Why do people always say that as though guns were an endangered species?
First off, an armed revolution without sufficient support wouldn't even be possible in this day and age. I don't care if you legalize chainguns, it wouldn't stop a tank if it came to armed rebellion.
My point being, either you have large enough support that guns don't matter, or you don't and they don't matter anyways because the military curbstomps you.
The only objective difference between a crazy terrorist/murderer and "one man standing against the government for what's right" is popularity. Think about that next time you hold up armed revolution as some glorious underdog campaign to save the world from tyranny, because that's exactly how terrorists think of it.
Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna."The government?" Exactly what do you mean by that? Who would you be revolting against? The police? The army? Who would stop an unarmed rebellion of sufficient numbers to demonstrate that the people believed in this cause?
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.Not the place for a second ammendment discussion crapstorm. Saner minds than ours can't agree about it, I have little hope we can reach a consensus here, either.
We ditch the Kill Bush shirts, we can also ditch the inflammatory rhetoric.
Of course, I think politicians talk in that manner in order to relate to their pontential constituents. Lowest Common Denominator appeal, I guess. Or as someone way back in the day (Franklin?) said, the masses are asses - in order to appeal to them, you have to sink down to their level.
And that concerns me.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.^^ That's because any sign of acting like nobility or aristocracy quickly earns you the hate of everyone. In a democracy that's unacceptable. You have to sink down to the people's level because in a democracy the people control you while in office one way or another. Don't want the masses to be asses? Elevate them instead of yourself through education, meaningful and civil debate and most importantly proving they the people actually matter.
edited 11th Jan '11 9:35:55 AM by MajorTom
I don't think it's been any great secret that a good portion of the government has little to no respect for their constituents. And negative respect for their constituents' intelligence. In my honest opinion, it seems like they think (either side) why should they spend time winning people over with reason when it's much faster to let the vitrole fly, no matter the metaphor used?
edited 11th Jan '11 9:38:39 AM by Bur
Voters Are Morons - Basically, what I was getting at. part of the problem I have with soem news agencies is that they're not helping the situation in the method they proclaim the news. And that some agencies like to put spin on stories, or tell only one side, or simply flat-out lie. Not naming names, there's plenty of blame that can be assigned.
But who wants impartial unbiased (within human limitations of unbiased, anyway) facts anyhow, when we can watch SPORTS! NASCAR! Mass-produced Pop Culture! Mindless fictional crap that appeals to nanosecond attention spans! How to lose fifty pounds on some new-fangled diet plan!
Ugh.
Can the LCD actually stomach being educated about the real issues?
edited 11th Jan '11 10:00:10 AM by pvtnum11
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.Only some news agencies? Well, I've read some decent stuff online, I suppose.
Why would we want to be?
edited 11th Jan '11 10:01:54 AM by Tzetze
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.I understand that the bombastic opinionated person will gather more of a following than unbiased news. But when trying to have a rational discussion with a person about [Big Issue] and all they've heard is a lot of bombastic spun op-ed pieces, will they openly listen to whatever sound logic, evidence, reasoning and sanity you bring to the table?
Will I listen, if all I've been fed is the opinionated garbage, and you're the one in your right mind?
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.A lot of that has to do with peoples' education in debate and logic, not news itself. Of course, I suppose some people do get their idea of good debate from news.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Technically. LCD = Lowest Common Denominator, and we're talking (sort of) about how violent rhetoric may be viewed as the easiest way to get their votes by virtue of it 1) getting their attention by being more exciting than unbiased, reasoned rhetoric and 2) getting them angry enough to want to vote.
edited 11th Jan '11 11:33:38 AM by Bur
For Tomu: "Liberal Hunting License", available from The Patriot Post, only $3.25
At least they had the sensibility to mark it "for novelty purposes only" and tone down the advertising rhetoric... after the shooting.
—R.J.
I still can't get a straight answer from a Nevada tea party member as to what "2nd amendment remedies" actually entail. There WAS violent rhetoric at the height of Bush-hate, but I know of zero people spouting the calls for violence being embraced within the Democratic party. Sharron Angle, by contrast was within single digits of becoming a United States Senator, and I believe it was OTHER gaffes that lost her the election.
All that being said, I don't believe the people using gun metaphors actually WANT violence to transpire in the social/political sphere — it's just how they cope and relate to everyday life...which in of itself is a bit troubling.

@Ultrayellow:
The thing is, if we no longer have guns, we no longer have the ABILITY to revolt against the government. I don't think that revolting is a good idea now, but if the government isn't afraid of having a revolution, then it will BECOME far, far worse.
I'm feeling strangely happy now, contented and serene. Oh don't you see, finally I'll be, somewhere that's green...