7 ms·

Hah. Good luck against the 101st airborne.

by freen 10y ago

zepto 10y ago
Yeah - that's the usual flippant kind of answer - pistols and rifles are no match for the military. But it's a bogus position - if a significant portion of the country is armed, a very strong resistance can be mounted. In any such situation it wouldn't be the 101st airborne against a civilian population.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  So if you're pro-civilian resistance to tyranny, I suppose you supported the Oregonian federal occupation, the civil disruptions caused by Black Lives Matter, and the Alcatraz occupation? Forgive me, but lately I've run into a lot of people who talk about the importance of enabling civil resistance until they actually see civil resistance and suddenly they're the living embodiment of law and order.
  - zepto 10y ago
    Those examples of civil disobedience have nothing whatsoever to do with fighting tyranny, and whether I support them or not is irrelevant.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      A president-elect exists having soundly lost the popular vote. Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. The very first acts pledged by the presidents staff are to immediately challenge long-standing civil rights issues only pressed by a relatively small minority of those polled. What is your metric for tyranny, zepto? When, exactly, is the civil disobedience part of the founders intent? Do people need to shoot a gun to invoke the intent of the 2nd? Is having a gun with them not enough? I think it's relevant to any discussion of the 2nd amendment to ask what it's actually for. I think the intent of the 2nd was to enable political expediency, but maybe you imagine something grander.
      - grzm 10y ago
        A president-elect exists having soundly lost the popular vote. Soundly? A plurality, yes. Soundly seems like an exaggeration. What to you justifies the use of soundly? Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. Are you saying all (or nearly) who voted against Trump are in support of faithless electors? I agree the voting population is split and there's a lot of dissatisfaction (to put it mildly). This sounds like hyperbole to me, which makes you sound like you're misrepresenting the facts, which plays right into the narrative that those against Trump are out of touch.
        KirinDave 10y ago
        I'm not sure what your threshold of "soundly" is, but it's not a margin of 10000 people were talking about. It's an odd word to take exception to. It's a genuine question Americans need to ask though: if presidents can win while losing the popular vote, does the current electoral college system exist only to enable that? Or can/should it do more in exceptional cases? I'd argue that if the only reason the current system exists is to allow the Republican party to win on a popular loss (which is what it enables, Democrats only take the presidency with huge popular vote margins) then it should be no surprise that we are seeing widespread protests and civil disobedience. I suppose were lucky that Democrats as a whole are less likely to own a gun.
        grzm 10y ago
        My threshold for "soundly" would be at least 2 percent of popular vote. I agree that an actual threshold would be subjective. What's yours? That we can have disagreement between the electoral college and the popular vote is also an issue that we need to look at very seriously. I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting your contention that Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. To my reading, there are two interpretations: - "begging the electoral college to be faithless" is a colorful rephrasing of "voted for the candidate that did not win the electoral college" - over half of those who voted are now asking electors to be faithless Is there another interpretation that I'm just missing? I'm open to correction. I guess it depends on what message you're trying to send and who you're trying to send the message to. If you're addressing those who already agree or are likely to agree with you, the language doesn't matter as much, as it's clear what side you favor. Exaggeration, hyperbole, misrepresentation will generally go unnoticed or be forgiven. Your message is effectively "I'm on your side" and serves to energize those you agree with. If you're looking for a wider audience, the language matters more, especially in a political environment as polarized as the one we're currently in, where both sides are hypersensitive to language and how it's used. Also, people respond emotionally: it takes active effort to parse messages rationally, particularly if they're messages you're not already inclined to agree with. This is why I'm paying attention to words like "soundly". Those who agree with you don't really care. Those who don't are going to respond emotionally, put off by the language and no longer listen to the content of the message. Given the attention I've paid to this, you're not going to be surprised that it's something I think is really important. I'm not ready to accept that the divide in America is insurmountable, but to close it we need to be engaging each other across the divide. If the Electoral College votes for Trump, there needs to be cross-party support in government to fight the efforts Trump you oppose, which means working with people who don't already agree with you. Does this seem misdirected to you?
angersock 10y ago
Consider how well the Iraq insurgency managed against coalition forces, or the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. History suggests that your (commonly held) position is empirically untenable.
- justratsinacoat 10y ago
  Er, the military in question for this hypothetical example speaks the same language as the civilians they would make war upon and knows the terrain and is from the same culture and therefore understands the civilian social dynamic. I mean, there's lots of obvious difference between an American soldier and Taliban fighter, but between a soldier and American civilian? "Training and a better gun". I'm shocked that you could consider invoking historical references to equate the US military skirmishing with desert tribesmen from another culture with overweight American gun-nuts. If the brown people we currently fight don't really have answers to C-130s or mortars or MARPAT, then I'm not sure that hypothetical North American insurgents would, either.
  - zepto 10y ago
    So your argument is based on the trope that gun owners in America are overweight?
    - justratsinacoat 10y ago
      >So your argument is based on the trope that gun owners in America are overweight? Yeah, that must be what my argument is. Don't bother reading any of the rest of my comment; you might become exposed to nuance. As long as you're not exposed to nuance, you will be able to go toe-to-toe with the 101st Airborne. There won't be massive casualties. You are exceptional.
      - zepto 10y ago
        I don't see any nuance. I don't claim to be able to go toe to toe with the 101st airborne. And I certainly don't claim that overthrowing an oppressive government wouldn't involve massive casualties. Are you saying anything that isn't straw men? And considering your question of coming from the same culture - you are assuming that the US military would be willing to go to war against their own people - a very different proposition to the wars they have been fighting. Even the war in Iraq is considered not to be what they signed up for by many service-people.
15charlimit 10y ago
> Hah. Good luck against the 101st airborne. You assume a great deal with that statement. Namely that more of the "101st airborne" than not would be willing to open fire on their friends, family, and neighbors. And that other elements of the armed forces wouldn't face the exact same issue on a larger scale.

Hah. Good luck against the 101st airborne.

by freen 10y ago

Hah. Good luck against the 101st airborne.

zepto 10y ago

Yeah - that's the usual flippant kind of answer - pistols and rifles are no match for the military. But it's a bogus position - if a significant portion of the country is armed, a very strong resistance can be mounted. In any such situation it wouldn't be the 101st airborne against a civilian population.

KirinDave 10y ago
So if you're pro-civilian resistance to tyranny, I suppose you supported the Oregonian federal occupation, the civil disruptions caused by Black Lives Matter, and the Alcatraz occupation? Forgive me, but lately I've run into a lot of people who talk about the importance of enabling civil resistance until they actually see civil resistance and suddenly they're the living embodiment of law and order.
- zepto 10y ago
  Those examples of civil disobedience have nothing whatsoever to do with fighting tyranny, and whether I support them or not is irrelevant.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    A president-elect exists having soundly lost the popular vote. Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. The very first acts pledged by the presidents staff are to immediately challenge long-standing civil rights issues only pressed by a relatively small minority of those polled. What is your metric for tyranny, zepto? When, exactly, is the civil disobedience part of the founders intent? Do people need to shoot a gun to invoke the intent of the 2nd? Is having a gun with them not enough? I think it's relevant to any discussion of the 2nd amendment to ask what it's actually for. I think the intent of the 2nd was to enable political expediency, but maybe you imagine something grander.
    - grzm 10y ago
      A president-elect exists having soundly lost the popular vote. Soundly? A plurality, yes. Soundly seems like an exaggeration. What to you justifies the use of soundly? Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. Are you saying all (or nearly) who voted against Trump are in support of faithless electors? I agree the voting population is split and there's a lot of dissatisfaction (to put it mildly). This sounds like hyperbole to me, which makes you sound like you're misrepresenting the facts, which plays right into the narrative that those against Trump are out of touch.
      - KirinDave 10y ago
        I'm not sure what your threshold of "soundly" is, but it's not a margin of 10000 people were talking about. It's an odd word to take exception to. It's a genuine question Americans need to ask though: if presidents can win while losing the popular vote, does the current electoral college system exist only to enable that? Or can/should it do more in exceptional cases? I'd argue that if the only reason the current system exists is to allow the Republican party to win on a popular loss (which is what it enables, Democrats only take the presidency with huge popular vote margins) then it should be no surprise that we are seeing widespread protests and civil disobedience. I suppose were lucky that Democrats as a whole are less likely to own a gun.
        grzm 10y ago
        My threshold for "soundly" would be at least 2 percent of popular vote. I agree that an actual threshold would be subjective. What's yours? That we can have disagreement between the electoral college and the popular vote is also an issue that we need to look at very seriously. I'm not contesting that. I'm contesting your contention that Over half the voting population is begging the electoral college to be faithless. To my reading, there are two interpretations: - "begging the electoral college to be faithless" is a colorful rephrasing of "voted for the candidate that did not win the electoral college" - over half of those who voted are now asking electors to be faithless Is there another interpretation that I'm just missing? I'm open to correction. I guess it depends on what message you're trying to send and who you're trying to send the message to. If you're addressing those who already agree or are likely to agree with you, the language doesn't matter as much, as it's clear what side you favor. Exaggeration, hyperbole, misrepresentation will generally go unnoticed or be forgiven. Your message is effectively "I'm on your side" and serves to energize those you agree with. If you're looking for a wider audience, the language matters more, especially in a political environment as polarized as the one we're currently in, where both sides are hypersensitive to language and how it's used. Also, people respond emotionally: it takes active effort to parse messages rationally, particularly if they're messages you're not already inclined to agree with. This is why I'm paying attention to words like "soundly". Those who agree with you don't really care. Those who don't are going to respond emotionally, put off by the language and no longer listen to the content of the message. Given the attention I've paid to this, you're not going to be surprised that it's something I think is really important. I'm not ready to accept that the divide in America is insurmountable, but to close it we need to be engaging each other across the divide. If the Electoral College votes for Trump, there needs to be cross-party support in government to fight the efforts Trump you oppose, which means working with people who don't already agree with you. Does this seem misdirected to you?

angersock 10y ago

Consider how well the Iraq insurgency managed against coalition forces, or the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. History suggests that your (commonly held) position is empirically untenable.

justratsinacoat 10y ago
Er, the military in question for this hypothetical example speaks the same language as the civilians they would make war upon and knows the terrain and is from the same culture and therefore understands the civilian social dynamic. I mean, there's lots of obvious difference between an American soldier and Taliban fighter, but between a soldier and American civilian? "Training and a better gun". I'm shocked that you could consider invoking historical references to equate the US military skirmishing with desert tribesmen from another culture with overweight American gun-nuts. If the brown people we currently fight don't really have answers to C-130s or mortars or MARPAT, then I'm not sure that hypothetical North American insurgents would, either.
- zepto 10y ago
  So your argument is based on the trope that gun owners in America are overweight?
  - justratsinacoat 10y ago
    >So your argument is based on the trope that gun owners in America are overweight? Yeah, that must be what my argument is. Don't bother reading any of the rest of my comment; you might become exposed to nuance. As long as you're not exposed to nuance, you will be able to go toe-to-toe with the 101st Airborne. There won't be massive casualties. You are exceptional.
    - zepto 10y ago
      I don't see any nuance. I don't claim to be able to go toe to toe with the 101st airborne. And I certainly don't claim that overthrowing an oppressive government wouldn't involve massive casualties. Are you saying anything that isn't straw men? And considering your question of coming from the same culture - you are assuming that the US military would be willing to go to war against their own people - a very different proposition to the wars they have been fighting. Even the war in Iraq is considered not to be what they signed up for by many service-people.

15charlimit 10y ago

> Hah. Good luck against the 101st airborne. You assume a great deal with that statement. Namely that more of the "101st airborne" than not would be willing to open fire on their friends, family, and neighbors. And that other elements of the armed forces wouldn't face the exact same issue on a larger scale.