According to the tea-party favored Republican running against Harry Reid


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html

Quote :

"If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out. "

6/15/2010 7:44:18 PM

eh... the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to serve as a check on the gov't. But yeah, advocating insurrection is a scary thing to do. Even if it were the right thing to do.

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 7:48 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2010 7:46:18 PM

Except i doubt this powerful wealthy white female is in any position to feel really oppressed by American society. It's hilarious when privileged people whine about feigned oppression. For some strange reason, it doesn't strike me as genuine...

6/15/2010 7:51:00 PM

I happen to think that all elected officials should live in constant fear of their jobs and lives. If no one wants to kill them, they're not doing their job properly.

6/15/2010 7:51:42 PM

Quote :

"advocating insurrection is a scary thing to do. Even if it were the right thing to do. "

Which it isn't at this time. I think we are a very long way from armed insurrection, and certainly I would expect secession before anyone actually took to bloodshed (though the two may come hand in hand, depending on the response of the federal government).

6/15/2010 7:59:02 PM

I can tell you the response of the federal government:


Those were warning shots. The hippies realized that peaceful change would never happen and that the government would rather kill its citizens then allow that change to take place. Institutions closed briefly to let the angry masses cool down. Then everyone got an office job and forgot the whole affair.

[Edited on June 15, 2010 at 8:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/15/2010 8:03:59 PM

Quote :

"Those were warning shots. The hippies realized that peaceful change would never happen and that the government would rather kill its citizens then allow that change to take place. Institutions closed briefly to let the angry masses cool down. Then everyone got an office job and forgot the whole affair."

Truth

6/15/2010 11:10:53 PM

on a similar vein, I'm surprised that there haven't been attempts on the lives of the CEO of BP, and others of that ilk.

If someone were to cap that motherfucker, I'd donate to his/her legal defense fund.

6/15/2010 11:14:02 PM

I'm sure he already had decent security, and I'm sure it's gone way up in the past couple of months.

Quote :

"Those were warning shots. The hippies realized that peaceful change would never happen and that the government would rather kill its citizens then allow that change to take place. Institutions closed briefly to let the angry masses cool down. Then everyone got an office job and forgot the whole affair."

Except we did get a great deal of peaceful change, the government can't get away with shooting more than a handful of hippies, and now all of those hippies with "office jobs" are productive members of society.

6/16/2010 12:52:50 AM

And the government continues its perpetual warfare and human rights abuses unchecked. I guarantee Obama is having the same conversations about libertarians and true liberals that Nixon was having about hippies: how to infiltrate, disrupt and persecute the "bums" who are calling him on his broken campaign promises to end war and further the cause of social justice. Same old bullshit, different century.

6/16/2010 10:12:50 AM

So now you're interested in social justice? And you seriously think Obama is trying to "infiltrate" and "persecute" the MoveOn.org crowd? Fuck, man, you really are a crackpot.

Quote :

"true liberals"

True liberals don't talk about women's rights as if they were mere Western sensibilities.

Quote :

"broken campaign promises to end war"

In what way has he broken any campaign promise regarding troop levels in Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Edited on June 16, 2010 at 11:56 AM. Reason : ]

6/16/2010 11:55:41 AM

GATHER...YOUR....ARMIES!

6/16/2010 12:48:35 PM

Quote :

"So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer. In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started."

-Obama, Fayetteville NC, March 2008

More than sixteen months have passed since he took office. Currently there are 92,000 troops in Iraq compared to 94,000 in the "good" afghan war. It evidently takes 92,000 troops to protect the embassy.

6/16/2010 1:58:10 PM

Meh, revolution should never be taken lightly but the thought itself isn't remotely abhorrent.

The entire balance of power in our country is maintained by the fear of violence. I pay my taxes because I know that if I do not, my freedom will be forfeit to the state. Should I resist arrest the escalation of force required to detain me will always be authorized up to (should I chose to push it far enough) deadly force.

Naturally, the counter-balance to that force is the consent of the willing. The State won't attempt something it feels will result in an act of violence which it cannot contain and the threat of violence (even a non-violent protest is underwritten by the fact that assembled multitudes have the power to turn violent) is what keeps that in check.

6/16/2010 2:22:16 PM

Quote :

"Those were warning shots. The hippies realized that peaceful change would never happen and that the government would rather kill its citizens then allow that change to take place. Institutions closed briefly to let the angry masses cool down. Then everyone got an office job and forgot the whole affair."

Except for the fact that Kent State was the National Guard acting on Ohio State orders, not federal orders. Further they were in town precisely because the protests leading up to that event were anything but peaceful (though that particular one did appear to be).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

One would assume that if secession is on the agenda, that the National Guard would be recalled and acting on behalf of the state. We know that in the past the federal government has used the Army to stop secession (as I recall, we had a whole war...) but it's an interesting question to consider whether the federal government has the conviction to turn the army against a state these days.

6/16/2010 2:42:31 PM

State and even local municipalities wouldn't dare do anything to jeopardize any federal subsidies they receive...their budgets absolutely depend on it. All government in the United States is federal government.

No, the revolution will just be anarchy and violence in the streets. No established authority will participate, though they may quickly shed their uniforms to save their skin.

6/16/2010 3:03:02 PM

Quote :

"State and even local municipalities wouldn't dare do anything to jeopardize any federal subsidies they receive..."

Secession by definition requires this. You can argue that no state will secede but I would certainly expect that to happen long before an actual violent revolution occurs.

6/16/2010 4:47:15 PM

I didn't say secession, I said revolution. In revolutions, you don't just separate yourself from them, you slaughter them all and start over.

6/16/2010 5:09:55 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say secession,"

I know you didn't. I did, and you replied to that with the Kent State example. Please try to keep up.

Quote :

"In revolutions, you don't just separate yourself from them, you slaughter them all and start over."

The revolutionary war seems to suggest full scale slaughter is not necessary. Yes it was war, but there's still a good few British left last I looked.

6/16/2010 6:42:36 PM

I think this thread title was used about 75-100 times over Bush's 2 terms when people mentioned killing him

6/16/2010 6:47:53 PM

^^The Tories left in America didn't fare so well.

6/16/2010 6:56:06 PM

6/16/2010 6:58:58 PM

Quote :

"Currently there are 92,000 troops in Iraq compared to 94,000 in the "good" afghan war. It evidently takes 92,000 troops to protect the embassy."

1. Give it a few months. It's drawing down a LOT...like, to 50k.

2. Part of the point of the Iraq war, in my opinion, was to put an American military presence in a strategic place in the Middle East. I would expect that we'll have more than a few MSGs at the embassy for some time to come.

6/19/2010 12:55:43 PM

Quote :

"eh... the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to serve as a check on the gov't. But yeah, advocating insurrection is a scary thing to do. Even if it were the right thing to do."

As long as the democratic process is still working, which it is, then violent revolution is never the right thing to do.

6/21/2010 4:41:00 PM

Quote :

"As long as the democratic process is still working, which it is, then violent revolution is never the right thing to do."

The goal was never to have a democracy. It was supposed to be a constitutional republic. If it was going to be a pure democracy, there would be mob rule. Our system is totally broken, and we're operating on the assumption that Congress can pass whatever it deems necessary at the time, when in the same breath, most people will admit that Congress is largely incompetent.

That isn't to say I support violent revolution. It would be nice if the American people would come to their senses on a huge scale. I'm not too optimistic about that. I think we'll probably continue down this same path, and there will be better places to live in the world when we get older.

[Edited on June 21, 2010 at 4:47 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2010 4:45:10 PM

the only way to fix congress is to fix the education system. the only way to fix the education system is to fix congress.

6/21/2010 5:12:57 PM

Politicians have a vested interest in keeping people dumb. As long as most Americans are stupid, a smooth talker with very little substance can get elected and stay elected. People don't want a statesman, it seems they want a celebrity.

To many, it probably sounds like a conspiracy theory. There's undoubtedly political influence over the education system, though. The government controls the funding, so they control what is taught. For instance, in schools today, it's commonly taught that Abraham Lincoln was one of the best presidents in history. After all, we're told, he ended slavery. He's a hero, right? I was never given the real story: that Lincoln was a racist and a tyrant who grabbed political power as a means to an end. As far as I knew, he was another staunch defender of civil rights.

6/21/2010 6:09:50 PM

Quote :

"eh... the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to serve as a check on the gov't."

Really? I mean really?

It seems more likely that it was to ensure that the average joe was somewhat protected against things like further British invasions (like 1812ish stuff), his neighbors (tons of criminals from Europe had been sent over), and Native Americans (who were pretty pissed at the time).

Considering that the first armed rebellion was pretty swiftly put down, I doubt that armed insurrection as a check on government was exactly what the founders had in mind.

6/21/2010 8:27:06 PM

She's pretty lulzy when asked what her positions are. I think my favorite was when she just started hustling to her car rather than answer what she meant by "people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies."

http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?s=12670353&clienttype=printable

[Edited on June 21, 2010 at 9:00 PM. Reason : link]

6/21/2010 8:55:45 PM

Quote :

"Considering that the first armed rebellion was pretty swiftly put down, I doubt that armed insurrection as a check on government was exactly what the founders had in mind."

If you read their writings of the time, it becomes pretty clear that it was meant for all of the above.

6/21/2010 9:05:51 PM

So they made a law so people can have an armed rebellion unless it's inconvenient and then they can't?

No, nevermind, that actually does sound like something our country would be based on.

6/21/2010 9:39:07 PM

yes, they made a "law" that people could attack them

no such "law" was ever made. rather, it was a right (unifringed ownership of weapons) that given explicitly to the people. and "convenience" never factors into how it was written. of course, we were dumb enough to let the gov't strip us of that right, so there you go

but hey, you'll engage in straw-mannery anyway, so who really cares.

[Edited on June 21, 2010 at 10:01 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2010 9:54:26 PM

If you were a tyrant, what's the first thing you would do? First, you'd censor speech. Shutting down communication is the best way to keep people from organizing and rebelling. Then, you'd disarm the population to make sure they were harmless.

6/21/2010 10:33:11 PM

WRONG I'd build a harem faggot

6/21/2010 10:37:01 PM

^^Funny, there's plenty of talk in DC about an internet kill switch even as we speak.

6/21/2010 11:38:25 PM

^^

6/21/2010 11:43:29 PM

^^^ then you would quickly fail as all of the father's of your harem girls would organize via twitter and take your ass out.

6/21/2010 11:45:54 PM