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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I guess that makes sense, but I'd disagree. I'd say it's more the fact the politicians are elected by the people and derive their power from the people.

For example, if those in power tried to do away with the bill of rights, do you think that our military and police forces would enforce that? Of course they wouldn't. Not out of a fear of the people, but out of a desire to protect peoples freedoms. If it really was the US millitary vs an amred uprising, the uprising would almost assuredly lose, because it doesn't have access to what the military has (military weapons, huge funding and supply, good training, tanks, fighters, bombers, ICBMs, ect.). But an armed uprising would never have to happen because the people would not allow that to happen in the first place. Imagine trying to get both houses of congress and 3/4ths of the states to do something like that. The president could declare himself king, and that would mean nothing because the military would not support him or her. If you don't have the support of the people, you don;t have any power.

Your assumption is that the military and police would stop them rather than blindly go along with it. You're forgetting that democratically elected governments have gone under before. It just takes a charismatic leader with a message that appeals to the majority of the military and makes the public afraid of what will happen if they don't go along with it.

“But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -Hermann Göring

On the issue of insurrection beating the US military: You don't need those things to break an army. One, a civilian gun or IED will kill a soldier just as dead as a military grade gun or land mine and you can download the hows tos off the internet, in great detail, thanks to AQ. Two, if you have enough of a numbers discrepancy, it simply does not matter. Air support can't be everywhere, and when dealing with a force as relatively small as the US military trying to enforce tyranny against as large a population and across an area as large as the United States has, it's far less effective than you might think.

And if you really think you need military grade gear, the simple answer is to set up an ambush, and take it off the military.

 The Airman wrote:

There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.

A lion leading sheep will still lose. You need lions leading lions to make an effective revolutionary cell. And you need a leader who is more than just a military leader. They need to be a political leader, charismatic, able to get peoples trust and able to convince them that violent revolution is the only solution.

From what I've seen of "preppers" (and admittedly that is probably only the most crazy who actually get outside attention) they don't fit that criteria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


And if you really think you need military grade gear, the simple answer is to set up an ambush, and take it off the military.

This would probably be the main source of military equipment for any revolutionary cell. The Cuban revolution made great use of ambushes to acquire equipment and ammunition, though setting up an ambush against an enemy with spy planes with infrared cameras and other surveillance equipment will be pretty hard unless you do it in a city which increases the risk of collateral damage which could reduce support for your cause.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

This would probably be the main source of military equipment for any revolutionary cell. The Cuban revolution made great use of ambushes to acquire equipment and ammunition, though setting up an ambush against an enemy with spy planes with infrared cameras and other surveillance equipment will be pretty hard unless you do it in a city which increases the risk of collateral damage which could reduce support for your cause.

Well, two things, the reverse is also true: if it's the military who hands out the collateral damage, your support goes up.

Two: they had those in Iraq and Afghanistan too. They do work, but the issues with there not being enough of them get magnified the bigger the area you're trying to cover. You can also lure them into a prepared kill zone (using things like sniper fire, faked calls for assistance from local police, etc). Given the number of abandoned buildings in major cities, you can eliminate much of the risk of civilian casualties.

For example, if those in power tried to do away with the bill of rights, do you think that our military and police forces would enforce that? Of course they wouldn't.

Wait have you not kept up with current events? We're well on our way already.
You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights.
I agree a call to war is needed using legal means. Its our last chance to fix the Republic.

But I'm not blind to history. We're one catastrophic event away from it at any given time.

For example, if those in power tried to do away with the bill of rights, do you think that our military and police forces would enforce that? Of course they wouldn't.

That's no problem!

Just bring in 10 or 20 million illegals from another country and have them fill the ranks. Voila! Someone with no fielty to the Constitution OR the American people will have no qualms about shooting someone when ordered to. Worked in China (they brought forces in from other areas of China to quell TIenamen) and in the first American Civil War (Irish immigrants signed up to vote AND serve fresh off the boat).

 d-usa wrote:
The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.

So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.

They are amendments that were included in the first version of the ratified constitution - no constitution existed without them (excluding the articles of confederation) ! They essentially aren't amendments - they are the final draft of the constitution.

Yeahhh, might want to read up on your constitutional law.

 Xenomancers wrote:

They are amendments that were included in the first version of the ratified constitution - no constitution existed without them (excluding the articles of confederation) ! They essentially aren't amendments - they are the final draft of the constitution.

The US Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788 by every state save Rhode Island and North Carolina, and neither RI or NC held out because of the BoR. RI didn't like the idea of a federal government strong enough to shut down its massively corrupt state legislature (RI was by far the most corrupt state in the Union until somewhere around 1820) and NC just liked the AoC more. Either way, both ratified by 1790. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791**.

The US Constitution even then, went into effect in 1789* even in RI and NC, so their ratification was somewhat irrelevant as anything more than a political sticking point. I.E. The US Constitution was in place and in effect as a legal document 2 years before the BoR was ratified. The BoR wasn't even written until after Washington and Adams were elected. The whole reason it was written was because the Anti-Federalists threw a massive temper tantrum in the first meeting of Congress and the Federalists said "fine we'll do it shut up already!"

*Technically, the Articles Congress recognized that the Constitution was ratified in September 1788 and had passed it into law, as RI and NC were not needed to meet the requirements of ratification.

**And it's also worth noting Georgia and Connecticut did not ratify any of the amendments until 1792. Wrong story. Neither of these states "officially" ratified until 1939. Yeah. Two states didn't "officially" ratify the Bill of Rights until 1939.

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

there isnt a difference,

which might actually be the point.

the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.


after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?


it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45

This ofc was my original argument. 5.56 AP rounds pail in comparison to much heavier rounds. ESP at shorter ranges. It's a dang joke. Knowing this about penetration it's pretty obvious that they are just trying to go after the ar-15 one peice at a time. First certain ammo, then mag capacity, then it will be barrel length, then something else, then semi automatics. Screw them all, they are all traitors IMO. Ready to get crushed by a tyrant.

Again, thats the fear. This is just the camel's nose under the tent.

As most major rifle calibers can be put into some sort of "pistol" (even if its a Thompson single shot long range target competition pistol) somewhere, they can and will now ban them.

if not, why did they do it now?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

They are amendments that were included in the first version of the ratified constitution - no constitution existed without them (excluding the articles of confederation) ! They essentially aren't amendments - they are the final draft of the constitution.

The US Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788 by every state save Rhode Island and North Carolina, and neither RI or NC held out because of the BoR. RI didn't like the idea of a federal government strong enough to shut down its massively corrupt state legislature (RI was by far the most corrupt state in the Union until somewhere around 1820) and NC just liked the AoC more. Either way, both ratified by 1790. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.

The US Constitution even then, went into effect in 1789* even in RI and NC, so their ratification was somewhat irrelevant as anything more than a political sticking point. I.E. The US Constitution was in place and in effect as a legal document 2 years before the BoR was ratified. The BoR wasn't even written until after Washington and Adams were elected. The whole reason it was written was because the Anti-Federalists threw a massive temper tantrum in the first meeting of Congress and the Federalists said "fine we'll do it shut up already!"

*Technically, the Articles Congress recognized that the Constitution was ratified in September 1788 and had passed it into law, as RI and NC were not needed to meet the requirements of ratification.

I didn't remember that part from school. Point still remains minus a 2 year period in the countries infancy the bill of rights has existed untouched and is the corner stone of our nation. I remember the federalist anti federalist debates about the BoR inclusion - it was my understanding that the articles were always legally in effect until the BoR was included.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

there isnt a difference,

which might actually be the point.

the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.


after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?


it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45

This ofc was my original argument. 5.56 AP rounds pail in comparison to much heavier rounds. ESP at shorter ranges. It's a dang joke. Knowing this about penetration it's pretty obvious that they are just trying to go after the ar-15 one peice at a time. First certain ammo, then mag capacity, then it will be barrel length, then something else, then semi automatics. Screw them all, they are all traitors IMO. Ready to get crushed by a tyrant.

Not sure if serious or just trolling.

The first Congress under the new constitution met in 1789. Same one that then immediately drafted the original 12 Bill of Rights (yeah there were 12, but 1 was redundant with the now 1st Amendment and pretty much everyone though the one about common suits being tried by juries was pointless).

No. The biggest issues over the BoR were;

Federalists didn't see the point. A Bill of Rights was already standard in the State Constitutions and thought those were sufficient to protect the rights in question. Georgia felt so strongly it was unnecessary, they didn't even ratify it at all (CT just couldn't get the paper work in order). In their minds the States were still top dog when it came to this sort of thing, the Federal government simply providing a necessary framework for them to work together.

Anti-Federalists (and correctly I think) thought that without a BoR there was nothing to stop the Federal Government from make the States subservient to the Constitution (as in, that the States cannot violate the Federal Constitution), which is exactly what ended up happening by the end of the Reconstruction Period just under a century after the debate over the BoR.

I think in the end the Anti-Federalists were right, and the BoR was ultimately necessary, but all this talk about how the Bill of Rights can never be repealed is just nonsense. They can be. The provisions to do so are in the Constitution. Whether anyone ever will is another matter.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

there isnt a difference,

which might actually be the point.

the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.


after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?


it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45

This ofc was my original argument. 5.56 AP rounds pail in comparison to much heavier rounds. ESP at shorter ranges. It's a dang joke. Knowing this about penetration it's pretty obvious that they are just trying to go after the ar-15 one peice at a time. First certain ammo, then mag capacity, then it will be barrel length, then something else, then semi automatics. Screw them all, they are all traitors IMO. Ready to get crushed by a tyrant.

Not sure if serious or just trolling.

What part of what I'm saying suggests troll? The facts I stated about penetration? or the fact that the US government is after private gun ownership? Do they teach history in Sweden?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?

there isnt a difference,

which might actually be the point.

the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.


after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?


it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45

This ofc was my original argument. 5.56 AP rounds pail in comparison to much heavier rounds. ESP at shorter ranges. It's a dang joke. Knowing this about penetration it's pretty obvious that they are just trying to go after the ar-15 one peice at a time. First certain ammo, then mag capacity, then it will be barrel length, then something else, then semi automatics. Screw them all, they are all traitors IMO. Ready to get crushed by a tyrant.

Not sure if serious or just trolling.

What part of what I'm saying suggests troll? The facts I stated about penetration? or the fact that the US government is after private gun ownership? Do they teach history in Sweden?

Calling people with different political opinions to your own "traitors". It's so over the top that I can't quite be sure.

 Frazzled wrote:
You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights.

Er, did I miss something? PRISM never recorded actual call or email body information, I thought? It was metadata. "Call from xxx-xxx-xxxx to yyy-yyy-yyyy lasting z:zz minutes.", not "Hey Joe, how's the wife and kids?" Same with email?

I mean, it's still pretty frelling awful, but it's not the same thing as Fourth Amendment violations or anything, I don't think. (then again, not a lawyer, so....)

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights.

Er, did I miss something? PRISM never recorded actual call or email body information, I thought? It was metadata. "Call from xxx-xxx-xxxx to yyy-yyy-yyyy lasting z:zz minutes.", not "Hey Joe, how's the wife and kids?" Same with email?

I mean, it's still pretty frelling awful, but it's not the same thing as Fourth Amendment violations or anything, I don't think. (then again, not a lawyer, so....)

You did.

Although, they believed it was a very limited scope, but leaked reports gave anecdotal evidence that some calls/messages/contents were recorded.

And frankly, I don't think there's a law that prevents the NSA from doing so... but, using such information in courts. That's a whole different level.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights.

Er, did I miss something? PRISM never recorded actual call or email body information, I thought?

Where in the constitution does it say they can do that?
Why do you believe them?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.

A lion leading sheep will still lose. You need lions leading lions to make an effective revolutionary cell. And you need a leader who is more than just a military leader. They need to be a political leader, charismatic, able to get peoples trust and able to convince them that violent revolution is the only solution.

From what I've seen of "preppers" (and admittedly that is probably only the most crazy who actually get outside attention) they don't fit that criteria.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


And if you really think you need military grade gear, the simple answer is to set up an ambush, and take it off the military.

This would probably be the main source of military equipment for any revolutionary cell. The Cuban revolution made great use of ambushes to acquire equipment and ammunition, though setting up an ambush against an enemy with spy planes with infrared cameras and other surveillance equipment will be pretty hard unless you do it in a city which increases the risk of collateral damage which could reduce support for your cause.

The point of being irregulars/militia forces is that they are not actual soldiers with training. This can be overcome if a "lion" leads them, someone who has experience and knows what they're doing. There's plenty of these people living in the US. Not sure why we're talking about a revolution, though, or why you think everyone must be strong individuals for it to happen. Sheep follow the shepherd.

Can we get back on track though? I'm interested in hearing actual reasoning for this ban.

Back to OT.

Some argue that ATFIS is simply executing on a law passed previously.

I disagree.

See the reading of the law below. M855 was never originally DESIGNED AND INTENDED for use in a pistol, regardless of what folks are doing with it now. Nor is it completely steel.

Armor piercing ammunition
18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(17)(B)

A projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

Doesn't this mean that all full metal rounds (aka the enviro friendly stuff) are now armor piercers and can be removed?

1. Step one: EPA declares lead core rounds illegal.
2. People shift to all metal rounds.
3. BATF declares all metal rounds illegal.

WIN!

 The Airman wrote:


Can we get back on track though? I'm interested in hearing actual reasoning for this ban.

There isn't a valid reason to enact the proposed ban. The only reasoning that has been given is that M855 is a centerfire rifle cartridge than can be fired from a pistol and has the ability to penetrate typical Level II body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers. In short the ATF wants to ban it becuase they think they can get away with banning it. For all the years that M855 has been readily available to the civilian populace nobody has loaded an AR-15 pistol with it and gone out and used it to murder cops. Nobody was being harmed by M855 but the ATF thinks they can ban it via some rules lawyering techinicality based arguments and an apathetic and miseduacated public.

 Frazzled wrote:
Doesn't this mean that all full metal rounds (aka the enviro friendly stuff) are now armor piercers and can be removed?

1. Step one: EPA declares lead core rounds illegal.
2. People shift to all metal rounds.
3. BATF declares all metal rounds illegal.

WIN!

Aren't all bullets made of metal? Or is a technical term.

Mmm technically yes. When I say metal I mean non-lead.

How exactly does this round meet one of the two prongs? A Steel core is not the jacket.

 The Airman wrote:


The point of being irregulars/militia forces is that they are not actual soldiers with training. This can be overcome if a "lion" leads them, someone who has experience and knows what they're doing. There's plenty of these people living in the US. Not sure why we're talking about a revolution, though, or why you think everyone must be strong individuals for it to happen. Sheep follow the shepherd.

Can we get back on track though? I'm interested in hearing actual reasoning for this ban.

Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.

 The Airman wrote:
There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.

Exactly - go out shooting and no-one thinks twice. Do 'operator' stuff (which is still pretty tame compared to what would actually be really useful), and people think you're crazy.

This is because no-one, absolutely fething no-one anywhere, honestly believes that going out target shooting makes you anywhere near skilled enough to be a useful revolutionary.

The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.

That aside, there's a sizable portion of gun owners who fear this is a signal that the gov't is coming for ammunition in general, because after all what is a vehicle with no gasoline to fuel it? Whether or not that's true remains to be seen -- but the proposed ban on M855 makes no sense to begin with and should be tossed out, proponents of the ban with it too.

No, it is seen quite clearly from here - there is no scope at all for this law to follow on and start scooping up all ammo. Now, to clarify, I'm not in favour of targeting this kind of ammo, it is neither a sensible nor useful control on firearms and ammo. But just because it is bad law doesn't mean it's limitless, or the first of many future bad laws. It is, instead, a piece of law that limped in through a largely mythical fear about 'cop killer' bullets, reaching the absolute maximum limits of its effect.

At its best, all this is doing is giving the economy a small boost because 5.56 ammo is just flying off the shelves. It's like AR-15 sales after the Sandy Hook incident.

And now, I hope, you're starting to realise what the real game is here - tell crazy stories and sell, sell, sell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait have you not kept up with current events? We're well on our way already.
You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights.
I agree a call to war is needed using legal means. Its our last chance to fix the Republic.

But I'm not blind to history. We're one catastrophic event away from it at any given time.

Oh come on. Next election there is nothing stopping you from running a party called 'no more recording of emails and phone calls, protect our Bill of Rights'. No-one can stop you running. No-one can stop people voting for you.

And yet you don't even talk about that as an option. It's just straight to "a call to war is needed using legal means". As if the issue was so great and so important that millions will rise up to fight with you, but you couldn't get them to vote for you in the ballot box. Incredible.

 sebster wrote:

The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.

So, in other words, the National Guard is not combat ready?

In all seriousness, one on one, you're absolutely correct. The point of my argument though was that (bar a MASSIVE force increase ) that it wouldn't matter. Get enough of a numbers discrepancy going on, and the most advanced army in the world can be beaten to death with rocks and clubs. In the event the US government went bad, the Military would (at least initially) have it's feet nailed to the floor in cities and bases, bar large patrols in force. Too much territory + too many people + way too many guns + too few soldiers.


Plus you have all the fun that goes along with such fun like local troop mutinies and the issue of the loyalty of the National Guard at that point.

 sebster wrote:
As if the issue was so great and so important that millions will rise up to fight with you, but you couldn't get them to vote for you in the ballot box. Incredible.

sebster, maybe you don't pay much attention, but you can have the majority of the votes in an American election.... and still not win. In fact, if you're the wrong party in a given district, you may not even be able to get on the ballot given how crooked the rules for running for office have become.

As an example, in PA in some districts, you cannot get on the ballot unless you get more registered members of your party to sign off on it than actually live in the district. Effectively, unless challenged from within the dominant party, the incumbents don't even really need to campaign, because no one can run against them.

This is, by the way, why American politics have become increasingly polarized. To win elections, candidates need no longer appeal to the center, but instead must appeal to the further extremes of their party.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 sebster wrote:

The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.

So, in other words, the National Guard is not combat ready?

From my understanding: No, they are not.

They train on the weekends and they have their summer training, but if they are called to duty they don't just jump in a plane tomorrow and jump off in a combat zone ready to fight. It is my understanding that they do some intense training specific to their mission after being called to active duty and prior to being deployed.

I readily admit that I could be wrong though.

This is, by the way, why American politics have become increasingly polarized. To win elections, candidates need no longer appeal to the center, but instead must appeal to the further extremes of their party.

I know we have districts and all that for a reason and the whole "representative democracy" thing. But at times I really feel like we could benefit from a parliamentary system that would allocate based on overall results instead of this whole "Party X got 52% of the vote, but got 80% of the districts and gets 80% of the representation" crap we got going on right now.

Define "combat ready".

Military units do ramp up their training before deployments, but that's not to say that they only do the minimum training the rest of the time. Sure, the National Guard won't exactly be kicking down doors like the Marines, but you're going to have some decently trained and competent soldiers in there regardless. It's all relative.

 sebster wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.

Exactly - go out shooting and no-one thinks twice. Do 'operator' stuff (which is still pretty tame compared to what would actually be really useful), and people think you're crazy.

This is because no-one, absolutely fething no-one anywhere, honestly believes that going out target shooting makes you anywhere near skilled enough to be a useful revolutionary.

The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.

So I guess there's never been a successful revolution in history short of the intervention of an outside power...

 BaronIveagh wrote:
So, in other words, the National Guard is not combat ready?

If the national guard involved people turning up, shooting some rounds down range and absolutely nothing else, you'd have a point. But the existence of a chain of command, that organises all participants in to a structure that can operate in militarily effective units is a very big difference.

In all seriousness, one on one, you're absolutely correct. The point of my argument though was that (bar a MASSIVE force increase ) that it wouldn't matter. Get enough of a numbers discrepancy going on, and the most advanced army in the world can be beaten to death with rocks and clubs. In the event the US government went bad, the Military would (at least initially) have it's feet nailed to the floor in cities and bases, bar large patrols in force. Too much territory + too many people + way too many guns + too few soldiers.


Plus you have all the fun that goes along with such fun like local troop mutinies and the issue of the loyalty of the National Guard at that point.

When you mention local troop mutinies you're actually touching on a point that is missed in these debates. I can't think of a single revolution in history that lined up neatly as 'all the civilians' vs 'all the army'. The civilian population will split among both sides, and typically the military will show competing loyalties, with significant portions either defecting or having such dubious loyalty that they are kept away from fighting and effectively useless to the government.

And amidst the role all that political complexity plays in determining the final outcome of an attempted revolution, it should become clear that a civilian population that shoots guns on the weekend and might fight on your side is really not a factor.

sebster, maybe you don't pay much attention, but you can have the majority of the votes in an American election.... and still not win. In fact, if you're the wrong party in a given district, you may not even be able to get on the ballot given how crooked the rules for running for office have become.

Yeah, maybe it's possible I don't pay much attention to US politics. Maybe that's... oh for feth's sake.

Yes, there are issues with the US electoral system. Major issues. And yes, many of those issues function as very effective blockades against minor parties. But we are talking about an issue that fraz believes is so important to millions of Americans that they will be willing to fight and die over it, as a last chance to fix the Republic. But apparently there isn’t enough support to even try forming a new political party, or dragging an existing political party towards your point of view.

This is, by the way, why American politics have become increasingly polarized. To win elections, candidates need no longer appeal to the center, but instead must appeal to the further extremes of their party.

I've been saying that very thing over and over on this forum for probably around a decade now. But leaping from the recognition of a problem to violent revolution without stopping in between and trying legitimate reform is barking mad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkLink wrote:
So I guess there's never been a successful revolution in history short of the intervention of an outside power...

You need to read what I'm actually saying.

I have never said that civilians can't become effective soldiers.

I am saying that whether they become effective soldiers has nothing to do with whether or not they were going to the range before the revolution started, or whether they already owned a gun. The formation of effective & secure organisations, the will to continue despite casualties and counter insurgency efforts, these things really matter.

Getting your hands on guns and learning to be accurate enough, that's the easy bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I know we have districts and all that for a reason and the whole "representative democracy" thing. But at times I really feel like we could benefit from a parliamentary system that would allocate based on overall results instead of this whole "Party X got 52% of the vote, but got 80% of the districts and gets 80% of the representation" crap we got going on right now.

Nitpicking, but you have a parliament right now. All parliament means is that the executive is accountable to it, and it was democratically elected (by whatever method).

I think the term you're looking for proportional representation, where you get seats directly allocated based on your overall percentage of the vote.