[HCountyGuy]

This is my personal opinion on the state of things as they are today. Likely to get me put on a watch-list if I'm not already, but enough is enough.

Most of us gun owners love to parade the Second Amendment as our power check versus an oppressive government. Inspiring speeches about how our forefathers battled for independence from an oppressive regime are levied as veiled threats against the current power to watch their collective backside. So in the face of all this talk, where's the action?

Nowhere, and I doubt it ever will be.

If there was a time to start fighting back, it's been behind us for years now. Countless over-reaches by the government in the name of false security should have been met with firm resistance, yet we've simply kicked and screamed like toddlers instead of standing like adults and refusing to allow these infringements to get any further than the mouths of those who utter the ideas.

We've allowed ourselves to be pacified by the ideology of "violence isn't the answer" and to instead "use your voice" when the latter has proved largely ineffective. Time and time again we voice displeasure with the way things are and are headed, but these complaints seem to fall on deaf ears as the situation gets worse. Sure, every now and then we get some bite-sized victory to pacify us, but for every battle we win we seem to lose several more.

A phrase we've all heard is "Actioms speak louder than words". So patriots, where's the action? In courtrooms where liberally biased judges dictate the outcome based upon their skewed "interpretation" of the Constitution? Yeah, that's been going real swimmingly. (Sarcasm fully intended)

Let's get real, we're not the badass protectors of freedom we make ourselves out to be. And that's not to say that I am, because if I was I would likely be dead or in a black hole cell in the middle of nowhere for disobeying our overlords. If we were what we portrayed ourselves to be, the state of things wouldn't be this bad and I wouldn't be typing this out. No, if we were, the current establishment would've been cast away, likely violently, long ago and we might have something resembling a free society.

Even these militias, who are quick to scream "freedom" and stand defiantly against the government over cattle grazing disputes aren't who they think they are. If they were, the recent 2A infringements in places like California and Massachussetts would've been met with the same armed opposition, and Boston would be having another Tea Party but with foolish politicians polluting the harbor instead.

No, we keep naively believing our voice and votes matter, even in the face of evidence like the leaked DNC documents proving the system is rigged! If our forefathers were to see the nation they fought to create in such disarray, they'd be disgusted, but not nearly as much as by our apathy or inaction.

Anyways, rant off. I've got to go wait for the FBI, or CIA, or whatever.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Pretty much. All this 'molon labe' and 'they'll be sorry if they take our guns' rhetoric is all one giant, toothless bluff, and that bluff has been called. Game over.

That would give big-brother government types EXACTLY the excuse they need, and with the overwhelming support of the masses, to strip more liberty from more people, intensify domestic surveillance, basically implement permanent martial law, and suspend due process "only until the war on terror is won."

So then the 2A rights are lost for good. If the MA and CA gun owners fight back, the government will strip their rights even further. If they do nothing, the rights only get stripped more slowly. Either way, 50 years from now the result will be the same-UK style gun bans.

 

[mb90535im]

I'll ask the same question I always ask when threads like this one come up.
"Who are you going to shoot?"

 

[gunsmoker]

H.County... So you're saying that because you aren't getting the results you want through the democratic political process, you want to take your guns and start a revolution / civil war / insurgency against the government?

Basically, the rule law is only worthy of respecting when you agree with it, and when you don't, you are going to revert to "might makes right" no matter what the rest of your fellow Americans think?


Three Percent is all it takes. Eff the other 97%.
They don't count. They don't have enough guns. We're a tiny minority, but we're more dangerous, and that's what counts.

NOW MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS:

What are you going to do when you realize that not even 0.03% (three out of ten thousand) are willing to take up arms against cops and American soldiers right now?

Are you gonna go it alone?


Or will you reconsider your thinking?

 

[HCountyGuy]

I certainly said nothing of the sort, but you're welcome to your interpretation.

Is the disliking the rule of law as it stands so different from our forefathers' position when they didn't like how the British were mistreating them?

And let's be honest about how our fellow Americans think - they don't unless the media tells them what to think. And, as documented by the DNC files, the media is largely controlled by the Democratic Party.

My rant was aimed to reflect on how pacified most of us have become, and our all bark and no bite has landed us where we are now. Even these militias who claim to be agents of liberty are quiet in the face of gross overreach and infringements.

We have sufficient proof the system is arguably beyond screwed. The Democratic nominee race was rigged, do you think the Presidential election won't be? It's not as though those in the electoral college actually HAVE to vote as those they represent wish. Even then, who's to say the reported votes are accurate and not the result of meddling from either side?

Am I going to take up arms? No, not likely unless things just go to complete garbage.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I'll ask the same question I always ask when threads like this one come up.
"Who are you going to shoot?"

Whom.

Subject. Object. Verb. Who is for the subject. Whom is for the object. So if you are to shoot, then you are the subject, shoot is the verb, and you do not shoot a who, but a whom.

If you substitute he or him, it makes things much easier to understand, because Americans have "given up" on properly spoken English, so you never hear who or whom used properly in conversation. Accordingly, using whom in its proper place sounds strange to the American ear. He and him are still used in their appropriate places in spoken English, however, so if you substitute those for who and whom, you will almost always use who and whom correctly. You do not shoot he, do you? You shoot him. Accordingly, you also shoot whom.

He=who. Him=Whom.

It is a very good question you ask of the OP, by the way.

 

[Bkite]

H.County... So you're saying that because you aren't getting the results you want through the democratic political process, you want to take your guns and start a revolution / civil war / insurgency against the government?

Basically, the rule law is only worthy of respecting when you agree with it, and when you don't, you are going to revert to "might makes right" no matter what the rest of your fellow Americans think?

Three Percent is all it takes. Eff the other 97%.
They don't count. They don't have enough guns. We're a tiny minority, but we're more dangerous, and that's what counts.

NOW MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS:

What are you going to do when you realize that not even 0.03% (three out of ten thousand) are willing to take up arms against cops and American soldiers right now?

Are you gonna go it alone?

Or will you reconsider your thinking?

The problem with your "rule of law" blather above is that an entire large group of people who want the Constitution gone, American pride and patriotism killed, and any remembrance of America as the once greatest nation on earth put down, are illegally importing millions of future voters who will accomplish those goals "legally".

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...rgia-might-happen-much-sooner-than-you-think/

Then we can have happening all over the US what is happening in California.

 

[AtlPhilip]

So you're saying that because you aren't getting the results you want through the democratic political process, you want to take your guns and start a revolution / civil war / insurgency against the government?

Basically, the rule law is only worthy of respecting when you agree with it, and when you don't, you are going to revert to "might makes right" no matter what the rest of your fellow Americans think?

What I believe he's saying, and I agree, is that our democratic political process and the rule of law have failed. They are nothing but a facade to keep the masses from seeing the man behind the curtain.

Every single day we see blatantly unconstitutional processes/practices blessed by a judge and practiced ubiquitously with impunity. One need not look any further than "civil"penalties and "civil" asset forfeiture to see the US Constitution being used as a urinal liner.

As for "shall not be infringed", we have an entire federal bureau dedicated to the violation of that one amendment. We just had the President of the United States give a speech on his plans to violate it further, and a candidate running on the platform of violating it more than anyone else currently in office, or running for office.

The entire "war' on drugs, and the FDA schedules "justifying" it, are in violation of the 10th amendment. And we have MILLIONS of people in prison for possessing a plant that the federal government has absolutely no authority to regulate, let alone criminalize.

So at least we have the 4th amendment, right? Nope. The government spends $15 billion a yer actively violating that one.

Right to contract? Nope. You will pay what we say, with the benefits we demand. And you damn well better bake for who we tell you to.

"Basically, the rule law is only worthy of respecting when it is upheld and applied equally to everyone you agree with it, and when the rule of law has been set aside in favor of the rule of men you don't, you are going to revert to the rule of law "might makes right" no matter what the rest of your fellow Americans think?"

FTFY

 

[mb90535im]

Whom.

Subject. Object. Verb. Who is for the subject. Whom is for the object. So if you are to shoot, then you are the subject, shoot is the verb, and you do not shoot a who, but a whom.

If you substitute he or him, it makes things much easier to understand, because Americans have "given up" on properly spoken English, so you never hear who or whom used properly in conversation. Accordingly, using whom in its proper place sounds strange to the American ear. He and him are still used in their appropriate places in spoken English, however, so if you substitute those for who and whom, you will almost always use who and whom correctly. You do not shoot he, do you? You shoot him. Accordingly, you also shoot whom.

He=who. Him=Whom.

It is a very good question you ask of the OP, by the way.

Thank you for that English refresher. I actually had a very good 8th grade English teacher, Mrs. Lucille Pack, RIP. She taught both my father and me. Unfortunately, I've forgotten a lot of what she drilled into us.

Yes, OP, whom are you going to shoot?

 

[moe mensale]

No, we keep naively believing our voice and votes matter, even in the face of evidence like the leaked DNC documents proving the system is rigged! If our forefathers were to see the nation they fought to create in such disarray, they'd be disgusted, but not nearly as much as by our apathy or inaction.

Our forefathers also said this:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Timing is everything. Unfortunately, I believe that time is quickly approaching. And it has far more to do with than just the 2nd Amendment. It's the ever-encroaching evil of progressivism in all its forms that has brought us, if not the entire world, to where we are now. Be sure to watch the Olympics opening ceremony tonight to see them exploit climate change and environmentalism instead of promoting the athletes.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

As for "shall not be infringed", we have an entire federal bureau dedicated to the violation of that one amendment.

Wow. I need to steal that quote and use it sometime.

 

[TITAN308]

Just switch sides, like me. (see sig)

All kidding aside, change has to come from within.

If anyone thinks change to the criminal justice system is going to come from outside factors, you will go to your grave without seeing anything productive.

Dreams of revolution are nothing more than delusions of grandeur from a bunch of disgruntle old fat white guys.

 

[moe mensale]

Dreams of revolution are nothing more than delusions of grandeur from a bunch of disgruntle old fat white guys.

Your demographics are entirely wrong for who's upset with this country right now.

 

[NTA]

Whom.

Subject. Object. Verb. Who is for the subject. Whom is for the object. So if you are to shoot, then you are the subject, shoot is the verb, and you do not shoot a who, but a whom.

If you substitute he or him, it makes things much easier to understand, because Americans have "given up" on properly spoken English, so you never hear who or whom used properly in conversation. Accordingly, using whom in its proper place sounds strange to the American ear. He and him are still used in their appropriate places in spoken English, however, so if you substitute those for who and whom, you will almost always use who and whom correctly. You do not shoot he, do you? You shoot him. Accordingly, you also shoot whom.

He=who. Him=Whom.

It is a very good question you ask of the OP, by the way.

Many writers believe that 'whom' is on its way out because it can sound very pompous.

 

[Bkite]

Many writers believe that 'whom' is on its way out because it can sound very pompous.

Probably racist to boot.

 

[Tinkerhell]

I think the biggest problems are ignorance, apathy, destruction of the core family and the post Christian state that we are becoming.
I believe the majority of the American populace is far more concerned with whichever "reality" TV show is on the screen tonight and as long they can have a relatively cheap cold beer, watch a football game and get by.... well what can we do about all that politics stuff anyway.

All of that would have to be fixed first. I don't know how to do it. I don't know if it can be done. Honestly I think religious, conservative, independent minded folks like many here are simply bailing water from a sinking ship. Back in the long ago a bunch of us would have gotten together and just left all the rest to their own devices. Nowhere really left to go however. Can't populate the moon yet. heh.

On the bright side I have faith and belief in God and I know that, even if I can't understand it, things are going exactly as He has planned for it to go. I'll keep doing what I'm supposed to be doing and bailing water. In the end I'll win and be sad for those that did not.

 

[TITAN308]

Your demographics are entirely wrong for who's upset with this country right now.

I was being tongue in cheek I admit.

I'm just pointing out, all the gun forums I am on, for all the repeated blowhard talking about armed revolution and topple this and topple that, overthrow this, overthrow that. A while ago it got old. Red Dawn isn't going to happen.

I use to be one of those guys and I regret some of these things I said to some extent. I woke up and realized much like those people who bitch and complain about government, nothing is going to change unless you put in some real work.

Or in my case, I wanted to be someone who contributes back to the community without becoming a jack booted thug with a badge.

We need to flush the corrupt turds down the toilet, from government to police, but only way that is going to happen is for a newer generation to move in and replace them. Armed conflict and change through force is not going to happen.

 

[AtlPhilip]

Wow. I need to steal that quote and use it sometime.

MP quoting me?? My life is complete, I can die content.

 

[Phil1979]

+ Eleventy Billion!

I think the biggest problems are ignorance, apathy, destruction of the core family and the post Christian state that we are becoming.
I believe the majority of the American populace is far more concerned with whichever "reality" TV show is on the screen tonight and as long they can have a relatively cheap cold beer, watch a football game and get by.... well what can we do about all that politics stuff anyway.

All of that would have to be fixed first. I don't know how to do it. I don't know if it can be done. Honestly I think religious, conservative, independent minded folks like many here are simply bailing water from a sinking ship. Back in the long ago a bunch of us would have gotten together and just left all the rest to their own devices. Nowhere really left to go however. Can't populate the moon yet. heh.

On the bright side I have faith and belief in God and I know that, even if I can't understand it, things are going exactly as He has planned for it to go. I'll keep doing what I'm supposed to be doing and bailing water. In the end I'll win and be sad for those that did not.

 

[phaed]

I think the biggest problems are ignorance, apathy, destruction of the core family and the post Christian state that we are becoming.

everyone has an opinion on what is wrong. but, the key is how to pick who is right? you each think you have the solution. you each have a vision of what the government's role should be, and what it should not be...and that everyone else should conform to it. unfortunately, all of these visions are different. why should others choose your vision, and why should you not conform to another's vision instead?

what you are left with, is a mish-mash of what the majority believes should be true, and they make it so by force...might makes right. that is the moral philosophy all collectivists adopt. and that mish-mash has brought us what you see today. you complain about it, admit that it does not work, yet you want to repeat the same insane cycle, insisting that it is somehow still the answer. tink, you are quick to call others ignorant...but does what i just described fit the term? does it fit you?

there is one other alternative that you never consider, because you've been taught not to.