On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:43:41AM -0300, juan wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:34:23 -0700
> Razer <ray...@riseup.net> quoted:
> > 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.
>       
>       Yes. And not because of some constitutional statist bullshit,
>       but as a matter of natural rights.

The only fundamental estoppel to this, is community support.

If you are able to couch your position in a way which shall appeal to
the mums and dads - the middle class (those who might actually be able
to afford and RPG, and who might be interested in a system that benefits
them more than the 0.001%, -and- you go the distance in careful,
conscientious and strategic recruitment,

then and only then might you seriously change the political landscape.


Perhaps consider not bashing the bible bashers, not emotionally berating
the emotionally beratable, and holding to some foundations which are
agreeable to the majority.


If you don't have majority agreement, at least after an hour or six of
discussion, then your platform will not be supported by the middle class
and the middle class will gladly support their sons and daughters in
handling you at the expense of their tax paid dollars and the govt.


> > 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?
> 
> 
>       Actually, who says that you can't make D-I-Y missiles, chemical
>       weapons and the like? You of course can, and so the rest of the
>       article is bullshit.

If you shall achieve a genuine change, you shall do it with support from
a not insignificant number of other humans with you.

The lone "I did it my way" ranger will not succeed in fundamentally
changing society.

Gandhi walked a thousand miles on foot and talked with thousands of
individuals, to build support for his simple, easy to digest principle
"the British shall go".


>       Now, the people who say that you can't are people who want you
>       to be afraid of the kochs, and want you to believe that the
>       government is bad, but the koch are worse, so you should thank
>       the government from protecting you from the kochs after all.

May be so. But we ought focus on possible pathways to end goals.

I assume an end goal being intended when words of possibility are
spoken.

Which also makes it not so difficult to identify those who are
defensively attached to the system as it is today, of course.


>       And funnily enough these people who claim to be against the
>       koch are actually the kochs' best friends because the kochs
>       couldn't do what they do if the government didn't back them.

Generally, I'd also say this is true.

Reply via email to