Talking about legislatures passing laws which seem to be quite insane, not to mention un-Constitutional and unenforceable, Joe Bob Briggs nails the mindset perfectly:
“We don’t like things as they are, and so we’ll make it really, really expensive for certain people to enforce their rights. We’ll make them fight every day for what should be rightly theirs for free. We’ll take away their birthright. We’ll screw with their businesses and screw with their wombs and screw with their assumptions about what the courts have guaranteed them, and some of them will give up, and some of them will make mistakes, and we’ll just make sure they have many bad days, and eventually they’ll get tired of fighting with us and we’ll get a team of brutal lawyers to take them down and put them in their place.”
And then having said that, Joe Bob concludes with the killer line:
Well, okay, I guess it worked with the Indians.
To us normal people, this is known as the “beating a dog till it snaps at you, then killing it because it’s dangerous”-style of government.
The only problem with this approach is that we’re not Indians. And we have some serious fucking teeth.
And as Ayn Rand noted, when you make everything illegal, everyone is violating some law and enforcement becomes completely discretionary and enemies can be targeted at will. Tit for tat is the appropriate response here.
Argued that myself. I have a friend who is a missionary to Russia and lives in Moscow. In Moscow everything, literally everything, is illegal. So when the police stop you, they automatically have a reason. Usually they are looking for a bribe and will let you go on your way, but if you make a fuss, well….they have a reason. He got “fined” once for having a dirty car.
Anarcho Tyranny.
One can never have enough good reasons to buy ammo — although “just because” is all one really needs.
My favorite is “I’m down to my last x thousand rounds of that caliber” (x being dependent on the caliber and its frequency of disposal).
Your argument is only true if x=1. In my case, x>>>1, always…
The only time you have too much ammo is when you’re trying to swim with it or your house is on fire.
Talk talk talk. “Civil War” Talk about a misnomer. War is not civil. War is nasty, dirty, deadly and decidedly unpleasant.
I’ve been in a war zone, and yes even a ‘civil war’ zone where you DON’T know who you enemy is or what he / she looks like. Where one minute all is good, the next second the shit is flying.
We should be working on methods, means, and attitudes to avoid any semblance of war.
Yes we conservatives have the weapons and frequently the training, but do you have the ability to center the crosshairs on your brother or father or neighbor. My brother is a (misguided, yes) liberal, will I let you put a round through him? Could I do it?
Think, folks, this talk about civil war is not good for us or anyone else.
We need to understood that BOTH sides MUST tone down the rhetoric.
Says who? YOU?
These are my middle fingers.
We definitely don’t want a civil war for exactly the reasons you state and more. But toning down the rhetoric isn’t going to do it because the other side isn’t going to quit and it only takes one side to start a war. What we need to do is convert the rhetoric into a negotiation about the National Divorce. The differences really are irreconcilable and if we stay on the road we are on, a war becomes inevitable. Unless of course the Bushies get back in power and simply surrender.
I have never wanted a war. But the enemy also gets to vote on that, and THEY want a war. They want to see us deplorables rounded up and put in our place, whatever that place may be Based on the history of the ideology we’re dealing with, there will probably be camps and cattle cars. And my brother might be the only person I won’t put a bullet in to, but they won’t be sending my brother to arrest me.
Nobody on our side wants a war, because more than a few of us have seen it close up and personal.
When the Leninists says they want a war, what they generally mean is that they want to use the police and military against their opponents, and that it should end in gulags for the ones they didn’t get to kill.
“My brother is a (misguided, yes) liberal, will I let you put a round through him? Could I do it?”
============
Yes you can, but you got to get your head on straight, and harden your heart.
Look at it from another direction. First, I am not necessarily talking about murder. I’m talking about self defense. Will you allow your LIEberal brother, or anyone else, to put a piece of metal through you? If they try I hope that you will prevent it from happening.
Suppose you don’t have a gun close by when danger comes a calling, will you use a chair, or a lamp, to stop the assailant? Of course you will.
Learn this, your worst enemy might sit across from you at the breakfast table. A civil war is not necessary for uncivil acts to occur between family members or close friends or neighbors. It requires ignorance by the victims. Defending yourself is never wrong and nobody gets to say otherwise.