Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Mosesthetank--I thoroughly enjoyed and agree with your post #313. I am but a simple knuckledragging redneck working with many over-educated and under-worked college graduates. Many of them (not the majority, but a significant number nonetheless) seem to lack that increasingly uncommon asset--common sense. He may be mental genius but has no idea how to go about translating his intellect into actual physical results in a real working atmosphere.
Wait a minute... Graham wants to have Jerry's kids....?
Hhahahahaa! Funny shit!
Great thread by the way. Definitely food for thought.
So what about this second amendment thing. I have argued it with countless people who were much more clever than myself, and some of them essentially argued for a living. Some of them absolute experts in constitutional law and all matters related. Of all of those people I cannot think of a single one who had any direct experience with a firearm. How about that, arguing a concept where both parties have no common understanding at all about what the object in question even is. How could the conversation move on to the more important point of what that object means and represents? I don't think you can. This is the point Graham was making. The conversation usually degrades to dogmatic boxing or arguing for the sake of intellectual masturbation. The video of the California State Senator and his 30 round magazine clip, 30 rounds/second ghost gun is a case in point. He wants to ban something that may or may not even exist. How fucked up is that?
If they come to my door trying to take my guns I will greet them butt naked wearing a gimp mask, if they don pass out or run away they can take anything they want to I dont want to mess with them.
It is pretty sad that people like me are more concerned about protecting your rights than you are. Obviously you were not born here.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
They thrive on our ignorance.
Can you think of another Chicago community organizer who also taught at the University of Chicago?
If they come to my door trying to take my guns I will greet them butt naked wearing a gimp mask, if they don pass out or run away they can take anything they want to I dont want to mess with them.
Sorry, sometimes it is a little hard to see the humor. I get it now.
For those of you that are not familiar with Alinsky's work, here are his basic rules. If you read them and look at how they coincide with what is going on in our current political environment you will see the correlation.
Also, keep in mind that Alinsky was a Chicago community organizer and attended the University of Chicago. Can you think of another Chicago community organizer who also taught at the University of Chicago? I'll give you a clue, it's the President.
Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
I am not posting this to deviate from the subject of the thread, I am posting it to validate some of the arguments that are being made on it. I do hope this is not taking it too far out of the box, I do wish to only educate so those that read this have a better understanding of the tactics being used to take away some of our constitutional rights. If you understand the tactics, you can understand better how to navigate to the solution.
If they come to my door trying to take my guns I will greet them butt naked wearing a gimp mask, if they don pass out or run away they can take anything they want to I dont want to mess with them.
Not mine, Frankfurt's:I'd like to hear your definition of bullshit
[MENTION=89931]RHunter[/MENTION],
Addressing politicians is hopeless because if they were all shipped of to Neptune this evening it is likely the same people would vote the same candidates into office by next week. QUOTE]
The crux of our problem.
Politicians have the power they have because they were voted in by people who largely have no opinion of their own on many of these particular matters because they don't see it as necessary to their lives. Because politics is a media event people tend to go with the shiniest and most wrinkle free candidate and wind up taking on some of their opinions. This is the audience for explaining things to. Addressing politicians is hopeless because if they were all shipped of to Neptune this evening it is likely the same people would vote the same candidates into office by next week. Should things come to a head it is this population that will be the most traumatized as they will flounder for a way to make sense of it.
I'll just call them, constitutionalists are mostly just, compassionate, & lawful men who despise the underhanded tactics used by the progressives, & want to "fight the good fight". They do not attack the messenger, but instead try to counter the message with well thought counter messages in an attempt to convince the center that their argument is better. Their vision more righteous than the progressives. But in so doing they are constantly on the defensive. Fighting battles not of their choosing. Allowing the progressives to push ahead slowly with their agenda.
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
I used to think that as well. However I found out that once the Con-Con begins there is NO Constitution until it is finished. And the Constitution that is produced may not even resemble the one we had. Imagine how bad it could become with Cal, & NY rep's involved.
I believe there is still a provision for a Con-Con to be called for, but 2/3 or 3/4 (cant recall) of the states have to agree to it. Been a while since I studied on the requirements, but I do recall there is a provision in the present COTUS for it. The ramifications/out come of same, can nullify the present COTUS.
ADD,...
Article V, the amendment article, describes two processes, one of which has been used 27 times and the other of which has been used not at all. In the first process, two-thirds of each house of Congress refer a proposed amendment to the states, and that provision becomes part of the Constitution once three-fourths of the states have ratified it. In the second process, two-thirds of states may call for an amendment convention to take the place of Congress in proposing an amendment to the states, and that proposal becomes part of the Constitution as soon as three-fourths of the states have ratified it. The second process was included in the Constitution at George Mason’s insistence to deal with situations in which Congress could not be expected to initiate the amendment process because Congress itself was all or part of the problem.
That is not true, the Con-Con as you put it is only to propose amendments. The states would still have to take those proposals back to their legislators and vote to ratify them.
The lie is the originator of the world's problems.
Someone needs to educate governments in lessons such as they are not soon likely to forget. Prohibition should have been lesson enough, but clearly, more is needed.
After the gun bans in Brittan the rate of murder did not decline like the politicians thought so they studied the problem of violence without guns, & passed a law banning sharp pointed steak knives in response to the new weapon of choice. Man is violent by nature it seems.
The lie is the originator of the world's problems.
Actually, since we can't have a lie without a human being present; most, nearly all (save natural disasters, asteroids, etc.) problems originate from humans. For example, did lemmings (or ants, or whales...) cause the world's problems prior to the emergence of humanity?
Gun owners, NO VOTE. Because you forgot to say who makes that decision.Oh, I long for a United States of America where the only voters are employed, educated, land/property/home owners. Then and only then will we get what we deserve as far as elected officials go.......
Imagine,,,,,,, welfare recipients, NO VOTE, food stamp recipients, NO VOTE, unemployed, NO VOTE, uneducated ( high school diploma AT LEAST ), NO VOTE, illegal aliens, NO VOTE.
Did I miss anyone?
As I read this I see people at first blame the politicians, saying that the system is influenced by moneyed interests, then later say that it's our fault as individual participants. Which one is it? Has the system been hijacked or do we get the representatives we deserve?
Did I miss anyone?
don't forget we got to get the working man to the voting booth! All of them and we need the votes to count one to one!
[MENTION=89931]RHunter[/MENTION],
I am not sure we are in agreement on how we go from here to there. I do not think it is a step from a desire for tyranny, to wiping out the 2nd Amendment to armed confrontation. I believe there are many intervening steps. Alinsky's outline is a sort of road map to the many fronts under assault. Speech, private property, taxation, and of course firearms are all the objects of focus for a change in an effort to effect a state of control that is something opposite what most of us would call liberty. The efforts of anti-gun politicians are to marginalize gun owners, the efforts of academia are to give the impression that we are a mass of mouth breathing troglodytes. We suffer it constantly and I feel sure that most everyone here has some personal story to validate this for themselves (see Rule 12 above, the the constitution is not made out to be a moronic document, it just needs to be updated. The framers were not stupid, they just lived in another place and time. But you and I, we'll we're just hapless idiots). How do you control the message? Media. It is axiomatic that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and look at the current efforts to set this in motion. Is the power to tax for the purpose of destruction really what the founding fathers had in mind? Of course not. But the fact that such an action is openly debated represents a sea change in the philosophy of much of our government.
Politicians have the power they have because they were voted in by people who largely have no opinion of their own on many of these particular matters because they don't see it as necessary to their lives. Because politics is a media event people tend to go with the shiniest and most wrinkle free candidate and wind up taking on some of their opinions. This is the audience for explaining things to. Addressing politicians is hopeless because if they were all shipped of to Neptune this evening it is likely the same people would vote the same candidates into office by next week. Should things come to a head it is this population that will be the most traumatized as they will flounder for a way to make sense of it.
To the OPs question, I certainly hope not. Not just because it's wrong, but because the consequences may be horrific. I do not want to see this attack on our constitution through to some spectacular doom, although I do want it righted. The reason for this is because I know very well what middle America is capable of, and the thought of its wrath being brought to bear within the borders of this country scares the bejeesus out of me. I know that pretty much no one is going anywhere. Sure, some people may go to Canada, or Belize or wherever, but the rest of us including me are staying put no matter how things go. I believe we are now at one of those intervening stages where we may be leaning towards confrontation, but we are not there yet. Even if it seems inevitable it is not a reason not to try to stem it.
I honestly doubt that any overt acts would be called for. I think the train already has more momentum than any act could arrest before it jumps rails and goes over the cliff. Best to simply grab a good seat and cook up the popcorn.
As for what follows, I think that's unpredictable. Aside from some prudent precautions, I don't think a lot more could be, or should be done. Precautions are better kept close to hand and not needed, than needed and absent. Stockpiling simply raises one's profile to heights one could quickly grow to regret. My neighbors are good people, good enough to share prospects with, rather than eyeing sideways.
Meanwhile, time to wait and watch.
Greg