fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3136 ]

[ SECRET POST #3136 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3136 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 024 secrets from Secret Submission Post #448.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The idea that muh guns would ever protect you from a government that was so far gone it would decide to act directly against its populace is living in a fantasy land. Like this is on a level of discussing the importance of an armed populace because what if there was a zombie outbreak.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's ignoring a heck of a lot of history. I don't believe in American exceptionalism--I don't believe that my powerful country could never collapse and have a period of unrest. Or that local power might be the threat and not the federal government.

I think you're imagining I'm thinking of some kind of weird 1984 scenario. I'm more worried about someone like Sheriff Arpaio raiding homes in a specific area.

Example: a lot of lynchings in America happened with police support.

But yeah, the idea that rebellions and insurgencies against modern militaries are never successful is kind of silly looking at the history of just about everywhere.

Edited 2015-08-06 06:21 (UTC)

We must FIGHT THE SHERIFFS WITH GUNS

ummm

she's really not making an absurd point, duder

it seems so ridiculously paranoid and extremist that the onus is on you to explain why not my friend

See my reply.

Edited 2015-08-06 06:32 (UTC)

You can't imagine a scenario where a gun might be a deterrent to someone wanting to hurt you?

I'm not talking about Rambo, here. I'm talking about a mob possibly not coming after you because the dudes in front don't want to be hurt.

I mean unless we're reading different news and the US is a country where the authorities are always good guys.

If you think mob = authority, then you defend yourself with a gun, you are instantly an outlaw on the run, that's if you're not dead as those who try frequently are. It is just ridiculously unworkable.

That's quite aside from the issue of "why would you think a wide prevalence of guns in society are the most effective and worth-it way of dealing with abuses of democracy".

Also, fun speculation time, what has my (nonetheless fucked up in many ways) government done about the dude who famously declared his independence from the State? Nothing. Haven't tried to invade him, shoot him or collect taxes from him. Violence isn't really part of the rhetoric on either side. Whereas I wonder how I wonder how it would be in the US.

* wonder-ful typo argh

So which country is this where taxes are optional?

But it isn't Australian you see :P

Principality of Hutt River.

Declaring war involved nothing more than legal action, so cute!

No taxes have been collected by Australia for 45 years.

We have a lot of those people and they tend not to be hurt.

I think we have one guy who declared his backyard a state.

We have the Conch Republic, but people pretty much always considered that a joke, doesn't really count.

We have a lot of "sovereign citizens" and they tend not to be troubled unless they go out and seek it, and then the response doesn't tend to be violence. They mostly keep to their websites and hoard silver.

Well I mean they get bothered by the state for shit like not paying taxes, not carrying proper ID, thinking they can do anything as long as they use the Admiralty Flag (weird?), etc. But they aren't violently suppressed.

I don't think you really know what it's like in the US? I like that we have gun rights in case of a possible ugly scenario. I doubt I'm ever going to encounter one and it isn't exactly Mad Max over here. All Imortan Obama and his Warboys marauding

Edited 2015-08-06 06:56 (UTC)

If you think mob = authority, then you defend yourself with a gun, you are instantly an outlaw on the run, that's if you're not dead as those who try frequently are. It is just ridiculously unworkable.

If authority is coming after me violently enough self defense is a factor, I'm pretty much already an outlaw.

If a mob or a neighbor or what have you is after me, I'd much rather be using a self defense argument in court than dead.

That's quite aside from the issue of "why would you think a wide prevalence of guns in society are the most effective and worth-it way of dealing with abuses of democracy".

When exactly did I say that?

Edited 2015-08-06 06:53 (UTC)

Even when local government specifically targets you, you're not winning that. What, you're going to stand up to the trained SWAT teams with your rifle?

And yeah, insurgencies have had some success, but it's never in actually winning the fight, it's in bleeding the will of the governent to fight. Which is more achieved with IEDs. You're the historian right, the closest to what you're talking about is something like the IRA, who succeeded best when they weren't trying to get in shootouts with state forces.

Which is the closest example, and the peak was the best part of half a century ago with a country which was trying to play by decent ROEs. With the mobs in the long run all you're doing is empowering the lone actors to be better at killing. Which if you're to the point of mobs targetting you is the real threat. I'd much rather they try to stab me out of the blue because they hate meon the basis of whatever they're targetting me for than shoot me.

Yeah I bit my tongue on this, but we we've got similar "muh guns protect me from da gubbamint" loons here in Canada, and one example they love to cite is the guy who holed up in his shack in the woods with a hunting rifle and took out four armed RCMP officers, then escaped.

Sure, but that's because they were playing by the wrong ROE, like you said. If big scary Uncle Beaver wants to take you out it could use an 15-year-old army cadet from the armoury in town and have her set up a mortar out of your line of sight, blow up your shack, and still be home in time for playoff hockey.

The police aren't allowed to blow your house up, is what I'm saying. If they were there's sweet fuck and all you could do about it.

Yet.

Come on downsizing British military, give us some of your cool toys to save on decommissioning costs so we can serve warrants with a tank and drone support. We double plus promise it'll only be to give the impression of overwhelming force and to take some neat selfies.

Though I think those kinds of nutjobs are endemic to any large countries with huge empty areas with rural populations. Sure you don't get them in the UK or places like France, but any other first world nation seems to get a few of them (hell, they're even a thing in New Zealand of all places). I guess it encourages the idea that all you need to be self sufficent is yourself, and a paranoid view of outsiders? Would be interesting to see a full examination of the psycology behind it.

See my response to Ariakas.

The police aren't allowed to blow your house up, is what I'm saying. If they were there's sweet fuck and all you could do about it.

I'm simply talking about an incentive to make blowing up your house more trouble than it's worth. I live in a country that had a pandemic of bombings and lynchings against one of our largest minority groups within the lifetime of some of its citizens. I don't trust the United States government--specifically the US government, I think strict gun control works in a lot of other places--to protect minorities who don't hold much economic power. I'm basing that on our history and on specific aspects of our fucked up culture.

I think you're confusing this position with right wing wackjobs who are worried they might encounter a nonwhite person and that there's some kind of New World Order going down.

Edited 2015-08-07 09:56 (UTC)

That's just the thing, though: if they're allowed to use military hardware - like the government has plenty of, especially yours - blowing up your house not only isn't "more trouble than it's worth," it's not any trouble at all. Defending yourself against your actual government is a ludicrous pipe dream, whether you're a right-wing wackjob or a persecuted minority. Your handgun and kiddie carbine aren't going to help you against a drone strike.

But if you're not actually talking about the "US Government" (though those are your words), but rather some murderous racist local cops... maybe? It's tough to say. Shack Guy with a Hunting Rifle certainly did manage to "defend himself" against some cops.

What is it exactly you don't "trust" the "US government" not to do? You're talking guerrilla warfare above, and resisting occupiers - do you see your own government as an occupier? Are they going to go on an extended campaign to hunt down black people? With who, the army? Which has a disproportionate number of black service members and isn't allowed to fight on your soil? With a black president in office? Is this one of those the extreme left starts mirroring the extreme right at the tail ends type scenarios, like anti-vax?

I'm just trying to imagine how you think owning a firearm is going to protect some random black person from "the government." And if it's not from the government, but from cops, why hasn't that actually worked, in reality? Black people are allowed to own guns, and yet somehow the police in the US keep killing them.

Owning guns sure hasn't kept cops from killing native Canadians here, either.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #3136 ]

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.

Re: The thing is, you really can't.