Another School Shooting: Roseburg Oregon 13 Dead.
- Thread starter Rusky
- Start date
It's funny considering that Spain (where you have lived/are currently living in based off past posts) has had multiple coups yet you seem unfazed. Franco organized his army and won a war through weapons.
Americans have enough past experiences with an untrustworthy government. One particular example involves the ATF project called "Fast And Furious" involved giving weapons to Mexican cartels.
But, at the end, of the day, it's not that you're against guns. You're just against common people owning guns, because somebody will have to keep peace.
When you remove that right, you consolidate any remaining firepower into the government, which, as has been shown, will GIVE guns to cartels and other illicit sources.
Also, I think a lot of people consider the idea of a coup in the context of U.S. citizens against the government. Hence, arguments over whether privately-owned firearms can withstand an onslaught by the state.
In reality, coups tend to occur with broad public support. A controlling regime doesn't need to launch its jets. It just needs to consolidate power. That includes spreading influence among the populace, slowly removing tools of opposition (firearms) from perceived malcontents (critics of the regime) and directing popular rage against a foreign enemy.
That's Crowd Management 101
Interestingly, many people in the U.S. actually support a coup as long as it's their guy pulling the strings...
Source
The idea that a coup is impossible in the U.S. is very strange.
Ha. Well played. I was previously aware of the Girandoni air rifle (I think it's modeled in one of the Total War games?)...
It was much quicker firing than the single shot powder rifles of the day, with a similar velocity in at least its initial firing, but the detachable air reservoir required nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill (capable of firing around 30 shots, although its magazine held only 20), and had to be pointed vertical between shots to gravity load.
"In addition, the weapon was very delicate and a small break in the reservoir could make it inoperable. Finally, it was very different from any other weapon of the time and any soldier using it needed to be highly trained."
Not sure how common it was in the States for the average person to buy - it mentions being available in limited numbers - however, it's not even close to as easy to find or use nor as effective as the rapid firing rifles of today.
Still - a very cool gun. A crazed gunman back in the day could wound or possibly kill a number of people with one in the right scenarios, if he wasn't tackled while reloading.
Cops confiscated everyone's cell phone and no one heard any gunfire; this comes a day after Russia starts whupping up on the CIA/Mossad (ahem...ISIS).
Seriously, after 9/11, sandy hook, boston, aurora (libor scandal, anyone?), no one here thinks to question this shit?
Hurr-durr.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glKIYeiodPM[/ame]
Seriously, after 9/11, sandy hook, boston, aurora (libor scandal, anyone?), no one here thinks to question this shit?
Hurr-durr.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glKIYeiodPM[/ame]
The First Amendment was adopted long before the Internet. The First Amendment should not apply to the Internet. Back when printing presses were the pinnacle of technology, there was no way you could reach millions of people with a few movements of your fingers. People have way too much influence with the Internet.
The framers could not have foreseen this level of shitposting, influence, and trolling. It's just a web of hate and must be censored. Every user should be over 21, licensed and background checked. It's a different world now and the U.S. is a different country. We need Internet control!
Why can't you people just admit you like the idea of playing with guns ffs. You don't need to go on about amendments and government and shit. You like guns, that's way easier to accept.
I would say that there haven't been any violations of the first amendment online that resulted in a death, but that's not true - at least indirectly.
ie. people / teens committing suicide due to intense trolling and shaming online, or outright egging someone on to commit suicide or to go on a threatened shooting rampage.
And I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't indirectly kill that "Consequences will never be the same!" father too. :-/
TBH, it might not be a bad idea to periodically tweak Constitutional amendments as the world changes.
However, early newspapers and their editorials could reach quit a few people back in the day - the first daily newspaper in America was the Pennsylvania Evening Post in 1783, for instance - and the 1st amendment specifically mentions freedom of the press.
Taking a look back at early newspapers, especially when it came to politics, there was actually quite a bit of shitposting, influence, and trolling.
That's pretty accurate, and humans typically have an "it's okay if I do it" sort of mindset. That being said, with the way this country is heading it's towards a more "progressive neo-liberal" mindset so who knows what could happen?
Ha, I wasn't attempting to do some sort of "gotcha", but just posting about the reality of that time period and what there already was.
While I can't speak for the founding fathers, they clearly had to be aware of this weapon. And while the air rifle (which I think was in Empire: Total War) wasn't the most common weapon in the world, it was certainly a sign of things to come. The writers of the document would had to have been aware that not only was this repeating rifle being used, but weapons would only become more powerful. Just look at the evolution of firearms from the flintlock to the breech loading rifle, which happened during the late 18th century as well.
The Founding Fathers were obviously idiots who had no idea what in the fuck they were talking about.
And before someone tries to pull the slavery card out of their ass, the right to keep slaves isn't in the Bill of Rights, and Jefferson wanted the Declaration of Independence to end slavery in the colonies anyway.
And before someone tries to pull the slavery card out of their ass, the right to keep slaves isn't in the Bill of Rights, and Jefferson wanted the Declaration of Independence to end slavery in the colonies anyway.
I sure as hell hope that is sarcasm, otherwise you might be the craziest motherfucker I've met on the internet.
TBH, I don't know if the founding fathers intended that the Constitution should be strictly followed forever or if there's any indication they thought it should change over time.
I suppose the fact that it's been amended twenty-seven times since 1789 means it is intended to be somewhat fluid.
It would be interesting to know if they ever contemplated possible abuses or dangerous side effects of the Constitution / Bill of Rights.
Soros and the CIA have shown in full detail how you create a coup using social media, plants and antifa/streetfighter violence to create a mob.
All the 'springs' are proof of the great effectiveness of this strategy and they wanted to attempt it in Russia too.
The method consists of first killing off one of your own or conducting another false flag, then utilizing Facebook and Twitter by opinion influencers to create a typical retard shitstorm situation. Then you arrange a march or a protest on same social media. When the day arrives you use the media you own to bombard the sheep with news about how 'this is a once in a lifetime' or 'amazing thing is happening' which brings the sheep on the street.
You then use your main crowd influencers to spread rage, like how every undercover police officer does anyway. While hiding in the crowd, the militant mercenaries begin throwing rocks and molotovs, hoping that the regime will fire back. After the resulting carnage, you camp in front of the parliament while your stooges in the US and EU politician chambers in collusion with the media bombard once again public opinion with lies.
Tell me that isn't exactly how it works?