Liberal writer fantasizes about killing Americans

[baldeagle]

“So What Line Has To Be Crossed… Before We Start Mowing Them Down To Make Our Point?”
Somehow I don't think that would work out quite the way she has in mind.

[RoyGBiv]

Here's my fantasy reply....

Dear Suzy,
How about this....?
Send me the address of your local FFL and I will mail you my gun. Inside the box will be MY address. You can choose to come down to Texas and try to "mow me down" (YOU, not some hired gun that you seem all too happy to hide behind), or you can just mail me back my gun and shut your pie hole. Which will it be?

Respectfully,
RGB

PS. If you prefer, as a alternative, I'd be happy to buy you a one-way ticket to Cuba, Russia or North Korea, if you promise never to post another story, ever.

[MechAg94]

And then we do have the militia types all over the country, just waiting for an excuse to start their own local uprising. These [profanity deleted] want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.

Some days, I wonder: Should we let them, and just get it over with? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.

This was said in there. Notice that it won't be her's that is "bigger". She is assuming that overwhelming force of the Govt won't just as easily be used against her.

Also, she seems to have no issue with guns, just guns owned by "those" people.

[TomV]

Maybe I'm naïve...

Something that I fail to understand, and maybe I'm wrong, is how she can make the assumption that if the POTUS ordered the ATF, or military, or federal law enforcement to turn their weapons on their own mothers, fathers, brothers, friends, and family they would do it.

I don't believe they would.

I firmly believe if my friends in the military were ordered to come to my house and take my weapons they would deny that order as an illegal order.

Like I said, maybe I'm the one living in a fantasy world.

[Mike.B]

Maybe I'm naïve...
Something that I fail to understand, and maybe I'm wrong, is how she can make the assumption that if the POTUS ordered the ATF, or military, or federal law enforcement to turn their weapons on their own mothers, fathers, brothers, friends, and family they would do it.
I don't believe they would.

Somebody is enforcing the gun laws in Washington.

[TomsTXCHL]

Maybe I'm naïve...

Something that I fail to understand, and maybe I'm wrong, is how she can make the assumption that if the POTUS ordered the ATF, or military, or federal law enforcement to turn their weapons on their own mothers, fathers, brothers, friends, and family they would do it.

I don't believe they would.

I firmly believe if my friends in the military were ordered to come to my house and take my weapons they would deny that order as an illegal order.

Like I said, maybe I'm the one living in a fantasy world.

I like to think too that when you say to those at your door "can you recall please the oath you've taken to uphold the Constitution of the United States" that they would back down, but in a martial law/WROL situation I'm notso sure this would work because presumably these people would be under a lot of stress themselves and perhaps disinclined to deny their orders, particularly if they are moving in an organized group i.e. their coLEOs are beside them.

[VMI77]

The problem I see with the article about this commie loon is that it calls this ugly elephant a subset of the left. She doesn't represent a subset; the subset are the minority who don't want to exterminate their political opposition. The "progressive" dream is the elimination of all opposition that impedes the imposition of their utopia. They might be content will killing enough people to get the rest of the opposition to shut up and comply but I doubt it. The bloodlust runs deep with this bunch.

[MechAg94]

I think that may the reason a lot of liberals don't like guns. They can't trust themselves with guns and have these murder fantasies so they assume everyone has the same fantasies. They just don't realize they are the only ones who are psycho.

[wil]

I think that may the reason a lot of liberals don't like guns. They can't trust themselves with guns and have these murder fantasies so they assume everyone has the same fantasies. They just don't realize they are the only ones who are psycho.

It is no fantasy on thier part, it is deep down what they want to do, the kind of individuals they are, and consequently why they adhere to the ideology of evil (leftist statism). This individual finally openly said what they want to do, and the historical record of this ideology bears that out. Normally they hide these desires on thier part from public demonstration and generally accuse us on this side of the political fence of having the same tendencies they genuinely do have.
In accusing those of us on this side of the political fence of being or having violent tendencies & so forth, there is a definitive term for it. The clinical term is called 'projection' It is no more than assigning the same tendencies to us that they possess within themselves. It is behavior part & parcel to the average sociopath and they do it in order to maintain the lie of thier own self-image and what they believe & adhere to.(1)
That's my own personal thought of why we on this side of the political fence struggle so hard in what should rightfully be called a culture war. Too many people on our side of the political fence don't understand what we are genuinely dealing with in terms of the ideology of the left and it's adherents. Consequently our side of the fence keeps trying to deal in rational thought with something that is inherently irrational. It is the behavior of the sociopath who projects onto others thier own defects for the previous reason as well as to confuse those around them. (2)
Consequently those who are dealing with a sociopath and face the projected accusations fall into the trap of human nature, the desire to defend themselves against the accusation. Racism accusations are another perfect example, as are the usual accusations made against civil rights proponents of the 2nd amendment. The average individual doesn't understand what is being done and why, consequently they think the proper answer is to defend themselves and/or what they believe against the accusation. In doing so they inadvertantly give it the appearance of legitimacy or raise the question of it being so. This behavior or tactic is openly stated in thier manifesto of political tactics
Rules for Radicals: "always go outside the experience of your opposition" That is one of the rules listed & I don't see any reason why this is not what it genuinely means given the observable behavior of leftists.
Why does the left do this? For the reason I stated, to maintain the lie of their own self-image as well as to sell the lie of thier ideology to the public. That being the culture war of the traditional american culture based on the truths the founders identified as to law, and the prevailing cultural norms in terms of morality and common-sense which prevailed and/or existed in our society.
This culture is at war with the inherent evil of leftist statism, or more correctly the ideology of secular humanism, with the flaws of of basic human character present in that and it's inherent appeal to those flaws.
It is why I constantly hear "we are always playing defense, we never go on offense" It is true yet no one ever stops to think about why that is. It is because too many folks don't fully understand what we are dealing with and approach it from the wrong standpoint.

(1) (2) "the people of the lie" M. Scott Peck.

[The Annoyed Man]

Maybe I'm naïve...

Something that I fail to understand, and maybe I'm wrong, is how she can make the assumption that if the POTUS ordered the ATF, or military, or federal law enforcement to turn their weapons on their own mothers, fathers, brothers, friends, and family they would do it.

I don't believe they would.

I firmly believe if my friends in the military were ordered to come to my house and take my weapons they would deny that order as an illegal order.

Like I said, maybe I'm the one living in a fantasy world.

I'd like to believe that, but I'm not so sure any longer......

Considered individually, I'd say yes, you're probably correct. But when considered as larger units, I'd say that the individual's inclination to refuse immoral or illegal orders has a lot more inertia to overcome. In a group setting, it is easier to follow orders than to disobey them, and there is no reason to think that LEOs or military personnel are not human. I think the decision to disobey or follow orders is much more likely to come from the officer corps, and perhaps the NCO corps, than the lower enlisted ranks—not because enlisted people are unthinking automatons, but because officers and NCOs are trained to operate with a larger degree of autonomy than lower-ranked enlisted people, and that greater autonomy lends itself to consideration of larger issues and implications.

Now, I am NOT calling our military a bunch of nazis. To the contrary, I have a very high regard for them. But they ARE human, and human nature often fails to disappoint. It is easy to see how an individual soldier might be individually repelled by the idea of confiscating all guns, but when in a group setting might justify to himself "well, at least it's not like we are sending them to concentration camps.....we're just taking their guns......they'll be OK."

.....particularly if that individual soldier wasn't raised in a gun culture.....and never mind that the concentration camps might actually follow not that far behind the gun confiscations....

I just watched "Doctor Zhivago" again a week or so ago with my wife. It is amazing how the story portrays the incremental degradation of the society, and how the majority of people were just trying to survive whatever events swirled around them........the various military factions involved, and the brutality of troops against their own fellow citizenry.

[JP171]

Maybe I'm naïve...

Something that I fail to understand, and maybe I'm wrong, is how she can make the assumption that if the POTUS ordered the ATF, or military, or federal law enforcement to turn their weapons on their own mothers, fathers, brothers, friends, and family they would do it.

I don't believe they would.

I firmly believe if my friends in the military were ordered to come to my house and take my weapons they would deny that order as an illegal order.

Like I said, maybe I'm the one living in a fantasy world.

I'd like to believe that, but I'm not so sure any longer......

Considered individually, I'd say yes, you're probably correct. But when considered as larger units, I'd say that the individual's inclination to refuse immoral or illegal orders has a lot more inertia to overcome. In a group setting, it is easier to follow orders than to disobey them, and there is no reason to think that LEOs or military personnel are not human. I think the decision to disobey or follow orders is much more likely to come from the officer corps, and perhaps the NCO corps, than the lower enlisted ranks—not because enlisted people are unthinking automatons, but because officers and NCOs are trained to operate with a larger degree of autonomy than lower-ranked enlisted people, and that greater autonomy lends itself to consideration of larger issues and implications.

Now, I am NOT calling our military a bunch of nazis. To the contrary, I have a very high regard for them. But they ARE human, and human nature often fails to disappoint. It is easy to see how an individual soldier might be individually repelled by the idea of confiscating all guns, but when in a group setting might justify to himself "well, at least it's not like we are sending them to concentration camps.....we're just taking their guns......they'll be OK."

.....particularly if that individual soldier wasn't raised in a gun culture.....and never mind that the concentration camps might actually follow not that far behind the gun confiscations....

I just watched "Doctor Zhivago" again a week or so ago with my wife. It is amazing how the story portrays the incremental degradation of the society, and how the majority of people were just trying to survive whatever events swirled around them........the various military factions involved, and the brutality of troops against their own fellow citizenry.

TAM, I am not seeking a p match, but your belief of military of all types is somewhat skewed, we will not follow an unlawful order to either confiscate the weapons of the civilian population nor move them en mass to a re-education center, give 90% of the us military that order and get ready to be told where you can go and what you can do with yourself, politely but all the same. It doesn't matter what kind of culture you were raised in, the oath to the constitution comes before the oath to the CIC and most of us senior NCO's wouldn't even pass down such an illegal order to anyone, most officers are aware and feel the same and most of the junior enlisted would refuse if we did pass that kind of order down. Nor would we obey an unlawful order to open fire on civilians. The 10 percent that might do what your intimating would have a very short life expectancy measured in mere minutes, being an active member of a military force we do in fact do discuss this often and talk about what we would do if such orders were given. If the president of the US gave me such an order or all my SOC brothers the same he wouldn't be president long I promise you that, nor would anyone else that attempted to enforce such an order, nor would they be oxygen thieves anymore.

[The Annoyed Man]

Maybe I'm naïve...

Something that I fail to understand, and maybe I'm wrong, is how she can make the assumption that if the POTUS ordered the ATF, or military, or federal law enforcement to turn their weapons on their own mothers, fathers, brothers, friends, and family they would do it.

I don't believe they would.

I firmly believe if my friends in the military were ordered to come to my house and take my weapons they would deny that order as an illegal order.

Like I said, maybe I'm the one living in a fantasy world.

I'd like to believe that, but I'm not so sure any longer......

Considered individually, I'd say yes, you're probably correct. But when considered as larger units, I'd say that the individual's inclination to refuse immoral or illegal orders has a lot more inertia to overcome. In a group setting, it is easier to follow orders than to disobey them, and there is no reason to think that LEOs or military personnel are not human. I think the decision to disobey or follow orders is much more likely to come from the officer corps, and perhaps the NCO corps, than the lower enlisted ranks—not because enlisted people are unthinking automatons, but because officers and NCOs are trained to operate with a larger degree of autonomy than lower-ranked enlisted people, and that greater autonomy lends itself to consideration of larger issues and implications.

Now, I am NOT calling our military a bunch of nazis. To the contrary, I have a very high regard for them. But they ARE human, and human nature often fails to disappoint. It is easy to see how an individual soldier might be individually repelled by the idea of confiscating all guns, but when in a group setting might justify to himself "well, at least it's not like we are sending them to concentration camps.....we're just taking their guns......they'll be OK."

.....particularly if that individual soldier wasn't raised in a gun culture.....and never mind that the concentration camps might actually follow not that far behind the gun confiscations....

I just watched "Doctor Zhivago" again a week or so ago with my wife. It is amazing how the story portrays the incremental degradation of the society, and how the majority of people were just trying to survive whatever events swirled around them........the various military factions involved, and the brutality of troops against their own fellow citizenry.

TAM, I am not seeking a p match, but your belief of military of all types is somewhat skewed, we will not follow an unlawful order to either confiscate the weapons of the civilian population nor move them en mass to a re-education center, give 90% of the us military that order and get ready to be told where you can go and what you can do with yourself, politely but all the same. It doesn't matter what kind of culture you were raised in, the oath to the constitution comes before the oath to the CIC and most of us senior NCO's wouldn't even pass down such an illegal order to anyone, most officers are aware and feel the same and most of the junior enlisted would refuse if we did pass that kind of order down. Nor would we obey an unlawful order to open fire on civilians. The 10 percent that might do what your intimating would have a very short life expectancy measured in mere minutes, being an active member of a military force we do in fact do discuss this often and talk about what we would do if such orders were given. If the president of the US gave me such an order or all my SOC brothers the same he wouldn't be president long I promise you that, nor would anyone else that attempted to enforce such an order, nor would they be oxygen thieves anymore.

JP171, I dont want a p contest either, and I really REALLY hope you are correct. Like I said above, I do believe in the fundamental decency of the individuals who are serving, and their commitment to the oath they take. It's not the individuals I "worry" about. ("Worry" is too strong of a word, as I honestly don't think much about this topic....), but the institutions....which kind of take on a political a mind of their own, unrelated to the people who make it up.

Anyway, my primary point is that we can never take these things for granted. SOME of the people who wrote the above gun-grabbing platform which AndyC quoted probably served in the military at some point in their lives. The U.S. Army, as fine and as honorable an institution as can be found, is reinstating and putting back to work a deserter, who wouldn't know his constitutional oath if it bit him on the ass.....and in the process, they are paying him $300,000 in back wages.......for POLITICAL reasons. .....because it serves as the instrument of this particular president .....who has no more respect for the Army than he does for his toilet. The cabinet and military officers downstream from the president are reinstating this soldier because that's what the president wants, not because it is the right thing to do.

What would THIS general have done? http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Wesley_ ... ontrol.htm

[Pawpaw]

As a retired serviceman, I'd like to think our troops wouldn't obey those illegal and immoral orders, but I'm not 100% sure.

Does anyone remember the Bonus Army?

[sjfcontrol]

Hey, TAM! Why are you denigrating toilets? As a senior citizen, I've never met a toilet I didn't like! Even the stinky ones serve their purpose!