militia have a cavalry detachment, for instance? Or an artillery section? More in line with modern times, can I have a tank or nuclear bomb? More realistically (because I could carry it on my person), can I walk about with a minigun or a canister of nerve gas?
Our laws generally rule out the latter examples. Why? Because of interpretation. Which is both the point and subject.

Well, then I guess all of that stuff falls under the definition of arms, so I guess that works. Did most of those things not exist back then? Absolutely. Would they have worded it differently back then if they knew it was going to happen? Maybe, quite possibly even, but we have no way of knowing.

Mind you, these are also the same guys who did not at all expect us to keep this same government this entire time. Jefferson, who I understand to be a person of note in the history of the US, is attributed as saying "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."

Now, there's two schools of thought I see here: They didn't pin it down better because it didn't matter at the time, and they figured there would be a new government by the time it did, or it is deliberately vague and all-encompassing so that the people will always have the tools needed to end the government, if desired.

Well, to be fair, they did think that the Constitution wouldn't last 200 years.....

Come to think about it.....

 Slarg232 wrote:
Yeah. Terrorists, home grown or otherwise, aren't going to be using standard means of communication. If the government really assumes they would, we are much worse off than even I ever thought (And I'm about as pessimistic as you can get.....)

Cellphones played a big role in finally tracking down bin Laden.

"Standard means of communication" is also incredibly broad. Unless you believe they've invented Terrorist Sign Language, or stole smoke signals from the Native Americans, of course they use standard means of communication.

 Seaward wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Yeah. Terrorists, home grown or otherwise, aren't going to be using standard means of communication. If the government really assumes they would, we are much worse off than even I ever thought (And I'm about as pessimistic as you can get.....)

Cellphones played a big role in finally tracking down bin Laden.

"Standard means of communication" is also incredibly broad. Unless you believe they've invented Terrorist Sign Language, or stole smoke signals from the Native Americans, of course they use standard means of communication.

Well yeah.

If you trace twenty suspicious calls coming from one area, even on separate burner phones, it warrents investigation. That was more of different calls being in the same area over one phone being used and then dumped.

 daedalus wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 deathholydeath wrote:


Perhaps they should have defined 'Arms' then.

Well, since they, presumably, didn't mean "bear arms", but to bear "arms", what alternate definition of Arms could you derive that doesn't involve swinging around detached Humerous bones?

I'll assume you're being deliberately obtuse, but indulge you anyway.
They never define arms; do they mean swords, muskets, rifles, etc, but stop at artillery? Does it mean only things that can be carried on one's person? Can a militia have a cavalry detachment, for instance? Or an artillery section? More in line with modern times, can I have a tank or nuclear bomb? More realistically (because I could carry it on my person), can I walk about with a minigun or a canister of nerve gas?
Our laws generally rule out the latter examples. Why? Because of interpretation. Which is both the point and subject.

Well, then I guess all of that stuff falls under the definition of arms, so I guess that works. Did most of those things not exist back then? Absolutely. Would they have worded it differently back then if they knew it was going to happen? Maybe, quite possibly even, but we have no way of knowing.

Mind you, these are also the same guys who did not at all expect us to keep this same government this entire time. Jefferson, who I understand to be a person of note in the history of the US, is attributed as saying "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion."

Now, there's two schools of thought I see here: They didn't pin it down better because it didn't matter at the time, and they figured there would be a new government by the time it did, or it is deliberately vague and all-encompassing so that the people will always have the tools needed to end the government, if desired.

Wasnt it meant along the lines to bear 'arms' to be able to form militia groups. Back in the late 18th and early 19th century this would be the way of protecting yourself against the government and rebellion. All you needed was a sufficiently large group of people with at least a bit of training. But at the start of the 20th century the constitution doesnt hold up that well on the right to bear 'arms'. The draft is still used in most modern armies at this time (~1930), but a militia group just wont do it anymore. We have arrived at a stage were any rebellion against the government would end up like Syria if the government was serious enough to stop it or the rebels used violence as a means. The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?

You act as though the USA would be willing to bring it's full military might against its citizens. That would piss off almost all of our (Volunteer) soldiers, causing them to either refuse to fight or full out defecting. Also, the destruction caused by any real military weapon would cause too much collateral.

The moment the government brings out the tanks/planes/missles, it's instantly 50 states against D.C. Not to mention any country that gives us aid, because there are quite a few people who aren't a fan of the "meddling US Government".

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?

You act as though the USA would be willing to bring it's full military might against its citizens. That would piss off almost all of our (Volunteer) soldiers, causing them to either refuse to fight or full out defecting. Also, the destruction caused by any real military weapon would cause too much collateral.

The moment the government brings out the tanks/planes/missles, it's instantly 50 states against D.C. Not to mention any country that gives us aid, because there are quite a few people who aren't a fan of the "meddling US Government".

Its not what I intended to mean. Off course the very idea is ridiculous that it would employ its might against citizens. But they just have to wait until the other side uses force. This will never happen in the foreseeable future. But with how much force is the government authorized to meet armed resistance? Surely enough as to save lives or preserve their own. But the idea that you can resist the government would lead to an escalation of conflict. Force would be countered by force, which would require more force from one side to be succesfull.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?

You act as though the USA would be willing to bring it's full military might against its citizens. That would piss off almost all of our (Volunteer) soldiers, causing them to either refuse to fight or full out defecting. Also, the destruction caused by any real military weapon would cause too much collateral.

The moment the government brings out the tanks/planes/missles, it's instantly 50 states against D.C. Not to mention any country that gives us aid, because there are quite a few people who aren't a fan of the "meddling US Government".

Its not what I intended to mean. Off course the very idea is ridiculous that it would employ its might against citizens. But they just have to wait until the other side uses force. This will never happen in the foreseeable future. But with how much force is the government authorized to meet armed resistance? Surely enough as to save lives or preserve their own. But the idea that you can resist the government would lead to an escalation of conflict. Force would be countered by force, which would require more force from one side to be succesfull.

No matter what, a large scale conflict in the United States would end with the rebellion winning; the civilians have access to just as big of non-mounted weapons as the military, even if we can't dress ours up as pretty with grenade launchers (Which would cause too much collateral damage in a crowded street) and the like, and even then all it would take is one military base to fall to the resistance.

While you could say that the military is more adequately trained with the use of their weapons (Which you would be right to say), you have to remember that ~1/4 or more of the military personal would defect due to them not agreeing with the government/getting tired of being gak on by the "1%".

A lot of the US' might rests in it's missles, tanks, and tech. you can't really deploy any of that on our own soil without causing too massive of a destruction. If the citizens rose up, the government would pretty much be forced into a corner to talk its way out.

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?

You act as though the USA would be willing to bring it's full military might against its citizens. That would piss off almost all of our (Volunteer) soldiers, causing them to either refuse to fight or full out defecting. Also, the destruction caused by any real military weapon would cause too much collateral.

The moment the government brings out the tanks/planes/missles, it's instantly 50 states against D.C. Not to mention any country that gives us aid, because there are quite a few people who aren't a fan of the "meddling US Government".

Its not what I intended to mean. Off course the very idea is ridiculous that it would employ its might against citizens. But they just have to wait until the other side uses force. This will never happen in the foreseeable future. But with how much force is the government authorized to meet armed resistance? Surely enough as to save lives or preserve their own. But the idea that you can resist the government would lead to an escalation of conflict. Force would be countered by force, which would require more force from one side to be succesfull.

No matter what, a large scale conflict in the United States would end with the rebellion winning; the civilians have access to just as big of non-mounted weapons as the military, even if we can't dress ours up as pretty with grenade launchers (Which would cause too much collateral damage in a crowded street) and the like, and even then all it would take is one military base to fall to the resistance.

While you could say that the military is more adequately trained with the use of their weapons (Which you would be right to say), you have to remember that ~1/4 or more of the military personal would defect due to them not agreeing with the government/getting tired of being gak on by the "1%".

A lot of the US' might rests in it's missles, tanks, and tech. you can't really deploy any of that on our own soil without causing too massive of a destruction. If the citizens rose up, the government would pretty much be forced into a corner to talk its way out.

I could see a similar situation like the US civil war developing. For any meaningfull change to happen the people standing up to the goverment have to form a group, making it something akin to a military organization, against which force is authorized. Its difficult to say what would happen. A good amount of troops might defect to the otherside, but that would mean a large scale conflict. Now the amount of force deployed might get out of hand. But for any of this to happen there would have to be a very reasonably sized movement. I guess the idea of the government making it this bad would be almost unthinkable, but its also unthinkable what such a bad government might do.

It's not so much that they couldn't bring to bare all weapons at their disposal, it's more of they wouldn't; destroy a town in Afganistan, killing civilians, destroying buildings, and mucking up the infastructer?? Meh, who cares.

Destroy a US City, pay taxes to rebuild it, makes no one happy. Kill Citizens, lose tax money.

I'm not saying they wouldn't use Drones, armored Humvees, or similar, but any sort of self conflict (Barring of course, occupying resistance headquarters) on US Soil would never see missle strikes, carpet bombs, "Bringing the Rain", Tanks, or anything "large caliber".

text removed.

 Grot 6 wrote:
As to that crack about US might. Too bad it isn't that simple. 9 times out of 10, your being duped into thinking that all they do is to just arbitrarily just start dropping drones on kids and old ladies. You aren't being told that the fighter has an AK and an RPG one minute, drops them after he ganks someone after tripping off an IED and walks around the corner, feigning ignorance. Using the kids and old ladies as cover, while he scurries off with someone on him, dead to rights and they use the noncombatants as human shields, or shoot through them to get at you. The above said issue is an ongoing occurrences.

You are not fighting cobra commander here, you are fighting an idea. It's harder and not as blasé as you post. There are a million different variables, not the most is that people fight with a hand tied behind their back that is both imposed, and taught.
As to the drone stuff, I wish it weren't true, but you don't know what your talking about on those.

Uh...... Sure?

Individual combatants may use human shields, but the government would NEVER airstrike their own taxpayers; they NEED people to support them. Not to mention a giant airstrike/bombing/whatever would just be fuel to the fire for any sort of resistance.

I'm fighting Larry, I accidently hit Tom. Tom's older brother/sister is now on his way over to kick my ass for hurting his/her little brother. Resistances/uprisings need to be handled with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

You know, I'm not really that bothered by the idea of a surveillance program that scans for key words. I am bothered by the government's need to keep this whole thing secret.

I mean, there's the argument that if you have done nothing wrong then you shouldn't fear surveillance. Well, yeah, and if that's true then don't hide gak from us, government people.

 whembly wrote:
Eh... I feel like the Snowden narrative matters mostly to White House officials in trying to deflect attention from government overreach and deception, and to media executives in search of an easy storyline to serve a celebrity-obsessed audience.

*jedi waves*
Focus... this is not the scandal you're looking for....

Yep. Focusing on the guy who came out and said it, not what the person is actually saying. That was what was actually upsetting about the Valerie Plame thing, not whether someone technically revealed the identity of someone who was an actual or just a technical undercover CIA agent... but that as soon as Joe Wilson came out and stated publically that intelligence was being twisted to overstate the WMDs in Iraq, then the administration turned on him and his wife.

It's the same thing here, the debate has been shifted to whether Snowden is a hero or a villain. Whether he's one or the other or maybe a bit of both, he's just one guy and it doesn't fething matter. What matters is that massive surveillance program that government kept secret from the people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grot 6 wrote:
In the evolution of the idea, we have the National guard/ reserves today, but people take care of their own, when the chips are down. Your a volunteer taking up your duty. You deal with a natural disaster and keep order.

Ultimately, though, that whole thing you described is just weirdly anachronistic. It made sense in the late 18th century, in an age where full professionalisation was still largely a generation away. But today we have people trained and specialised in professions, as part of large, co-ordinated organisations that simply work much better than volunteers rushing to the scene in a disorganised, shambolic way.

It's nice to think of a community all rushing together to fight a bushfire or whatever, but that's dangerous, ineffective, and about 200 years out of date. We do things with professionals in co-ordinated organisations now. It's better.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Wasnt it meant along the lines to bear 'arms' to be able to form militia groups. Back in the late 18th and early 19th century this would be the way of protecting yourself against the government and rebellion. All you needed was a sufficiently large group of people with at least a bit of training. But at the start of the 20th century the constitution doesnt hold up that well on the right to bear 'arms'. The draft is still used in most modern armies at this time (~1930), but a militia group just wont do it anymore. We have arrived at a stage were any rebellion against the government would end up like Syria if the government was serious enough to stop it or the rebels used violence as a means. The right to bear 'arms' can only lift its weight around in these times if people would be allowed all kinds of expensive military hardware, which would and should not be handed out to civilians just like that. Or do you view this differently?

That's kind of the point of my one school of thought. Without calling it right or wrong, the 'arms' of the 'militia' should hypothetically scale in capability to the 'arms' of the state, such that it always remains possible.

Of course, the point where you get into dangerous thinking is when you give anyone with the will to do so the ability to irradiate mass population centers regardless of political orientation. Likewise, also irradiating the midwest, which is the de facto producer of food for the country.

I never said it was an easy situation to deal with, but the alternative is effectively leaving the people at the mercy of the goodwill of the state, which I'm fairly certain was not the intention of our "founding fathers" either. Not necessarily on either side here. Just trying to look at it objectively.

 Slarg232 wrote:

No matter what, a large scale conflict in the United States would end with the rebellion winning.

Psst, don't tell the Confederacy. They might get more sullen about that whole Civil War thing.

 Easy E wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:

No matter what, a large scale conflict in the United States would end with the rebellion winning.

Psst, don't tell the Confederacy. They might get more sullen about that whole Civil War thing.

Um....

You do realize that that wasn't citizens vs government, but more of government vs government, right? The Southern States broke off due to lower standards of living, slaves, and various other problems cropping up from the government. The North didn't like what the South was doing, and vice versa, dividing the entire nation.

If the citizens, which is all fifty states, don't like what the government is doing, which occupies a smaller "state" thing, the rebellion would have the man power, the equipment (If you assume even 5% of the Military defects to the rebellion) and the area, where as the government just has money. Money could also be given to the Rebels via other countries (Russia and China would LOVE to see chaos in the US, and I'm sure a couple of European countries would give one side or the other money).

Our troops (whatever-higher-power-you-believe-in bless them) have a hard time holding ground in a landmass that is maybe the size of Texas and California put together. Do you really think they could occupy the entire US?

5% of the U.S. military defecting in the event of a mass citizen's rebellion is laughably optimistic... for the U.S. government. 50% at a minimum, probably more, and that's just regular bodies of troops. National Guard and Reserve units would imho pretty much uniformly stand with their communities.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:5% of the U.S. military defecting in the event of a mass citizen's rebellion is laughably optimistic... for the U.S. government. 50% at a minimum, probably more, and that's just regular bodies of troops. National Guard and Reserve units would imho pretty much uniformly stand with their communities.

I'm not so sure. I think the institutionalization has a pretty dramatic effect, and given the attitudes of many people who immediately called Snowden a traitor for simply not obeying his "orders" despite those orders being morally wrong, I think guessing 50% is laughably high.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:5% of the U.S. military defecting in the event of a mass citizen's rebellion is laughably optimistic... for the U.S. government. 50% at a minimum, probably more, and that's just regular bodies of troops. National Guard and Reserve units would imho pretty much uniformly stand with their communities.

I'm not so sure. I think the institutionalization has a pretty dramatic effect, and given the attitudes of many people who immediately called Snowden a traitor for simply not obeying his "orders" despite those orders being morally wrong, I think guessing 50% is laughably high.

Uh... facing down your neighbors in your American Town is VASTLY different than opinionating some dude in China as a traiter.

Most of my Family has been or is currently in the Military... they'd expressed to me that 50% is laughably too low.

I think it would be about 15% personally.

Even so, that 15% would quickly be able to train any sort of civilian troops, so only the Elite Navy Seals/Pararescue/Rangers would have the training advantage.

Attention: Due to certain vocabulary used in this conversation, the NSA is now monitoring you all for potential disloyalty and traitorous behavior, you will be possibly detained without due process for an unspecified period of time as per post 9/11 protocols as Liberties were voted away for the sake of State Security.

Big Brother is watching, Always.

You will never have a revolution in the US. Despite any flaws the federal government may have, it's still competent and accountable enough to ensure we don't fall into the downward spiral that culminates in such horrible conditions that people are willing to risk their lives on the weakest chance that things may improve.

The recent revolutions in the middle east weren't people saying "hey, why don't we burn everything to the ground because the government is overstepping some abstract philosophical idea," it was "we can't continue to live in these conditions, I and everyone I know may die horribly but I'm too pissed off to have any sense of self-preservation left."

Unless China the PRC overtakes us and destroys us economically, things won't enter such a death spiral here, and if that happens... well, we'll just have to hope that the US can keep them (the PRC) down, and improvements in manufacturing technology will render their de facto slave labor uneconomic when the costs of shipping are considered.

Edit: put "China" instead of "the PRC"; China is basically a protectorate of the US, the PRC is the hostile regime occupying mainland China.

Hmmm, Cutting on social programs while handing massive handouts to Big OIl and other wealthy types is more than a mere abstract idea.

Corporations making laws and getting them passed is not making people angry enough(Monsanto Protection act, and the Law preventing whistleblowers from spying on abuses in the agro business in the midwest?)

The idea that we are gonna be restricted and spied on is not making folks angry enough.

I guess you are right, I have searched all my TV remotes and have yet to find the button marked "revolution" on it.

Um... wait, what?

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:5% of the U.S. military defecting in the event of a mass citizen's rebellion is laughably optimistic... for the U.S. government. 50% at a minimum, probably more, and that's just regular bodies of troops. National Guard and Reserve units would imho pretty much uniformly stand with their communities.

I'm not so sure. I think the institutionalization has a pretty dramatic effect, and given the attitudes of many people who immediately called Snowden a traitor for simply not obeying his "orders" despite those orders being morally wrong, I think guessing 50% is laughably high.

Uh... facing down your neighbors in your American Town is VASTLY different than opinionating some dude in China as a traiter.

Most of my Family has been or is currently in the Military... they'd expressed to me that 50% is laughably too low.

Oh, you think so? Because Snowden has been "othered" pretty severely and quickly. If you were in the military, you might not want to face down your neighbours. But (you're from MO, right?) I bet you'd have few issues taking down a "domestic terrorist threat" in, say, Oregon.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Hmmm, Cutting on social programs while handing massive handouts to Big OIl and other wealthy types is more than a mere abstract idea.

Corporations making laws and getting them passed is not making people angry enough(Monsanto Protection act, and the Law preventing whistleblowers from spying on abuses in the agro business in the midwest?)

The idea that we are gonna be restricted and spied on is not making folks angry enough.

I guess you are right, I have searched all my TV remotes and have yet to find the button marked "revolution" on it.

Compared to a bankrupt state disappearing you, your family, and everyone you've ever met for mentioning any of these things, yeah, those are pretty much "transgressions of abstract philosophical ideals".

First world revolutionary wannabes don't seem to realize that what revolutionaries elsewhere fight for is the slimmest chance that things might be a tenth as good as our worst. What you see as a miserable, intolerable state of affairs is like a magical fantasy-land ideal that they can barely dream of, and they're willing to risk everything just to have the chance at something worse than we can even properly conceptualize.

This is hyperbole to an extent, but seriously, things are damn good here, and the trend is towards further improvement, for all the flaws and excesses along the way.

I'm saying 50% based on personal experience with a large body of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Most of us are in it for the country, not the government, and if the government turns on the country you get the military turning on the government. Maybe they spend all the money they save by rationing health care in Canada on brainwashing your military into good little drones but that's just not how it works down here.

I recall a time, back when news was actually hard hitting journalism where half of what has taken place here with the erosion of liberties and the erection of a growing police state would be vilified to the max but as we see the new trend in news is to regurgitate what the government spews out, and who is leading in popularity on reality shows and what is Lady Gaga wearing next? We no longer have the kind of journalism that toppled the Nixon Regime, or exposed the kinds of disasters like "Love Canal" where some pretty dangerous stuff occurs, not that it makes any of the other things elsewhere in the world that causes revolutions less important, but in pieces we are headed there as can be seen in the non main stream media

We as a nation are under the control of a Banker system, the same bankers that make the conditions in the so called 3rd world a reality, we do have the reality here that is glossed over of "Corporate Welfare" and "Upward Socialism" where the majority of the cash flow that is so important heads to one or a few, same as in these other nations where folks are so angry, yes we do live better than most nations, same in Europe and Japan in comparison. Now for such a wealthy nation as the US the unemployment figures are likely in reality far higher as those who never enrolled in unemployment are not used and neither are those whose unemployment ended, even if they have not been hired. We have the other problem of food being discarded and wasted for sitting too long unbought on store shelves, 14million tons each year tossed to the landfills, that food could have been used to feed the hungry in this nation, or help the people revolting over seas no? of course not, that would cut profits so heavily! You seem to think only abstract issues are here in America, but it is a measure of scale and relativity in each nation. It just gets so much worse in the other nations because they are already on the shoestring budget as is

Here the government can afford to use technology to monitor us and make a move only if we act on the words, over there they have not such so act on the words pre-emptively, sad as it is for them to do so as it shows governments in fear of their citizens to the extreme end.
Things are damn good here only so long as you have enough money to be comfortable.