Butters 0 #1 September 26, 2011 ... it will cost you a throwing to the ground or a rounding up and maced."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #2 September 26, 2011 Quote rounding up and maced. wtf?Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #3 September 26, 2011 QuoteDespite the corporate media's effort to silence the protests, and Yahoo's attempt to to censor it in e-mail communication, the occupation is growing in numbers and spreading to other cities in the US and abroad. Please forward our video to likeminded people via email, facebook, twitter - and make the voices of dissent circulate. Find the latest news, learn how to participate and support: https://occupywallst.org/ http://www.commondreams.org/video/2011/09/26stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,648 #4 September 26, 2011 It's all very "Sixties". The good old days!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meso 38 #5 September 27, 2011 Probably shouldn't be surprised anymore, freedom of speech seems to only apply when the speech doesn't hold any threat to the 'men in charge'. I saw some of the photos the other day, of some of the girls screaming and crying after being maced, pretty disturbing. Just another day of 'fun' for those with the mace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #6 September 27, 2011 Protect and Serve ...... bwhaaaaaaaaa (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #7 September 27, 2011 Totally agree. Us and Them. But, meh, we'll continue to take it up the butt. Americans don't have the balls to stand up to it.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #8 September 27, 2011 Just don't take my guns man...who cares about anything else...just don't take my guns.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #9 September 27, 2011 QuoteJust don't take my guns man...who cares about anything else...just don't take my guns.... This is probably a good example of why we need guns. Something about being able to rein in government when it becomes too oppressive and out of control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #10 September 27, 2011 QuoteThis is probably a good example of why we need guns. Something about being able to rein in government when it becomes too oppressive and out of control. Yeah, that's the theoretical argument. In practice that will just never happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #11 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteJust don't take my guns man...who cares about anything else...just don't take my guns.... This is probably a good example of why we need guns. Something about being able to rein in government when it becomes too oppressive and out of control. In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 September 27, 2011 Quote Quote This is probably a good example of why we need guns. Something about being able to rein in government when it becomes too oppressive and out of control. Yeah, that's the theoretical argument. In practice that will just never happen. Right, best to just give in without a fight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #13 September 27, 2011 Quote In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. When did this "past" you speak of end? Last Tuesday? Last I heard, we're still losing a lot of soldiers in two separate countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #14 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuote In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. When did this "past" you speak of end? Last Tuesday? Last I heard, we're still losing a lot of soldiers in two separate countries. I'm not referring to the ability to fight, I'm referring to the ability to win ... I highly doubt armed civilians could overthrow any military base."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #15 September 27, 2011 QuoteRight, best to just give in without a fight. Yes most of American will do exactly that. The few who will not will be branded criminals or domestic terrorists and dealt with accordingly. You sitting at home with a stockpile of weapons will do absolutely nothing to change that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #16 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. When did this "past" you speak of end? Last Tuesday? Last I heard, we're still losing a lot of soldiers in two separate countries. I'm not referring to the ability to fight, I'm referring to the ability to win ... I highly doubt armed civilians could overthrow any military base. I think the Vietnamese showed that given enough time and perseverance that even an enemy with an overwhelming military force can be overcome. I'd rather have the ability to fight than to have no other alternative than to surrender. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteRight, best to just give in without a fight. Yes most of American will do exactly that. The few who will not will be branded criminals or domestic terrorists and dealt with accordingly. You sitting at home with a stockpile of weapons will do absolutely nothing to change that. "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death."-Nathan Hale Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #18 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. When did this "past" you speak of end? Last Tuesday? Last I heard, we're still losing a lot of soldiers in two separate countries. I'm not referring to the ability to fight, I'm referring to the ability to win ... I highly doubt armed civilians could overthrow any military base. I think the Vietnamese showed that given enough time and perseverance that even an enemy with an overwhelming military force can be overcome. I'd rather have the ability to fight than to have no other alternative than to surrender. Are you suggesting that civilians currently in the United States of America have the same arms that the Vietnamese had? There are plenty of other reasons this comparison is a poor one ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #19 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. When did this "past" you speak of end? Last Tuesday? Last I heard, we're still losing a lot of soldiers in two separate countries. I'm not referring to the ability to fight, I'm referring to the ability to win ... I highly doubt armed civilians could overthrow any military base. I think the Vietnamese showed that given enough time and perseverance that even an enemy with an overwhelming military force can be overcome. I'd rather have the ability to fight than to have no other alternative than to surrender. Are you suggesting that civilians currently in the United States of America have the same arms that the Vietnamese had? There are plenty of other reasons this comparison is a poor one ... Huh?? Why would you think that's what I meant? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #20 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. When did this "past" you speak of end? Last Tuesday? Last I heard, we're still losing a lot of soldiers in two separate countries. I'm not referring to the ability to fight, I'm referring to the ability to win ... I highly doubt armed civilians could overthrow any military base. I think the Vietnamese showed that given enough time and perseverance that even an enemy with an overwhelming military force can be overcome. I'd rather have the ability to fight than to have no other alternative than to surrender. Are you suggesting that civilians currently in the United States of America have the same arms that the Vietnamese had? There are plenty of other reasons this comparison is a poor one ... Huh?? Why would you think that's what I meant? Because you referenced the Vietnamese. Also, they didn't overcome American troops, American troops left ... this wouldn't happen with our government because our government has no where else to go. Like I mentioned previously, a poor comparison."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #21 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteJust don't take my guns man...who cares about anything else...just don't take my guns.... This is probably a good example of why we need guns. Something about being able to rein in government when it becomes too oppressive and out of control. In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. Ask the Irish if you need tanks and jets to fight back against folks that have them.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #22 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteJust don't take my guns man...who cares about anything else...just don't take my guns.... This is probably a good example of why we need guns. Something about being able to rein in government when it becomes too oppressive and out of control. In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. Ask the Irish if you need tanks and jets to fight back against folks that have them. While taking on a tank with a rifle is foolish, that same rifle could be used to acquire a tank (or other military hardware). There are enough military reservists and former military reservists among the population who know how to work the equipment, also. Hypothetically speaking, of course.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. When did this "past" you speak of end? Last Tuesday? Last I heard, we're still losing a lot of soldiers in two separate countries. I'm not referring to the ability to fight, I'm referring to the ability to win ... I highly doubt armed civilians could overthrow any military base. We're leaving both of these wars at some point (soon), and we're not going to get the end result we wanted. How are they not winners? Winning is merely a matter of perseverance, and the fact that the major power cannot engage in all out war. Americans are better armed than the VC were, with a gun for every civilian in the country (~30% own a total of 300M) Better than the Iraqis. Better than the Taliban. And we look the same as our army. Yet you and others persist in claiming, with no support at all, that our military would overwhelm any resistance. The same military that has been unable to eliminate the resistance in these two conflicts. It's not because they don't want to, or aren't well armed, or because their arms are tied behind their back. It's a no win scenario, proven time and time again in the last 100 years to every colonial power. If you include the reserves, the US armed forces is about 3 million strong. Place that against 80 million gun owners hiding amongst 310M citizens. How the fuck are they going to win that engagement? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #24 September 27, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteJust don't take my guns man...who cares about anything else...just don't take my guns.... This is probably a good example of why we need guns. Something about being able to rein in government when it becomes too oppressive and out of control. In the past the arms of the civilians could compete with the arms of the government ... this is no longer the case. Ask the Irish if you need tanks and jets to fight back against folks that have them. There are more tools (arms) at the governments disposal than just guns. Guns won't do you a lot of good if you get stopped before you get started ... as can be seen in the videos, the government is all about control and is willing to use force sooner rather than later to maintain that control."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #25 September 27, 2011 QuoteIf you include the reserves, the US armed forces is about 3 million strong. A large portion of which would choose to fight on the side of the civilians, too.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
