On 09/21/2016 12:03 PM, Xer0Dynamite wrote:
> Show me the Law(s) that makes it so.
> \0x

Guns make it so. Law enforcement owns about 99.9% of all the military
style weaponry.

Have you ever seen this bit @Popehat:

In 1776, when the height of military technology was a musket and a
cannon, both of which you could make by melting down church bells, there
might have been something to it. When the contest was little more than
numbers of guns you could drag through the woods, and how to play the
weather, the government probably did need to worry a bit about
insurrection – and that might have kept them a bit more honest.

However, the first time someone tried that kind of thing, it didn't work
out so well. In fact, Shays' Rebellion just led to Constitutional tweaks
to make the federal government that much stronger. The Civil War led to
even more, with harsher consequences.

If 13 states, with the assistance of at least one superpower, didn't
manage to get their way through armed insurrection, what the hell makes
anyone think that armed insurgency is going to preserve our right to …
whatever … not have affordable health care, or to coffee cups that say
"Happy Birthday Jesus" on them?

Ok, fine… lets come up with a cause worth fighting for.

Lets say that Obama refuses to step down in 2016, and he not only
declares himself dictator-for-life, but he also starts dressing like
Ghadaffi, decrees that the national religion shall be Islam, the
national language will be Klingon, there will be an efficient rail
network in the United States, the writ of Prima Noctae is now in effect,
and there shall be martial law to enforce all of the above, as well as
any other laws that the President invents, on a daily basis.

We managed to preserve our right to keep military grade rifles and
machine guns, so we all muster down on the Town Common with our guns.

We tried voting.

We tried protesting.

This is a reasonable time to start with the armed insurrection stuff.

So, you, me, all our neighbors, hell our entire city builds a perimeter
around it. We fill sandbags, we all have ammunition, we all have food,
water, supplies, and most importantly, we are all unified and in
complete solidarity.

And we stand there, resisting whatever it is the government was going to
do to us.

And then they fly over with one jet, dropping one FAE bomb, and roll in
with three tanks, and in about 12 hours, our "resistance" is reduced to
a few smoking holes.

The Tree of Liberty will get its manure all right, but it will be the
manure that you shat out as you ran for cover, as long range artillery
rains down on our town, as we get carpet bombed from 35,000 feet, and as
the sky goes black with drones and cruise missiles.

We're screwed.

So… if the 2nd Amendment's "right to revolution" implication is real,
both practically and legally, it must also include a right to possess
tanks, jets, rocket launchers, etc.

Your puny AK-47 is useless. So, we need to have at least some of our
volunteer resistance show up with Stinger missiles, some anti-aircraft
batteries, maybe a submarine or two?

Oh, you can't afford that?

That's ok, we have some patriotic citizens who can.


The same billionaires who already own the government, that's who.

So what do they want to "resist?"

I could only see them wanting to resist checks on their own power.

So, if the Second Amendment implies a right to resist the government,
then that would mean that we need our billionaire friends to start
stockpiling these weapons now. We need a Koch brothers airfield with a
few fighters and bombers, and Adelson should have a fleet of tanks
somewhere, and I guess that George Soros would bring his collection of
nuke-armed submarines up to date, right?

So lets drop the crazy scenario of Obama-cum-Ghadaffi, and just think
about something we were really likely to see upset us. Do you think for
a moment that you, living in some apartment in Salt Lake City, or a
house in Wyoming, or a condo in Boca Raton, would be ready to go to war
with the Federal Government over the same shit that would get the Koch
Brothers to fuel up their private stock of A10 Warthogs? Really?

Because you know what the billionaires want the government to stop doing?

They want it to get out of the way of their becoming trillionaires.

If you think that the Second Amendment means what the Supreme Court said
in Heller, and you believe that is a good thing, because it gives you
the ability to resist the government, you might want to play out the
long game in your head.

The long game here is this interpretation leads to private armies,
raised by limitless wealth, all of which looks at our quaint little
republican form of government as nothing more than a paper justification
to have a flag waving over a few national parks."

Yes... There's more:

> On 9/21/16, Razer <ray...@riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 09/21/2016 11:20 AM, Xer0Dynamite wrote:
>>> Like Lessig's "Code is Law".   LAW is also CODE:  it's the Operating
>>> System for your Government.  Presently:  bloated and with a few design
>>> flaws.   Fortunately, it's Open Source.  Muhahhhwhahaaa
>>> \0x
>> But the hardware it runs on, the the Judicial-Industrial complex and
>> it's activating mechanism the Law Enforcement-Industrial Complex, are
>> closed source.
>> "Muhahhhwhahaaa"
>> Rr

Reply via email to