How the US Military Would Put Down an Armed Rebellion

since9 said:

No, it doesn't. The items on your list are prime examples, prima facia evidence that your claim of "they who win write the history of how it went down" is no longer valid. Each and every one of these has been written about endlessly from all sides, not merely the side of the winners:



Exactly. The Internet doesn't provide objectivity. Rather, it provides hyper-perspective. For example, one can read about Putin and the Ukraine from many different perspectives, conducting additional research to determine what's fact and what's hogwash, while making up one's own damned mind while utterly rejecting, with reason, the perspective of the winner (or faction in power) as reflected in mainstream media.



Not any more, and continuing to claim this new falsehood as truth does not make it true. Neither do triple exclamation points.



Of course the Internet's involved. That's the point, solus.

In fact, "A majority of U.S. adults – 62% – get news on social media, and 18% do so often, according to a new survey by Pew Research Center, conducted in association with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. In 2012, based on a slightly different question, 49% of U.S. adults reported seeing news on social media." (Gottfied, J. and Shearer, E. (May 26, 2016). "News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016." Journalism & Media, PewResearch Center. Retrieved from: http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/. Link.

Yes, one can find every opinion under the Sun on the Internet. But one also finds opinions ranging from heavily slanted to outright lies on mainstream media. The difference is that when someone listens to mainstream media, they rarely double-check (vet) the claims, whereas when I see a claim on the Internet, I check it with multiple sources of proven reliability, such as the Pew Research Center, the reference for the preceding quote.

The same can be said for the Internet as for mainstream media: Trust nothing; vet everything.

Click to expand...

solus said:

sorry, those who won wrote history

Click to expand...

Have you looked at history's recording of the fall of the Berlin Wall?

Click to expand...

since9 said:

Key word here is "won" as in "paste tense."

Not any more.



Thanks for proving my point by citing a perfect example that occurred prior to any appreciable use of the Internet.

I rest my case.

Click to expand...

since9 said:

That's not what the NRA-ILA says. They were the ones who secured that favorable court decision: "The city dragged its feet in returning confiscated firearms to their lawful owners. However, NRA persisted until 2008, when NRA and New Orleans came to a settlement in which the city agreed to carry out an acceptable procedure for returning the firearms. The agreement allowed owners to get back their guns without documented proof of ownership, which many residents were understandably unable to provide."

Link.

Do you have any objective evidence that supports your claim that "most did not get their guns back?"

Click to expand...

August 29th marks the 10-year anniversary of when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, La. The memory of the devastation wrought by the storm and the resulting chaos is a human tragedy of such a vast scale that it endures to this day; and will well beyond. Further, the measures taken to disarm law-abiding firearm owners in Katrina’s wake should serve as a testament to why gun owners guard our right to bear arms so vigilantly.

Click to expand...

color of law said:

From the NRA article:

"[W]hy gun owners guard our right to bear arms so vigilantly" - What? Vigilantly? Are they serious? Those owners didn't put up a fight. I didn't hear about blood running in the streets, or I should say the waters running red. Not one word about my cold dead hands.

Ill say it again, 99% of gun owners will turnover their guns when ordered to do so. And without a fight.

I'm just say'n......

Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Click to expand...

davidmcbeth said:

That's correct. And I recall one military unit that recognized that what they were ordered to do was wrong and refused to do it. But they did not try to stop other units from stealing people's guns.

Why do you think the Army went to houses with local LEOs? Simple: if resistance was encountered the LEOs would run away, leaving soldiers to follow their orders.

Folks are likely still slapping those soldiers who stole the guns on the back... "Thanks for your service! You fight to keep us free!". P-L-E-E-E-E-A-S-E

Katrina was a "dry run" for future gun confiscations. Hopefully next time a lot of blood is left on people's door steps. The blood of both patriots and tyrants are required to be spilled for freedom.

Click to expand...

color of law said:

To maintain freedom blood has to run in the streets. Governments don't understand anything less.

First Amendment

This is the proverbial shot across the bow.

When the government fails to take notice then the Second Amendment comes into play.

Click to expand...

Nightmare said:

Evidently YOU don't know just what the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - ICANN - does, and I am not going to enlighten YOU.

Here is a tangential post of mine and the response by EYEO author of my browser.

Click to expand...

CDT COX said:

Citizens would absolutely destroy the military in an armed conflict.

Click to expand...

Ezek said:

must be mad lately cause someone ****** in his cheerios.

or is suffering from *** Syndrome. i'll let you figure what that one means.

Click to expand...