This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The "Majority Opinion" Is An Illusion

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the “majority opinion”.  The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking “What does everyone else think?”, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures.  We are, of course, very social beings, and our natures drive us to seek those of like mind and spirit in what some might call a “tribal imperative”.  However, this imperative to organize is often manipulated by those who understand the psychological mechanisms behind it.  Oligarchs and tyrants abuse and exploit the inherent social natures of the people in order to fool them into abandoning their individuality for the sake of the group, or some abstract and dishonest ideal.  When successful, the organization of a culture becomes bitter and twisted, changing from a tribe or a community of sovereign individuals, into a nightmare collective of soulless sheep.

Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them.  Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict.  In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others.  This causes a severe mental and emotional disturbance within a population.  In order to reconcile their conflicting needs within a system that does not nurture their quest for transparency, they tend to unconsciously cling to the “majority view” as if their very existence depends on it.  The idea of the majority view or the “mainstream”, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.

Their rationale is: 

If most of the population believes something to be true, then, by “statistical law”, it most likely is true.  Those who do not share in the majority opinion are therefore in opposition to statistical law; meaning they are behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy..

The problem is, history has shown that at pivotal moments in a society the “majority opinion” is usually WRONG.  Any progress we do enjoy as a species is almost always due to the actions of tireless aware minorities, or even a lone man or woman who saw what the rest of us could not.   

The greatest discoveries and truths have always been the product of individual thought and effort; numerous individuals working on parallel paths to generate new pieces of knowledge or more balanced and principled methods of living.  There has never been such a thing as a collectivist realization, or a collectivist truth, and there never will be. Collectives do not think creatively or honestly.  Their only concern is the survival of the system at all costs, and usually this requires a foundation of lies.

As a nation or culture edges towards collectivist tyranny, the battle-cry of the “majority opinion” will drown out all other reasonable voices.  It has happened before, and unfortunately, it will happen again.  In America today, I believe we are nearing the moment where the mass view becomes the only acceptable or legally sanctioned view.  With the 2nd Amendment issue alone, the most common argument by anti-gun proponents is that “the majority opinion is on their side”.  I’m here to point out that the “majority opinion” is, in fact, an illusion, and completely irrelevant.  Here is why…

Most “Majorities” Are Fake Majorities

A recent poll on gun rights touted by Reuters stated that over 74% of the American public supported new and stricter gun laws including a ban on “automatic” (do they mean semi-automatic?) weapons:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE90G1B120130117

Reuters pretends as if the poll is a sweeping vindication of anti-gun advocates, but what is the deeper story behind the poll?  Reuters waits until the very last line of the article to mention that only 559 people participated, which hardly seems like a large enough pool to determine the overall position of the entire American public.  Who were these people who were polled?  Where were they polled?  What questions were they asked and how were the questions posed?  All of these factors can be manipulated during polling to produce a desired end result.

In April of 2012, a similar poll stated a somewhat similar case, but also relented that a “majority” of Americans supported most pro-gun positions, including conceal carry, and the need for civilians to intervene during a criminal event:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5586

What the polls do not outline is the fact that many people are undecided on a number of details, and that there is no clear “majority” on any of them.  Polling methods are indicative of the mainstream farce.  In most cases, when a mass of people are presented as a “majority”, we do not know exactly how that conclusion was arrived at.  Who decided these people were of the same mind and how? 

Beyond this problem, those people who claim to be a part of the majority, are sometimes ill informed and do not have all the facts at their disposal.  If there is indeed such a thing as any majority, it could only be the majority of people who do not know what to think!  So, instead of the gun issue, for instance, being a fight between a “majority” of anti-gun advocates versus a “minority” of pro-gun advocates, we are actually looking at a fight between two educated MINORITIES, pro-gun and anti-gun, pro-liberty and anti-liberty, with an uneducated and oblivious public in-between.

To gun control propagandists I would point out that being able to lie to the unaware and con them into parroting your talking points is not the same as “having the majority on your side”.  There may be some utility to retaining an army of bleating sheep, but in the end what do sheep really do beyond bleat, except eat, sleep, watch, and wait to see which way the winds blow…?  

In A Republic The Majority View Does Not Matter

America was established as a Republic, not a Democracy, and in a republic the natural and inborn rights of the people, as embodied in the U.S. Constitution, are not subject to the mood swings of the masses.  Each individual has certain rights, including the right to firearms and self-defense, REGARDLESS of what the so-called mainstream believes.  That is to say, even if 99.9% of all people decided tomorrow that the right to free speech should be abolished, this would still be unconstitutional.  The .1% who retain the right to free speech are not required to adhere to such law.

The same rule applies to the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.  When shills for gun control like Pierce Morgan claim that the majority supports them, what they don’t seem to grasp in their collectivist fervor is that even if this were true, it is a meaningless sentiment.  Our rights as Americans are not allowed to be held hostage by 51% of the population (or any other claimed percentage).  This is not how a republic operates.                   

Regardless of what is decided in the near term on gun control, we as citizens, protected by the legal shield of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, are not morally required to comply, even if the “majority” says we are.  Mob rule is no rule.

The Majority Is Usually Wrong

As stated previously, the majority of people are generally ill-informed until the fight for a particular issue is long over.  Only when the dust has settled do the masses take a side (usually the side of the winner).  When the day finally arrives where we live within a system that nurtures free individual thought and our political leadership no longer seeks to manipulate the people in subversive fashion, then, perhaps, the situation will change.  However, for now, the “majority” cannot be trusted to determine the course of the future for every single one of us.  They are too open to exploitation, and too easy to sway.

While many see being a part of the mainstream as a safe method for remaining “in the know”, the opposite usually holds true.  The mainstream is instead a place where people go so that they don’t have to think, and such an environment rarely finds its foundation standing firmly on truthful grounds.          

If the majority was really a legitimate deciding factor in the course of history, then the first American Revolution would have never occurred in the first place.  That fight was won by a minority of men and women who knew they were right in the face of a malicious world power structure supported by an ignorant subsection of the populous.  Generations to come would be influenced by a small group of people who stood on honor and principle in the face of the tyranny of the “majority”.

Our True Enemy Is An Elitist Minority

Elite oligarchies are notorious for using the masses as a shield for their criminal behavior.  Whenever an atrocity is committed, the elite claim it was for the “greater good”.  That it was done in the name of “national security”.  That the “majority” is in agreement with their methods.  They do this in order to artificially inflate the size of the obstacle in our path and make us feel as though we stand against “the whole world”.  They do this to make us imagine that we are too small to make a difference. 

This tactic is also designed to redirect our energies away from the oligarchs and towards a nameless faceless mob of people who may or may not be aware that they are being used as cannon fodder.

As much as Liberty Movement proponents and 2nd Amendment guardians may despise the naïve prattle of the so-called “Left”, and the fact that their propaganda seems to be spreading like a malignant tumor across the country, from gun grabbing to socialized nanny government, we must remember that they are not who we are really at war with.  They are merely spectators in the arena, and though their chanting against us might make us feel as though our opponent has won favor, in the end all will be decided by force of will between the two gladiators, and the bread and circuses will matter little.   

The fight for liberty ultimately has nothing to do with awakening a “majority of people”.  Rather, our goal should be to gather a tireless and courageous minority that can weather the coming storm.  If we endure the crisis and remove the anti-liberty minority from the picture, the dumbfounded masses caught with their pants down from the very beginning will in the end simply follow along as they always do.

I have heard it argued recently that the gun control issue in particular is one of wider social implications.  That pro-gun advocates are too “selfish” to see the big picture, and that we do not care about the safety of our nation as a whole.  This is the collectivist methodology at work, utilizing the false “majority” as a tool for oppression.  The fact is, Constitutionalists are the ONLY people in this country today that see the big picture, and the only people who are not thinking merely of themselves when it comes to the safety of our society.  The average anti-gun socialist is acting not out of reason as they pretend, but out of fear.  They want us to relinquish our rights so that they can retain the illusion of safety. 

Behind this drive for a deluded sense of mainstream “compassion” and “compromise” is a concerted effort by the establishment to destroy the last barrier to overt centralization; the armed citizen.  The language for this is already being carefully implanted: 

We are a “fringe element”.  We are “narcissists”.  We are “barbarians”.  We are clinging to the last vestiges of an archaic philosophy which no longer applies to our modern and “civilized” age.  The vast “majority” is against us, and we should shut up, comply, abdicated the fight, and take our seat at the collectivist table while one still remains open to us.

Okay…so we’re barbarians.  We’re not interested in a “seat at the table”.  We are not interested in participating in the lie.  We are not interested in playing a bit part in the grand faux theater of the “global community”.  If the majority of Americans really do believe that the death of the Constitution is the best course for our culture, then the majority has gone clinically insane, or pathetically soft, and has abandoned all conscience.  We will remain in our little “minority”, and we will put a stop to the progression of collectivized despotism without them, and they can do what they please in the meantime, as long as they stay out of our way.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:39 | 3183978 haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

Operation Twisted

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:44 | 3183994 negative rates
negative rates's picture

One man and courage, make a majority.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:46 | 3184000 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

One man and a gun. Make a stand.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:03 | 3184030 redpill
redpill's picture

If the majority was so overwhelming then there is a Constitutional path to change the Constitution.  But because this "majority" is really not the majority, but rather a revolving group of stupid, bribed constituencies, instead of attempting to change the Constitution using the legitimate method they've instead steadily undermined it.  The Constitution is far from perfect, certainly in the respect that the judiciary has no enforcement mechanism which has resulted in numerous cases of them of being bullied, or simply laying down for the other branches for fear that their perceived stature would be diminished.  But if we actually followed the principles within it, the judiciary check on the powers of the executive and legislative branches would not be nearly so strenuously tested.  And obviously our country would be far better off if did not have the massive burden of government that we've allowed to occur.

But these issues were all covered early on, by Adams, de Toqueville, Mill, etc.  The danger was always clear, the limitation on direct democracy to prevent it is why the notion of a Constitutional Republic exists.  That temporary factions can rise up and momentarily possess a majority should not supercede the rights, will, or obligation on those in the future.  But this very basic notion is completely lost in the myopic fools that think a few more taxes, a few more sacrificed liberties, a few more regulations, a few more government programs, etc., will all lead to a better life.  Depiste the fact that it hasn't, and that it's getting worse.  We have gone from a country that was founded on wise principles that protected our freedoms from our first hand experiences with tyranny to an utterly infantile despotism that runs screaming from one fake crisis to the next, duping the drooling populace into giving up more of their life's labor and natural rights at every turn.  Utterly fucking pathetic.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:13 | 3184077 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

But they (Adams, de Toqueville, Mill, etc.) didn't have to worry about Al Qaeda..........

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:30 | 3184113 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

...and neither do you.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:08 | 3184330 CH1
CH1's picture

I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:23 | 3184385 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

'twas. It seems my lunacy knows no bounds.........

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:34 | 3184859 Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

How majority opinion is "formed".

Highly recommended read here:

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/flashback-mind-control-prog...

 

I remember it like yesterday.

ori

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 08:26 | 3185102 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Let's see.. How is the Majority Opinion formed?

Hmm..Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, SONY, CBS, NBC Universal, Bertelsmann, Vivendi...

Did I leave anybody out? Oh yeah--Operation Mockingbird.

Your thoughts are not your own. Neither are your "facts" about places you've never been, nor "opinions" on people you've never met. What you claim are your thoughts are actually symbols and words that have been placed and replaced in your consciousness, since you learned a language and watched images projected on a screen. "Humanity is the symbol-using class of life.."

However, once that symbolic matrix of common communication becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, you get The Matrix..Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, et al. literally own the pathways into your consciousness for a stunningly large time of your waking day. To paraphrase the Last Psychiatrist, "Whether you believe in it or not, It is very interested in you."

I suspect Oh Regional Indian knows this because he meditates. You are not your thoughts. Your thoughts are not your own. You can sit, breathe, and watch them come and go.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 09:10 | 3185200 trav777
trav777's picture

who owns and comprises the executives of all of these media entities?

Sun, 01/27/2013 - 11:35 | 3189035 Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

Depends on what you mean by own. Any Global Domination Game is a team sport, so I assume there are many voices.

The majority shareholders are probably just mutual funds or other vanilla investment vehicles. They say: "We want more money."

The Directors and Executives are mostly appointed by their respective Boards. So it would be interesting to know their networks and evaluation criteria. They say: "We want more money."

I'm sure the Anglo-Dutch-Khazarian-American Axis has a stake or two in the proceedings. They already have enough money (owning Central Banks for the last few centuries and all). So they say: "We want your minds."

And then there's whoever picked up the reins of Wisner's Wurlitzer. It says: "Pick up the phone or you're Permindex-ed."

The fact is the Machine exists. And it remains very powerful so long as The People don't understand that they call televised events "Programming" for a reason. 

Cheers,

Beef

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:55 | 3184473 Overfed
Overfed's picture

I got it.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:57 | 3184306 knowless
knowless's picture

did you hear they caught osama?

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:27 | 3184393 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Again? Holy shit, talk about having nine lives. Where? When? How? Like, OMG!!!!

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:37 | 3184420 knowless
knowless's picture

he was in pakistan, they made a movie about it.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:32 | 3184409 Ima anal sphincter
Ima anal sphincter's picture

I thought it was Obushma. Oh no...... wrong again. He got away with millions of dead souls.

Osama (IF HE WAS actually responsible for anything), only took out 3000. Chump change compared to the truly experienced.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:50 | 3184251 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

One cannot profit off a stock that goes nowhere, even if the value remains consistently high. Likewise, rules that apply equally to everyone offer much less profit potential than ones that fluctuate, or better - apply unevenly. Tell some people to obey laws while disobeying them and presto! You're rich!

Physics obeys the same rule. Want to spin a turbine? Create pressure, temperature or height differential and obstruct equilibrium with a machine.

Government is such a machine - an engine that divides and puts itself inbetween in order to spin the gears, via the rest of us trying to undo its crimes.

Laws are made to protect lawmakers from law abiding citizens. For that reason we have gun control. Gun bans themselves don't prevent criminals from owning guns. They prevent the rest from defending themselves when someone else pulls one out.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:41 | 3184431 S.N.A.F.U.
S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

Not to dispute the greater point but:

One cannot profit off a stock that goes nowhere, even if the value remains consistently high.

One can profit in this scenario -- just start writing options and collecting the dough.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:27 | 3184720 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

If the majority was so overwhelming then there is a Constitutional path to change the Constitution.

I often pondered that many times.

+1000 good post

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:27 | 3184844 Lordflin
Lordflin's picture

The Constitution protects us from nothing... Our protection resided in a society bounded by moral conscience... So long as that existed the principled agreement known as the Constitution had meaning. Once the assault on morals was successful the outcome was inevitable.

I would like to believe there was an easy way back from here... As I am certain is true for many of you, I have children trying to make their way in this world... Some new enlightenment as it were. But history seems to suggest that once society has embraced such corruption as has ours, the only path forward leads into utter darkness. It seems only then that men rediscover the need for light.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:25 | 3184107 bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Every Jew needs a gun for when the Nazis come back ... and we are all Jews, in effect (tho not the Zionist kind)

The 'genocide chart', with nine 20th century government episodes of governments killing a cumulative total of over 100 million people ...

The common element in each one, was government confiscating guns beforehand

Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Communist China, Turkey, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia and most recently Rwanda in the 1990s

Specific laws to limit and confiscate privately-owned guns, documented in each case

From the Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or JPFO, 'Death by Gun Control'

http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:32 | 3184122 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Yeah, it all starts with "you don't 'need' guns"...............Not this time around, Bitches................

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:55 | 3184173 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

It's too late to disarm Americans before the collapse.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:18 | 3184213 nmewn
nmewn's picture

On this day in American history, Panetta announced American women carrying "assault weapons" on the battlefield to be a good thing.

While (on the same day) Senator Diane Feinstein introduced a bill saying American women having "assault weapons" in their own homes is a bad thing.

Surely I'm missing something...or not ;-)

 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:34 | 3184589 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

as long as their personal body sovereignty is still up for the "voter" to decide, via Constitutional Amendments, I would think a means to defend themselves against government tyranny is a "good thing" - sounds like a "battlefield" agenda. . .

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:56 | 3184655 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I think we finally agree on "something".

The voter(s) don't get to decide on issues of personal sovereignty. Whether made legal or remain illegal by the state, its still your choice...with all the ramifications (or lack thereof) that come with it via the state.

But when some put pressure on the state to intrude on my personal sovereignty it becomes a real issue.

Which is why I had a problem with...you know who ;-)

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:28 | 3184727 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

you know who was/is a useful tool to incite "taking sides" - pretty sure we agree on that, lol.

But when some put pressure on the state to intrude on my personal sovereignty it becomes a real issue.

really good to read that, because that's all I was ever trying to point out - if the rallying cry is going to be "liberty" then this time around, some definitions are in/on order.

personal sovereignty is worth fighting them for.

 

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:07 | 3184793 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Yes, I'm very familiar with what divides us and they're very good at it...both sides.

I think the only issue between us has always been, personal sovereignty (and the responsibilities that go along with it) doesn't wind up costing someone or something else theirs.

I mean, we can't have people going around doing this as a society just because they want to...

 "A Venice man is facing several charges after allegedly going on a naked rampage inside a couple’s home in North Fort Myers Monday.

 

Gregory Matthew Bruni, 21, is facing charges of damage to property, burglary, battery and resisting an officer.

 

The victims told the Lee County Sheriff’s Office they were inside around 6:50 p.m. when they heard noises on the roof.

 

They went outside and saw a naked man, later identified as Bruni, on the roof, according to a Lee County Sheriff’s Office report.

 

They said the man then jumped off the roof and onto one of the victims, knocking him down.

 

The man then ran into their home and pulled a 72-inch television off a living room wall, breaking it.

 

The victim told investigators he yelled for his wife to get a gun as Bruni continued to thrash around the house, knocking over a wet/dry vacuum and spilling its contents on the floor.

 

The wife fired three shots from a .38 caliber revolver at Bruni but missed and hit a wall.

 

Bruni then fell to the ground and began masturbating in the living room before he ran into the victims’ son’s bedroom and began rubbing his face with clothing, according to the report.

 

The male victim retrieved his shotgun from the master bedroom, but never fired at Bruni.

 

Deputies arrived on the scene and tried to detain Bruni, who started flailing around on the ground and speaking but not making sense.

 

Deputies said Bruni sucked up the water that had spilled from the vacuum and spit it out.

 

They said he tried to flee several times and had to be Tased as he was taken into custody.

 

Deputies later discovered Bruni defecated near the front door and in a hallway inside the residence.

 

He was transported to Lee Memorial Hospital for observation. Doctors advised deputies they couldn’t identify “what Bruni was on” and were conducting further tests, according to the report."

http://www.news-press.com/article/20130122/CRIME/130122014?nclick_check=1

I mean...we have to have some sort of standards ;-)

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:26 | 3184837 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

no nit-pickin' over here tonight. . .

that story you related. . . what can I say?

more surreal with each line!

me, by the end.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:47 | 3184162 JimS
JimS's picture

Actually one only needs to go back to May 31/June 1, 1921, in Greenwood OK, a suburb of Tulsa, to see why citizens need to have the 2nd Amendment.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:14 | 3184207 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Except that today a Specter AC130 Gunship can kill your entire neighborhood from well, well out of the effective range of anything you can get your hands on.

Historically it was soldiers and mercenaries kicking in your door. Today, it's drones firing missiles at you. You have no chance. You cannot even see or hear it coming.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:24 | 3184221 rehypothecator
rehypothecator's picture

On the other hand there's quite a bit of public opposition to using those AC-130s half a world away to kill savages.  Imagine how well it would go over in the court of public opinion to have those things blasting away houses here in America. 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:49 | 3184757 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"On the other hand there's quite a bit of public opposition to using those AC-130s half a world away to kill savages."

Really, I don't see any. Cindy Sheehan pulled a David Copperfield right about the time Obamessiah won his first election. An anti-war movement does not exist.

Imagine how well it would go over in the court of public opinion to have those things blasting away houses here in America. 

I can imagine, the real question is: can you imagine the sublime and total lack of care on the part of the perpetrators?

I'm sure the Chinese were just ****ing thrilled about how Tiananmen Square went down. Did you see any Chinese Politburo heads roll for that? Any popular uprising or revolt? Public outcry, hearings, and investigations? Nope, nope, nope. It's the same story every single time. Because once the government has telegraphed its willingness to blow your neighbors heads off their shoulders with extreme prejudice, there's no a priori reason to believe you are not next, and that's a damn good reason not to make any trouble or speak out.

Governments murder their own people all the ****ing time with total impunity. Wake up.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:14 | 3184808 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

How are those AC-130's working out in Afghanistan??? Because a bunch of towelheads armed with nothing except AKs and Enfields seem to have outlasted them pretty nicely.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 01:32 | 3184920 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

For those interested in hearing about our tactics in detail, check out this interview with the folks behind the new documentary: "Dirty Wars": http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/22/dirty_wars_jeremy_scahill_and_rick

Really powerful stuff.  The interview starts at about 23:00 (transcript provided below).

 

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 01:23 | 3184916 Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

"I'm sure the Chinese were just ****ing thrilled about how Tiananmen Square went down. Did you see any Chinese Politburo heads roll for that? Any popular uprising or revolt? Public outcry, hearings, and investigations? Nope, nope, nope."

Toten..... you just destroyed your own argument.  Chinese CITIZENS where fuckin' disarmed long ago.... yep, they proved that they can make a 'stand' in front of a tank and grease the tread but that is about it.

As was stated by Buckaroo... a bunch of rag-heads with a few AKs, the odd Enfield and I would add a few more Martini-Henry's ( A hell of SLUG!)... have defeated to a stalemate each occupying super power....British, USSR and now the UK?NATO?USSA?GOLDMAN..... AXIS of GOOD.

We rest out case you moron.... I'm only comforted by the fact that you are not on our side. YOU would clearly be a liability. We will see how it all works out for ya!

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:34 | 3184250 Mike in GA
Mike in GA's picture

That would mean the military has been loosed on the American public and THAT would mean unimaginable open war.  In open war, a rifle is still effective against the command and control and logistical chain that sent the AC130.  TPTB will win that battle but it's gonna be a long, one-shot-at-a-time war, too.

TPTB still need soldiers and mercenaries and even with all their equipment, they are still vulnerable. 

That's history speaking, not me.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:39 | 3184743 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

"That would mean the military has been loosed on the American public and THAT would mean unimaginable open war."

Wise one, what exactly happened during the linked instances of genocide? Exactly this. The equipment was always available, even if they had to steal it from their citizens. The money was always there, someone is always willing to extend credit. The soldiers were always there, just trying to feed their families or whatthefuckever excuse they use.

My point, which seems to have been missed by all and every one, is that until recently, the weapons being confiscated were roughly a match for the weapons of the people doing the confiscating. No more. The Redcoat with his breech-loading musket was coming to take your breech-loading musket of roughly equal standing. The SWAT thug kicking in your door today is not carrying a 9mm pistol or a .22 carbine. 

I never said they are invincible. Guerilla tactics are time-tested and proven. I implied that the historical relationship between your firepower and your oppressor's firepower has been growing steadily in favor of the latter.

This is why a ban on "assault weapons" is truly a fucking slap in the face to anyone who knows history. Had the American colonists been armed solely with bows and arrows, they would not have fared so well. An "assault rifle" - semiautomatic or fully automatic, makes no difference to me - is a modern musket. By that, all that is meant is, it is comparable to the standard issue weapon of the country's infantry (riflemen, if you prefer).

If you believe the purpose of the Second Amendment is to aid in resistance of tyranny, you need to ask yourself: why stop at shotguns and pistols, the military certainly has not.

Just tell me, how well did those guerilla tactics work for the domestic victims of Mao, Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, and Pol Pot? In every instance of genocide, we find that there is never a shortage of people willing to execute their fellow citizens, or citizens of neighboring regions (e.g. Darfur or Rwanda).

If you want to be pedantry, yes they're still vulnerable, but not 1/1000th as vulnerable as you and I, and not as vulnerable as their predecessors. Did the SS or CHEKA/NKVD have body-armor, tasers, microwave cannons, tear gas, urban assault vehicles, urban drones, flashbang grenades, claymore mines, fully automatic high-capacity carbine rifles, high-calibre handguns, night vision goggles, etc. etc. etc. at their disposal? No. Didn't stop them from killing their fellow citizens with greatest ease.

They're only vulnerable if anyone if fighting back. Look at history, domestic resistance movements toppled exactly how many fascist, socialist, and communist regimes and on what timescales?

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:52 | 3184758 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

you're asking a lot of questions that aren't very relevant to the situation in this country and making inferences that either aren't very realistic or are also irrelevant.

let me ask you a couple of things, respectfully.  do you live in the u.s.?  if so, what sort of geographical area?  have you ever served in the military, or have family members that have served?

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:21 | 3184372 knowless
knowless's picture

if the US government starts bombing it's own cities then industry ceases, much of the military defects, and local governments/law enforcement stop cooperating... also the dollar no longer exists.

 

sooo yeah.. civil war time. collapse of empire.

 

current drone technology is pretty simple.. like.. you could make your own. also, you could position automated turrets that would detect and destroy them, but whatever.

not every american with the capability to engineer and manufacture such technology would be down for the totalitarian rule or genocide of their own people... 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:15 | 3184693 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

You talk tough, but are ignorant of history. All those peasants who were massacred by their government's militaries though the same thing: "it can't happen to me". Oops, it did.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:40 | 3184745 knowless
knowless's picture

have you seen my position on gun rights?

 

i very fullly think it can happen to me, and so encourage even demographics which would openly slaughter mine to own guns..

 

wut? are you an american? what sector. i've already divulged mine.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:05 | 3184783 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

FEMA II. I have not seen your position on gun rights. I'm sure we agree on 90% or more of the details. The issue, for me, is the fantastical belief amongst many that it can't happen here (and here could be anywhere), that if it did happen, the military would desert en masse and come to our rescue, that society would collapse immediately, or that small-arms fire is the biggest of their concerns in such a scenario. These are not historically informed beliefs.

In case I haven't made it clear: kudos to everone who keeps guns for defense purposes. This is not the issue. The issue is that if you think that when governments decide to murder vast swathes of their populations, they don't use all available means and all necessary force, you are sorely mistaken. My point is merely that "available means" has changed radically since the Ottoman massacre of the Algerians in WWI.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:16 | 3184812 knowless
knowless's picture

nigger, you ain't seen what i have. i can't put it down. sorry.

corpses in the river.

 

I have no illusions. i wait for the day i'm tortured. don't say shit about the last sentence.

 

keep it where it is, yeah, they'l slit your daughters throat. this is war. live.

 

you can be a pathetic fuck who pretends like your 9 is gonna stop it, or you can know that knowing the men that will hold it off may help you. yay! so like, when they come to put me camp wise, no one wil notice right?..

 

blood flew through the rivers, and no-one knew it happpened.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:18 | 3184815 knowless
knowless's picture

i watched it.

 

sorry.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:17 | 3184535 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

Yeah, but if you think you're important enough to motivate FEDGOV to mobilize drones and AC-130's to spread you around your living room, you're MOST LIKELY doing too much meth.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:14 | 3184690 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Alright, bigshot, what's your peashooter gonna do against an M249? Or any other standard US military weapon? Not a fucking lot. You're delusional.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 02:00 | 3184944 Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

Reading all your posts.  I think you are actually on the side of freedom.  That being said I think you miss a few points that are in favour of at least the .Gov system not having the ability to apply 'tyranny' all their own way.  Sure you cannot stand your ground against a Military unit armed to the teeth with an M249, drones and all the other hi-tech support. They just bring a LAV and let rip with the .25mm bushmaster - and it would be a world of pain.  But the entire current system, infrastructure and support is completely vulnerable.  Installations guarded by a few troops, supply lines that are vast, the operators of drones, logistics personnel and loyal troops all have families and do not ALL live in a Green Zone protected zone with rolling layers of defense.  Even if they did 'protect' those that are deemed loyal, the country side would be impossible to secure and we all know how that worked out in Iraq.

Take one base and grab a few M249's while your there to supplement the bolt-actions you used to provide cover support for the team sent in to cut through the 'fence' and take the goodies.  Make your own 'technical' with what you can find....

Unless they can completely disarm and 'find' all the toys already out there it will be a fuckin' nightmare for TPTB.

Interesting points you have made and thanks for raising them.

Peace!

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 10:29 | 3185390 RallyRoundTheFamily
RallyRoundTheFamily's picture

If your point is "to stand against the US military is suicide" I agree.

Ever heard of winning the battle yet losing the war?  I am not going to go into the MANY ways to defeat such a military force, but they are not invincible.   Every patriot killed will create 4 more.

 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:42 | 3184749 Taint Boil
Taint Boil's picture

 

 

The drones are untouchable but the facilities that control them are not. One bag of sand released in a low earth orbit could theoretically wipe out a lot of shit. 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:40 | 3184270 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

I don't mind assault rifle and high capacity magazine bans as long as government arms itself with slingshots.

What are they so afraid of anyway? They've got drones, tanks and bombs that wipe entire countries off the face of the planet. All of the suddent they're afraid of our pea-shooters.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:36 | 3184593 ATM
ATM's picture

Kind of funny to think that many small town police forces are being outfitted with MRAPS.... I wonder what those are for?

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:31 | 3184730 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

MIC profits?

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:06 | 3184787 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

This is what I've been getting at all along.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:13 | 3184343 knowless
knowless's picture

but my triangle is black...

 

it really fucks with me how people don't see disarming the populace as like, a precursor to horrific crimes on a mass scale, it's like they haven't read much or somethin.

 

yeah though, i've used this line when talking to people about gun control, just asking them about the history of such measures, how similiar things generally turned out.. all that. it's a much less hostile approach when dealing with people who are distraught over things like sandy hook, although, if that's where you're at, there probly isn't any way that discussion is going to end with everyone being happy.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:36 | 3184598 ATM
ATM's picture

It can't happen here..........

 

 

 

until it does.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:17 | 3184357 Tango in the Blight
Tango in the Blight's picture

Nowadays it's more that every Nazi needs a gun for when the Jews come back.

Nazi's being everyone who values freedom (as portrayed by the mass media) and Jews being the Zionist scumbags who want to control everything.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:40 | 3183980 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

I would like to enjoy the "illusion" of this market collapsing.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:39 | 3183981 Tijuana Donkey Show
Tijuana Donkey Show's picture

Have fun at FEMA camp! 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:50 | 3184015 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I call the top bunk!

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:34 | 3184129 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

After a few days you'll realize that farts rise.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:18 | 3184540 ZeroAvatar
ZeroAvatar's picture

Correct..........bottom bunk is where the 'honchos' hang out.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:37 | 3184600 ATM
ATM's picture

And that is exactly where the diarrhea ends up too.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:23 | 3184381 zanez
zanez's picture

I hear they have all the free water you can breathe.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:43 | 3183990 LongSoupLine
LongSoupLine's picture

yep, that's me...Mr. Fucking Conforming.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:59 | 3184041 Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture

I would never want to belong to a group that would accept an individual like me.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:45 | 3183993 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

I've got a major 'pole' Reuters can measure...douchenozzles. More propaganda...

(in reality I've convinced the girlfriend that 3" is a foot, I now refer to sex as 'Going to Subway')

Speaking of douchenozzles: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/biden-self-defense-yourself-shotgun-2...

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:47 | 3184006 Joe moneybags
Joe moneybags's picture

Mr. Smith, if you want to write an article on firearm rights, write one.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:54 | 3184014 Racer
Racer's picture

Yes and all those people who took to the streets and protested against the illegal war in Iraq with fake WMD lies were not listened to.

They are making it harder and harder for the people to protest now.

As for misleading stuff...it is of course well known to those who manipulate that you can get two different poll results for the same question by wording the question in a different way.

Crowd manipulation goes back a long way but it is very highly developed by the psychopaths in charge now

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:04 | 3184228 Bollixed
Bollixed's picture

I'll bet the farm most gun grabbers will also sign the petition to ban hydrogen dioxide.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:58 | 3184488 thadoctrizin
thadoctrizin's picture

You mean dihydrogen monoxide (H2O). Fucken window licker.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:08 | 3184797 Orly
Orly's picture

He was talking about the fusion reactor, hello?

:/

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:50 | 3184021 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

I wonder if Mr. Smith releases these simultaneously at his school newspaper.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:10 | 3184069 Sofa King Confused
Sofa King Confused's picture

I, for one, believe this was a very well written article and on spot.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:53 | 3184025 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

A democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding what's for dinner.

A republic is two wolves and one sheep with a handgun deciding what's for dinner.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:08 | 3184063 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Well, at least it goes that way in a nice anecdote.

In reality a republic means the few with big wealth have many fewer folks to bribe to get their way. It's more like a a few assholes with wealth and power who hire a few wolves who follow their orders and whom they arm well and a bunch of sheep with handguns (and no means to actually use them) who constantly bombarded with food that makes them stupid, and education and pop culture that tells them how wonderful the assholes are and how they should love them. At least that's the so-called republic we seem to have, with other variables you can add.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:43 | 3184282 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

The Founders recognized inaleanable rights, yet somehow they missed the rights of Indians, women and blacks. They respected property, yet somehow hesitated to pack up their boats and sail back to the old world where they came from, having acknowledged that people already existed on this continent prior to their arrival.

Republic, eh!

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:45 | 3184285 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Careful Julia. Inconvenient facts are not welcome here by the MAJORITY of ZH posters!

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:35 | 3184415 knowless
knowless's picture

sooo..

 

like. uhm, how much democracy do you want? like? direct one hundred percent? cause if that's the case then i don't want to be a part of your system.

I'm down for democracy on a scale that actually represents people, you know, around the size of a workable tribe.. but like, direct democracy with 300million people is like.. a bad idea.

 

i don't understand your point/s..

 

would you deliniate how an ideal government would function, not in platitudes and bullshit, but in like.. you know, specifics?

 

like, how would laws be made? and stuff.. name specific bodies of people and their function..

 

wtf do you mean by "democracy"?

 

and do you honestly think that a well defined republic with actual rule of law, and limits on all the obvious routes of superceding said law, would be unworkable somehow? 

 

like.. uuhh.. republics are limited forms of democracy which take out the parts people use to subvert the laws.. and stuff...

 

uuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...................................

 

uuuuuuhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..........

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:01 | 3184498 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

 We're between a rock and a hard place here. Start respecting rights when most wealth had been stolen, and it ain't going to be fair for those who got robbed. Start taking away wealth from those you think got it illegitimately, and become a robber yourself trapped chasing an infinite paper trail.

A hard reset, although needed and probably at this point inevitable, will destroy wealth. Then we'll start fresh and figure things out again.

Republic is a neat idea. If we went to a new planet, plentiful and uninhabited, we'd be able to set it up alright. Combine it with maritime law and it's finders keepers. Unfortunately, try setting it up in a place where people already live and you'll be displacing those who may not entirely agree with your views.

Republic needs a fresh slate to be free of hypocricy. Such slate does not exist on this planet. People are everywhere and only a portion of them are "Constitutional Republicans" and "Libertarians".

Do you use the "savage" clause of the Founders to conform the heretics? Do you let them be and seek some "free to govern" spot in a desert or at the North Pole where you don't run into the chance of having a non republican land owner stuck on a plot between 2 libertarians?

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:26 | 3184561 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

(+1 here, and several others elsewhere)

        Do you use the "savage" clause of the Founders to conform the heretics? Do you let them be and seek some "free to govern" spot in a desert or at the North Pole where you don't run into the chance of having a non republican land owner stuck on a plot between 2 libertarians?

Locke and Aristotle both seemed to suggest that you give the property to the people who use it best.

Alas, making a determination about "best use" doesn't lend itself very well to abstract formalization or static rulesets.

Several nearby quarter-acre lots in my 'hood are currently "best-used" as grass-covered fenced-in patches of litter.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:45 | 3184751 knowless
knowless's picture

pop-pop

don't worry, someones just remodeling their kitchen.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:12 | 3184800 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

This is the traditional view amongst one branch of anarchism as well - it is a crime (no pun intended) that any land go unused while there are poor and hungry people who could be using it.

The US federal government owns nearly 650 million acres of land. How's that for "best use".

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:56 | 3184768 knowless
knowless's picture

you're blinded by the past.

burn it.

 

do you want the lawful answer or the real answer? lawful being current law, real being lets get this shit done.

 

although many lose in either scenario when the government defaults there will be those that abide by the "rule of law" and those that abide by the "rule of what is right". please align yourself with your peers.

 

morality, righteousness, it will be the only toool at your disposal. when the jusry is actually a jusry again. trial by your peers, things move quickly, even with controvertable evidence.

 

there is no "natural right" to any piece of land, that is where your logic fails, you think that one group was here first, so voila, natural right, no. violence and death is necessarry, it is respect given to the most apt. i'm sure you are not racist right? so no geographical location is destined to a genetically defined group? no? saying that the "native americans" (a huge and varied groupd of individuals) "owned" the "new world" is as ignorant as proclaiming that the celts still own saxony, it makes no fucking sense.

 

let which society can prosper continue.

otherwise be destined to their pain.

 

this is what is called "history",

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:22 | 3184817 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

And what if the Amerindians (beacause I'm not going to list every single tribe) come to take it back, by force. Where does it end?

Why could not the colonists have bought each parcel from the resident tribe? Well, yes, because they were violent and greedy and did not consider Indians to be fully human, particularly the heathens.

It ends when people have the ethical fortitude to use commerce instead of coercion.

Refusal to compensate the Amerindians was an admission of grand moral failure, from the effects of which their descendants are still suffering and we are still benefitting.

Edit: as I just mentioned, the US federal government owns 650 million acres. Surely it's current utilization thereof could not be much worse than the likely potential utilization by the Amerindians...

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:05 | 3184509 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

Asimov summed up our situation quite well:

Moyers: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if population growth continues at its present rate?

Asimov: It will be completely destroyed. I will use what I call my bathroom metaphor. Two people live in an apartment and there are two bathrooms, then both have the freedom of the bathroom. You can go to the bathroom anytime you want, and stay as long as you want, for whatever you need. Everyone believes in the freedom of the bathroom. It should be right there in the Constitution. But if you have 20 people in the apartment and two bathrooms, no matter how much every person believes in the freedom of the bathroom, there is no such thing. You have to set up times for each person, you have to bang at the door, "Aren't you through yet?" and so on.

The same way democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are the less one individual matters.

(P.S. the last paragraph applies to the Republic as much as it does to a Democracy. There are no solutions.)

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:58 | 3184774 knowless
knowless's picture

you haven't lived in a seventy person household.

 

people make do, and there are ways to aleviate such stresses.

 

but yes, in general, the world has too many people, how bout we decide the groups we kill?

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:40 | 3184865 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

Economic prosperity, even of the relatively mean sort recently grasped in the so-called Third World, has a way of controlling the population, without coercion, by reducing (perceived) incentives to "overbreed".

When someone can perceive that it is in their best interest not to do something, they just might not do it. That is real economics in action. And thereafter, when those statistically inevitable few choose to have more children than necessary for replacement, it is no problem.

Of course, our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents blew it, big time, demographically, during the 20th century. And we are and will be paying the price.

What Mr. Asimov's anecdote failed to account for was the fact that such problems are inherited by posterity until they are solved, and that they may not even be perceived as problems until the ones responsible are already dead. For example, we're paying $4 for gas in no small part because our parents and grandparents thought, effectively, that it was infinite in supply, and invested insufficient time and money in exploration of alternatives. The easiest way out of a problem is not to get into it in the first place. Hence, the need for a a system in which the causal chain between actions and consequences are not mangled, smashed, stretched, hidden, and abstracted away. The state is not such a system, its time-preference is approaching infinite.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:34 | 3184590 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Well....uhh........geee......uhhhh..............

Let's see....uhh....... I would uh........

Money has a disproportionate influence in this current republic. Maybe the representatives are chosen by lottery instead of a vote. I don't claim to have all the answers. I leave that to demagogues and religious leaders who seem to thrive on having all the answers for ignorant. What I do know is that there's the republic we're told about and the republic that is.

Like currently dude we have at least two tiers of laws in this country, one for the upper 2-3% and one for everyone else. Plus the usual subtle levels between.

Corruption has heavily infiltrated the current republic. We will see if it survives it dude. Maybe we're not capable of governing hundreds of millions of people with concepts like democracy or republics and maybe we need to subdivide everything into smaller units.

So, uh...there's a few ideas. uh...not sure...ya know...if that helps or not dude.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:59 | 3184665 knowless
knowless's picture

when you drop numbers like the 3% i start to wonder. the 3% currently includes many individuals who may have acquired their wealth semi(given monetary structure) legally, and might in fact contribute to society in a larger sense disproportionatly then others of a lower level of earnings, i don't forgive abuse of wealth, nor do i abhore those who possess more than i on principle of hating wealth alone. I hate an evil beggar the same as an evil buyer. 

 

I can communicate with you devoid of ignorance and irrationality if you choose, but honestly, i've been breathing in fumes all day, and won't be much good. I make shit(objects). i give myself cancer for a wage. i am poor. I take pride in doing good work.

 

the vast majority of "wealth" is concentrated in a humurously small number of individuals, i don't want to get into power here, i want to talk about a constitutional convention, where we actually break down for the masses once again what is necessarry to have legitimate law for the benefit of all.

you talk about subdividing everything like there aren't real communities, and everyone just blindly submits to others decrees... the current government of the united states of america is not a republic in any true sense, it will not survive. facism.    you have no understanding of my political philosophy, or of my progression through this world, stave your assertions, lest you make a fool of yourself.

 

lastly, and for you to be posting here, "money" is not money, currency, yes, but as long as there are no limits to the creation of currecny then the privaleged few will control this to the detriment of the masses..

 

how can you read ZH and not understand the fundamental principles of my above statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUmQf6rIB2w

know your enemies.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:17 | 3184698 knowless
knowless's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-60DmAHWb4

 

if i could ever give her a fist bump/high five i would

 

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:05 | 3184791 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

here's a high five for you, for including both those links.

consider zeolite to ameliorate that crap you have to inhale. . . we all could use some help de-toxing these days.

reciprocity

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:26 | 3184842 knowless
Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:47 | 3184878 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

I had this page sitting idle while I went about some other business, hadn't refreshed to see even more inter-actions above, then clicked to *edit* and couldn't, yeah. . .

all I was going to post was I'm stuck somewhere between a lot of these arguments, I can agree with parts of all of them, and so I'll just comment on the music tonight,

and wish you all a bit of peace, wherever you might locate it, acknowledging the increasing scarcity.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:05 | 3184785 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

[quote]

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along,
restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote
positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our
great great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish
some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional,
and other liberal bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:  That a whole lot of people were confused
by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of Non Rights.

    ARTICLE I -- You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any form of wealth.

        More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

    ARTICLE II -- You do not have the right to never be offended.

        This country is based on freedom, and that means the freedom for everyone,
        not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different
        opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots and probably always will be.

    ARTICLE III -- You do not have the right to be free from harm.

        If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not
        expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently
        wealthy.

    ARTICLE IV -- You do not have the right to free food and housing.

        Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help
        anyone in need but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generations
        of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of
        another generation of professional couch potatoes.

    ARTICLE V -- You do not have the right to free health care.

        That would be nice but, from the looks of public housing, we're just not
        interested in government run health care.

    ARTICLE VI -- You do not have the right to physically harm other people.

        If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised
        if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

    ARTICLE VII -- You do not have the right to the possessions of others.

        If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens,
        don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a
        place where you still won't have the right to a big screen TV or a life of
        leisure.

    ARTICLE VIII -- You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their
    lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience.

        We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from
        going to fight, if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire
        world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every
        little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

    ARTICLE IX -- You don't have the right to a job.

        All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you in
        hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of
        education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

    ARTICLE X -- You do not have the right to happiness.

        Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness --
        which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance
        of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
[/quote]

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:32 | 3184853 knowless
knowless's picture

but dumb motherfuckers don't know which directions tools go!

 

i like your effort, but deliniate rights. the world you were brought up in no longer exists.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:47 | 3184454 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Careful George, the proposal to designate a black man as three fifths of a human being came from...how shall I say this without offense, those above a certain geogrphical line in the dirt.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 05:47 | 3185074 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

old times there are not forgotten, look away

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:06 | 3184512 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

There is no such thing as a right to form a government.

There isn't a right to create a right, either.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:24 | 3184554 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

"Boy everyone in this country is running around yammering about their fucking rights. "I have a right, you have no right, we have a right."

Folks I hate to spoil your fun, but... there's no such thing as rights. They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogie man. Like Three Little Pigs, Pinocio, Mother Goose, shit like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute. But that's all. Cute...and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, "where do they come from?" People say, "They come from God. They're God given rights." Awww fuck, here we go again...here we go again.

The God excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, "It came from God." Anything we can't describe must have come from God. Personally folks, I believe that if your rights came from God, he would've given you the right for some food every day, and he would've given you the right to a roof over your head. GOD would've been looking out for ya. You know that.

- George Carlin

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:29 | 3184567 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

Maybe we made up "rights" the exact same way we made up "numbers." 

Are numbers real?  Do they exist?  Can they exist?  Where do they come from? 

I'm pretty sure it's not GOD.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:42 | 3184576 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

Did we invent numbers? No! But we did invent a number of rights.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 01:51 | 3184938 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

Using Carlin's definition, I supose we have 2 rights:  The right to die, and the right to try to change our lives.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 03:03 | 3184985 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

“Live and let live.” And anyone who can’t go along with that, take him outside and shoot the motherfucker.

(George answered your question long before you even asked).

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:03 | 3184673 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

P.S. I'm curious. When someone votes down a quote by George Carlin, is it supposed to make him feel bad?

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 01:09 | 3184900 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Quantities exist, numbers are symbols for that.

A few axioms and before you know it you have mathematics.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 02:40 | 3184937 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

A few mathematicians and economists, and before you know it, you have high frequency trading algos. Leave those in charge and before you know it, poof! 2 + 2 = 5. Magic!

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:27 | 3184556 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Mispost

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 23:11 | 3184676 S.N.A.F.U.
S.N.A.F.U.'s picture

Women always had rights in this country.  Just because you can't vote doesn't mean you don't have rights.  Children have rights, but they don't get to vote.  Even though men all have rights (in theory), most men can not vote in the House or the Senate.  Most men are represented by others, just as women were when they were represented by their husbands or fathers, and just as children are represented by their parents to this day.  (Though considering the country's finances, children are quite clearly being very poorly represented.)

The arrival of the old world settlers began a clash between entirely different philosophies with respect to property -- one side that believed the land belonged to everyone and the other that believed a given plot of land is exclusively owned by one person.  There was no way for both philosophies to co-exist, and one of those philosophies is just plain stupid and had to die.  That those who believed in the stupid philosophy (and had inadequate means to enforce it) got the short end of the stick (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not) as the clash was resolved should not be surprising.  How it was resolved may often not have been "nice", but at least for people who didn't acknowledge the existence of personal property rights and more to the point didn't even claim to personally own any property, you can't really claim to have violated property rights.  (This reminds me of your post above -- the indians and the settlers were operating according to two different sets of "laws".)

It's important to remember that inalienable rights apply only to humans.  Many people of the time did not consider "lesser races" to be true humans.  Frankly, I don't believe most so-called "people" that I have to deal with on a daily basis are true humans -- anyone who is controlled by the emotional chemical expressions programmed in their genes and the group-non-think described in this article rather than sound intellect is a lesser being and has no right to have any say with respect to the laws by which I must live.  It's also important for there to be a shared central philosophy -- if there is none a nation should be divided into pieces and people allowed to move until that is achieved, as the alternative is constant chaos and strife.  For better or worse, historically proxies (land ownership, ancestry, etc.) have been used to make such determinations about people.  While being grouped by some proxy may be unfair to individuals, so too is being in a society overrun with braindead voting zombies who abrogate all of their rights and yours one after the other.  What's the point of sharing "inalienable rights" with one group just to have that group turn around and help effectively vote those rights away for everyone?

A republic isn't just about protecting rights in the present, it has to also be about preserving them for the future, or they will simply go away.  If withholding rights from morons today will help preserve rights for non-morons tomorrow, then I can't say I'm against that.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 03:42 | 3185005 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

"Frankly, I don't believe most so-called "people" that I have to deal with on a daily basis are true humans."

 I could've sworn that French guillotine avatar of yours looked like Tacoma Narrows for a moment.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:23 | 3184831 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

We never denied the Indians the right to defend themselves. They did a pretty good job doing it,too. For a while at least.

When two VERY different cultures collide, one of them is going to wipe the other out. The Indians tried very hard to wipe the white man out, it was wholesale slaughter on the frontier... They were indeed savages. Read "The Frontiersmen", a great historical novel, to get educated. But there simply weren't enough of them to do the job.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 03:10 | 3185011 JuliaS
JuliaS's picture

I say: "Mine", you say: "Mine". Glad we agree.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 05:42 | 3185071 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

nice twist on one of my favorite franklin quotes.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 18:57 | 3184033 Ignatius
Ignatius's picture

75% or more think the JFK assasination was a conspiracy (majority view), but not one 'main stream' newscaster publically holds that opinion.  Majorities can be right and wrong on various issues.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:00 | 3184043 q99x2
q99x2's picture

I'm my own vast majority and I have an opinion that I hold on many differing views on anything I don't care to prove or don't care about.

I like code for the online programming project to pack a CD as opposed to proving matter is composed of particles or the exact time of now and so on.

Now I'm stuck in the space between everything. Help.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:06 | 3184060 Political_Savage
Political_Savage's picture

Not a bad diatribe but you lost me when you went into a vague, or absent, definition of what a republic is and how it prevents the usurpation of individual rights. Technicallly we're a federal republic, and if 99.9% of people wake up tomorrow and want a specific thing banned, they can. All they have to do is manuipulate their elected officials to pass a constitutional amendment, which must be passed by 2/3rd of both houses, signed by the president, and ratified by 3/4th of all states. There's other routes as well, don't want to get pendantic, but if the mass rule is strong enough, it will overrule a federal republic

 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:46 | 3184451 Ropingdown
Ropingdown's picture

Savage, I think it's that 2/3rds and 3/4ths he was pointing to.  Rights can't (barring a stacked Court) go away easily, in a panic or emotional rousing of the people by mass media.  No essay is perfect.  Of course a 99.9% unified mass can achieve anything.   Jonestown comes to mind.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:59 | 3184495 secret_sam
secret_sam's picture

There's really not much point in passing LAWS to enforce the desires of 99.9% of the population.  If they can't work that out, no sentences on paper are going to help.

Cannibalism has never been a big enough issue to devote a lot of Congressional time to.  Ever wonder why?

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:08 | 3184061 spooz
spooz's picture

So who does have "all the facts" at their disposal?  Fox News watchers?

The GUN LOBBY spews more propaganda than the gun control advocates.  Who has the money to spend on propaganda?  Those with corporate coffers.  Where do these gun control "propagandists" get their money?

Conservative blogger Mish had an honest look at gun control today, no propaganda, unlike this ZH contribution.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/01/gallup-poll-on-obamas...

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:22 | 3184090 GubbermintWorker
GubbermintWorker's picture

Mish is full of shit. When he knows the difference between a clip and a magazine and when he realizes that an "assault weapon" is not a military weapon maybe I'll give his diatribe some credence. But this statement tends to make me think I'll never take his views on firearms seriously...."There is absolutely no need for anyone to have an assault weapon to protect themselves."

 
Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:41 | 3184142 JimS
JimS's picture

I'd been a reader of Mish's blog site since shortly after it started. I read his diatribe today, registered so I could write a post, posted a relatively short response, and signed off. I have deleted his web-site, and will never go there again. I am a Democrat who firmly believes in the 2nd Amendment. His post was a POS. I was in the Army, served in Vietnam from December 1966 to March 1969. I carried an M-14, which by-the-way, is a great weapon. It had 20 round clips, and WAS NOT an "assault rifle". Mish showed how stupid he really is with that POS article he wrote. All I can say to him, and everyone like him is: Molon Labe. PS: both Parties need to be disbanded, as they both now serve the Elite Bankers/ Shadow Rulers. 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:38 | 3184265 Mike in GA
Mike in GA's picture

+1000 sir!

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:40 | 3184274 nmewn
nmewn's picture

+308

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:46 | 3184286 koncaswatch
koncaswatch's picture

YES! nmewn- Love my HK 91

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:52 | 3184296 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I bet, helluva piece, good as gold ;-)

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:02 | 3184318 koncaswatch
koncaswatch's picture

A little heavy, but super accurate (if I can see it I can hit it), rugged, reliable and easy to maintain (no finicky bullshit mechanisms). Getting a little old, like me,  1979 model. I've shot with many other shooters over the years, they didn't have anything that would make me want to trade this thing for any other defense/offense weapon. 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:11 | 3184334 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I went and looked at one...a 79 is about as close to gold as you can get...lol.

You have a good "eye" for value ;-)

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:15 | 3184345 koncaswatch
koncaswatch's picture

Bought it new.... during the last "prepper" episode; been ready ever since.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 02:00 | 3184946 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

I love me some M-14.  The last of the "lock, stock, and barrel" guns.  Nothing against ARs, HKs, or FALs, but that "modernized" Garand is just a truly elegant firearm.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 02:30 | 3184974 Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

WORD! I could not afford a real M1A.  In my part of the world that would be at $4k and thanks to Obozo an 18 month wait if Springfield can be bothered exporting and filling out all the forms.

I, for one, would like to thank Norinco for their ultra-cheap M305 (M1A copy for around $600), which works like clock-work, is accurate enough and you can add other accessories, time and funds permiting, merchantilism is a BITCH!

Fuck 'wabbit' guns.... look cool, nightmare to service / clean and cost a fortune.... that was a .223 (dig) for the progressives reading.

FEAR NOT YOU HAVE AN M305!

 

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 05:54 | 3185078 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

+6.8 (spcII)

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 05:55 | 3185081 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

also, you can still get a service grade M1A from the Civilian Marksmanship Program delivered right to your door for about $650, field grade for about a hundred less.  great guns with history just oozing out of them.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:11 | 3184311 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Now, now, Mish is a reasonable man making reasonable arguments.

And just think how comforted you'll feel reminiscing about his reasonable arguments while they're transporting you to the death camps to help usher in the New World Order.

And you know you'll be kicking yourself for not listening to Mish and following his advice while the Zylon-B gas is circling your head.

And, you'll get a chuckle thinking that if you had just listened to Mish and turned in your guns and allowed them to vaccinate you and your family while inserting an RFID chip into your rectum then you wouldn't be rotting atop a large pile of corpses waiting to be buried in a large pit.

 

What most people don't know is that the death camps were highly profitable for the Nazis. Not only did they have an nearly inexhaustible supply of slave labor for the war effort, but they were able to salvage all the personable effects of dead victims to sell to the German government, they also pulled gold from the teeth and presumably would have use the dead corpses in almost the same way animal corpses are used today. And, given enough time they probably would have found ways to use the human corpses to say burn as fuel for power generation. The possibilities are endless.

In fact the concentration/death camps were turning into an industry unto itself. If the allies had not won the war and put a stop to what was going on, the concentration/death camps would probably have been expanded to match what was going on in Soviet Russia at the hands of Stalin. Millions of people were swallowed up by the Gulag system to modernize Soviet Russia. At the time of Russian Revolution the country was a backwater. After Stalin came to power he pushed through multiple 5 year plans to modernize the country. But, due to a lack of necessary funds to pay the wages of workers the state used its power to arrest and send Russian citizens to the Gulags to be used for slave labor.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 22:37 | 3184584 ZeroAvatar
ZeroAvatar's picture

I've been reading Mish for several years.....about 50/50 decent stuff/bullshit.

 

After reading his 'views' today, I've decided the man doesn't have a clue.  He really disavowed himself today.

 

It makes me sick to think that I would die for his freedom of opinion.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 02:17 | 3184959 Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

Agreed... I've followed his blog for some time.  He completly lost it with this post.

Mish showed his true colours.  He actually still has faith in the system and that the Government is perhaps just misguided but not inherently EVIL.  That makes me question his whole line of thinking....sheesh!

Fear not you have an M1A

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:51 | 3184466 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

"There is absolutely no need for anyone to have an assault weapon to protect themselves."

True. Several assault weapons would be preferable.

And some SAMs and anti-tank weapons.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:25 | 3184106 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Assault weapons are already heavily regulated under the 1934 NFA. Get your fucking terminology right dipshit. Mark my words, if 2nd amendment rights are legislated away, there will come a day when other people will be deciding what you don't "need". History is full of rainbows and lollipops in any two year period preceding gun confiscations......right before the mass fucking murders began...........

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:33 | 3184123 GubbermintWorker
GubbermintWorker's picture

Well, methinks its "Assault Rifles" that are the heavy regulated ones. Assault Weapon is a term created by TPTB and the media intended to cause confusion among the sheep by intentionally misleading them to believe that assault weapons  are fully automatic firearms when they are not.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:06 | 3184191 Totentänzerlied
Totentänzerlied's picture

I think you mean modern muskets.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:46 | 3184158 spooz
spooz's picture

You talkin to me lunatic?  Cuz I don't see no terminology. Or are you talking to Mish, whose link I posted.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:11 | 3184199 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

A genuine assault weapon is a hand-held selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.

We have a similar confusion with the term 'money'. For some (the same fuckers who now want to abridge my 2nd amendment rights in fact) a Fiat currency imposed upon the citizenry through force and intimidation, is money. For others, money is simply what is has always been...........gold and silver.

I don't much care for liars, no matter how many times or ways they spout their ruinous bullshit.........

 

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:26 | 3184229 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Don't bother with this fucking retard...this is the imbecile defending EBT usage at titty bars, which of course, allows Wall Street bankers to skim off the top with EVERY swipe.

Just like his avatar, he's criminally insane set on world domination...from his Mom's basement...lol.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:03 | 3184320 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

I've started treating willfully ignorant assholes and evil, traitorous scum the same way. Life is much simpler that way...........

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:06 | 3184325 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Same here, slice em & dice em and leave them quivering in the corner.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 21:25 | 3184360 Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

Just don't allow those types of douche bags any guns. They'll confiscate your guns then turn around and use them on you all in the name of public safety. Remember, all law abiding gun owners are now terrorists and/or Nazis and need to be stopped at all costs no matter the method.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 00:22 | 3184826 spooz
spooz's picture

And you are an imbecile that thinks location of ATM machines makes a difference in how people spend their money.

Fri, 01/25/2013 - 07:39 | 3185118 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Still sticking up for the alliance of the state with Citi and JP Morgan I see...demented little lab rat.

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 20:56 | 3184302 GubbermintWorker
GubbermintWorker's picture

I was replying to Mish. Certainly you could determine that, couldn't you?

Thu, 01/24/2013 - 19:45 | 3184152 spooz
spooz's picture

zzz

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!