Sharp as a Marble - Kind of hard to round up people into the box cars when they can shoot your ass

<< Sometimes Scott Adams scares me | Home | Why dogs are better than cats >>

Kind of hard to round up people into the box cars when they can shoot your ass

Seems to be a common, lefty view. Anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as you do should be rounded up and ‘reeducated’

Many times I’ve riffed on a dark, delicious fantasy about rounding up Tea Bagger types and sentencing them to green re-education camps for minimum one-year terms.

Now, maybe it’s selection bias, but the right leaning web sites that tend to call for similar things are considered kooky by even the right leaning folks. For the left, this seems to be a common thread. Notice how anyone who posts a differing view is shouted down. Notice how anyone who doesn’t toe the line is automatically labeled a terrorist, suicide bomber, baby-killer, etc. It’s part of the dehumanization that’s required for these people to get their jollies off of during their fantasy of killing off vast swaths of the populace. And killing is what they have in mind when they say things like this

A second Civil War would be an incredibly destructive thing, but it would feel so good.

Go ahead buttercup. I don’t think you’ve thought your cunning plan all the way through. I have a safe full of pistols, rifles, a shotgun, and lots and lots of ammo and I’m proficient in each one of them. And compared to others, I’m a piker. While you’re fantasizing about genocide, we’re simply preparing for self defense. Are you proud of that?

Hat Tip Say Uncle

posted @ 8/9/2011 9:34:54 AM

Incoming Links

Bingo.. « Freedom Is Just Another Word… on 8/9/2011 3:27:41 PM

Daily Pundit » Brave Words, Stupid Threats on 8/10/2011 11:40:45 PM

Comments

Jake says:

on 8/9/2011 10:05:02 AM

I think the biggest problem is that these twits base their plans on two flawed assumptions: 1) that, in an actual civil war, the military would be on their side, rather than either coming completely to our side or fragmenting, and 2) that it is impossible for civilians to fight of the military.

We, on the other hand, assume that the military would be largely against us, and see the contemporary and historical evidence that a properly organized civilian militia can successfully fight off a government military.

They start from an unfounded assumption of victory, we start from the knowledge that victory is possible but not guaranteed.

staghounds says:

on 8/9/2011 10:38:53 AM

Remember, only the words following "but" count.

emdfl says:

on 8/9/2011 10:52:31 AM

What he really should be worried about is how many on the other side - the side with the GUNS - have the same idea regarding another civil war(which would probably be the fartherest thing from civil he had ever seen - just before he died).

Sean says:

on 8/9/2011 10:52:58 AM

There was a redeeming comment that I've pasted in case it gets scrubbed:

...

Yolanda Author Profile Page says ...

I spent 50+ years in the pews listening to black men blame white men for their misfortune. Ain't no mirrors in church.

All the old people in my neighborhood bitch when their checks are late. Most of them never worked an honest day in their lives.

Every year, I hear more people blame somebody else, more people bitch that the government isn't fixing their problems, or it's the white man's fault, or how some rich people they never met owes them.

They bitch, yet they still take other people's money.

I only been reading this column for a few months, but its long enough to know you one ignorant old man, Mister Wells.

It's people like you who are the problem. You're going to collect that check just the same, and make the rest of the world work their ass off like they owe you, even when America's broker than shit.

You say America is disintegrating, yet you don't look in the mirror, you just blame everybody else but yourself. The people trying to stop that, those people are evil, but you a real saint.

I voted for Obama. I was stupid, he was just as lying as all the other slick suits who go into the inner city and sell the bill of goods. "White men will pay to make this town great again, your jobs will come back, you'll get what you deserve." No, they won't, they never do.

He said he was going to cut the spending, that he wasn't going to do what the last guy did. The last guy who made it all worse, but Obama's just making it even more worse.

But you say the Tea Party is bad for trying to stop him from doing what Obama swore he'd never do? You believe that, youre the fool who belongs in a "camp."

When you're out of money, you don't spend more money. Hell, only a politician is stupid enough to believe that.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/9/2011 10:57:00 AM

emdfl, I hope there isn't enough people considering it on the other side. I've always tried to remind people that you could cast a magic spell that made every politician instantly revert to voting for only what the Constitution allows and repealing laws that it didn't, and within a few election cycles they'd be voted out and the same old same old would be voted back in.

The war wouldn't be against politicians and a few key players, it would be against your neighbor and their children. What idiots like this don't understand is that when the shooting does start, it won't care if innocents are caught in the crossfire. There are too many people like him who believe that "thinking wrong" is double-plus-ungood and a life-forfeiting action.

Where sparky fails (well, one of the myriad of ways) is that he doesn't realize he doesn't get to sit back and watch this civil war he fantasizes about unfold from the sidelines.

DonM says:

on 8/9/2011 11:43:24 AM

"I'm your huckleberry"

DirtCrashr says:

on 8/9/2011 12:04:12 PM

One word to the retard: Tottenham.
So many times I've wondered whether their type could survive an re-education, and it comes down to: no, no they couldn't. They are fragile little flowers, with their heads ducked in the sand dependent on .gov largesse. Just look at Tottenham - they live there and they burn it down.
They are insulated by their stupidity.

Rob Crawford says:

on 8/9/2011 12:50:25 PM

Sean, thanks for clipping that comment. Cheers for Yolanda!

Robb Allen says:

on 8/9/2011 12:52:05 PM

Cheers for Yolanda, yes. But more instructive is the reaction to someone daring to speak out during their 2 minute hate.

1911Man says:

on 8/9/2011 1:34:30 PM

@DonM -- LOVE the DocH reference. One of my favorite moments in recent cinema. A couple times, I've seen "Tombstone" on the on-screen guide juuust as I was fixin' to go to bed, then stayed up until stupid o'clock waiting for that line to be delivered.

Braden Lynch says:

on 8/9/2011 1:46:32 PM

Two of my incessant thoughts:

1) "Never Again!"

and

2) "Molon Labe!"

Divemedic says:

on 8/9/2011 2:44:39 PM

"Bring 'em on, I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around."- Han Solo.

Stuart the Viking says:

on 8/9/2011 3:00:27 PM

DonM: "I'm your huckleberry"

Dangit! you beat me to it!

s

McThag says:

on 8/9/2011 3:02:14 PM

The thing I keep trying to explain to people who are clamoring for a second revolution to restore the republic is that is the least likely outcome.

Our side might, indeed, win. Will our leaders (we're going to need good ones, who are they?) step down from their military roles and accept the new civilian authority?

History records this happening a vanishingly few number of times.

I've seen a civil war first hand, it's not neat and tidy and it doesn't go the direction that any side would want until they have a gigantic advantage. That sort of advantage is only provided by outside players, who will ours be and what will the cost of that support be? Or would the rest of the world see this as a chance to be rid of the constitutional wing of American politics once and for all and throw in with the liberals and their death camps?

But nobody talks about that like it could happen. It's always talked about like a civil war here would be an entirely American thing with the rest of the world watching from the sidelines.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/9/2011 3:06:46 PM

But nobody talks about that like it could happen. It's always talked about like a civil war here would be an entirely American thing with the rest of the world watching from the sidelines.

That is a point even I never thought about. I can say that any outside country that wants to see us fail would prop up our opposition. That says a lot about our opposition.

Matthew Carberry says:

on 8/9/2011 3:15:10 PM

@McThag

How are "they" going to get enough here to matter?
The last thing we need to worry about is foreign military involvement in the US, particularly the contiguous 48 states.
We still have our moats, the Pacific and Atlantic, and no other nation on earth retains any long-range power projection capability. Mexico and Canada are the only real potential threats and they don't have the military depth to really hurt us.
What are "they" going to do, commandeer civilian airliners that require mile long, cleared and very vulnerable runways to land even when unopposed?
Commandeer vulnerable civilian shipping and drive it into an active war zone?
There's no reason to believe the US military on either side, would allow anyone to come in. And as noted above they'd likely either be on the "pro-freedom side", fractured with the majority on the "pro-freedom side", or just stay out of it and still defend the borders.
There's no real scenario where foreign professional military intervention by sea or air and land becomes a game changer, given the limited numbers that "they" can move long-range or support once there. Even assuming "they" aren't facing something like Libya or Tottenham at the same time.

Newbius says:

on 8/9/2011 3:15:33 PM

How many troops will the rest of the world throw into an American civil war? Will it exceed the number of active deer hunters in Pennsylvania and Michigan?

Forget Tommy Tactical for a moment. In 2009, 10.1 million deer hunters took to the field. I would suggest that most of them are pretty patriotic, and have shown the minimum-level of self-sufficiency necessary to kill their own dinner. How much harder is it to decide that their country is worth killing for? Do you think that the French or British are willing to face those odds? I think not. I think that the next American civil war will indeed be a local affair.

The only thing we hate more than domestic tyrants are foreign tyrants. just saying...

Divemedic says:

on 8/9/2011 3:15:48 PM

the problem is that we are past the point of no return. There is no fixing the economic train wreck. No one is going to vote us out of this.

There are only three possible outcomes:
1 Civil war
2 More "troubles" causing an ever more restless populace, which spurs an increasingly more intrusive, police state tyranny
3 We are conquered by one or more other nations.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/9/2011 3:20:06 PM

I wouldn't think a foreign country would send in troops. The soviets didn't need to send in troops to subvert our education system.

It's more a 'support & logistics' thing. If there was civil war, I could totally see the UN stepping in. To help, of course.

Matthew Carberry says:

on 8/9/2011 3:33:35 PM

What kind of "support and logistics" that would be of use in a shooting civil war? How would they get it here?
Not trying to be pissy but "materiel-type" support has the same problems as "people-type" support. More actually because a load of cargo can't even defend itself.
No other country on earth can get anything of value here in any numbers as long as any part of the US Navy and Air Force don't want them to. In toto the military sea and airlift capacity of the rest of the world barely matches ours. The UN would be sitting on its thumbs waiting for us to give them ships and planes. ;)
Nothing can move from a port or airport (civilian transpo of any size can't effectively use improvised harbors or airstrips) without being vulnerable to "civilian" attack and destruction (assuming the facilities aren't destroyed already).
"Invasion USA" beyond a few guys in a rubber boat pulling a raid (which would be needless duplication as the other side has domestic ELF guys and the like with the necessary skill sets already) is pretty much a logistical impossibility for the near to far-ish future, even from the biggest threat, China.
If it's monetary support via wire transfer you're thinking of, if a US civil war kicks off the dollar is done and the world economy goes back to barter.
To be clear, I don't think things will ever get that bad, but just looking at logistical reality, there is zero threat of foreign intervention I can see that would make a difference. This would be our fight in our yard.

Old NFO says:

on 8/9/2011 5:19:52 PM

Yolanda was correct, and summarily dismissed as 'dumb', because she didn't follow the party line... As far as civil war, he doesn't have a clue... We out number the total military force by about 4-5:1 now, and most of our folks have better small arms and more ammo handy than the military, and are more proficient...

Yeah, bring that re-education on...

john b says:

on 8/9/2011 6:31:46 PM

I wouldn't register for that loser's lefty e-rag. Thanks Robb for letting me vent my spleen here!

I really find it hard to believe year after year, liberal morons like this still have jack-off fantasies about going to war with the people they define as 'Baby-Killing, racist, homophobic, cousin-humping, gun carrying, whackos. It's the gun carrying bit you keep missing.

All you liberal morons if you have a gun, are likely to pose on you tube. holding on to your tube-steak with one hand and holding the gun sideways, and being puzzled when it jams.

And mr "lives in New Jersey!" Why anyone would live in the garden state when the only thing that grows is criminally possessed guns? Those aint ever going away! And you and your ilk made it that way!

The Army won't be on you side when you're talking already about concentration camps.

But guess what! If you get this civil war you're creaming your relaxed-fit slacks over....

You won't be cheering from the sidelines.
Major figures from the Civil War were John Brown and John Wilkes Booth, both used disguises to approach key players on both sides.

Do you really want to start wondering if every cop, pizza delivery guy, paperboy, barista, hot blonde groupie....

Is an assassin from the enemy camp?

You said that you enjoy the fantasy of this Civil War.

If you were a writer instead of a film critic, you'd have enough imagination not to enjoy the thought of other people dying, I don't enjoy the idea of my children killing your children, or vice versa, do me the same courtesy.

Unless it's true, Liberals don't see anyone outside their own immediate group as human. And they'd steal their own Grandmother's Pain Meds.

DirtCrashr says:

on 8/9/2011 6:45:17 PM

"Support and Logistics"? Well, seems the DEA armed the Sinaloa Cartel while the BATFE armed the Zetas, so we have two semi paramilitary groups beholden to Eric Holder and perhaps Obama who are known to be willing to do anything: drugs, smuggling, kidnapping, extortion...they're a kind of freelance do-it-all criminal enterprise who have no politics.
AND they have enough money that they can build their own submersibles: Wachovia bank recently paid a $50 million fine for laundering $378 billion in drug-cartel money - so they have more cash-money than Apple AND the US Gubbb'mint.
With that much on hand they can be a destabilizing force, especially among those Democrats and Republicans who are way-too comfortable with the degeneration of the constitutional order.
IMO it's something extra-national we maybe should be worrying about, and France isn't going to send Lafayette to our rescue over a crime-boss issue, not unless it cuts into the EU's take they get from the cartels.
I don't worry a lot about the UN, that's not asymmetrical enough nor do they have the manpower or force projection. But I object to the blue helmets - they should have purple-helmets, what with all their child-porn and running whorehouses and white-slavery in Bosnia and every elsewhere they land-in.

Linoge says:

on 8/9/2011 7:31:19 PM

Apparently this inveterate dumbass is also of the opinion that Tottenham-style riots here in America would be a good, "therapeutic" thing as well: http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2011/08/if_only_2.php . Nevermind the property being destroyed, the people wounded, or anything else that is transpiring in that maelstrom of destruction - he just wants people to "express their fundamental rage" in senseless violence.

This guy is clearly, certifiably, batshit insane, and should be handled as such.

Matt says:

on 8/9/2011 9:12:25 PM

wouldn't think a foreign country would send in troops. The soviets didn't need to send in troops to subvert our education system.

It's more a 'support & logistics' thing. If there was civil war, I could totally see the UN stepping in. To help, of course.

Only flaw in that is that while I think many of us would be very reluctant to shoot at fellow neighbors no matter how misguided, UN troops would constitute a foreign army on US soil. I suspect many would have little compunction about using those blue helmets as magnificent aiming points.

emdfl says:

on 8/9/2011 9:46:42 PM

The 2nd and 3rd paragraph in your reply was the point I was making, Robb. What really concerns me is that these fools WILL keep working to destroy the country until SOMEBODY decides enough is enough and that he/she has nothing left to lose.
Combine that with too many rats in the cage and ugly doesn't begin to describe the result.

Alexander says:

on 8/10/2011 5:00:54 AM

Yup. That's a leftist scum. We've seen a lot of their kind here, in Russia. USSR legacy.
They don't seek a job, they want benefits. And it must be done by someone else. You don't wont work for them? Ok. They have Gulag for you. Or Dachau. Or "green camps", whatever...
Their power not in proficiency, but in great numbers. Self-destructive movement...
Once we has a great civil war because of them. So - be careful. They really can start a civil war. Just like that.

McThag says:

on 8/10/2011 2:41:45 PM

How would they get the stuff here, assuming that the government didn't let them use our military airlift there's all kinds of ships.

Unless we take over Canada and Mexico they have a safe place to land the support.

How long do you think this will take? Years and years is my assessment, more than long enough for the other side to get their shit in one sock.

Unless "we" can win in in about a month, that whole rest of the world against us thing matters a great deal. Tactically, we've got a gigantic advantage. We're good shots, there's a lot of us.

Logistically, what have you got? A pickup? How do you fuel that if Shell stops selling? If Shell's hub stops pumping? What about tires? Heck, what about SHOES?

How about food that doesn't make you sick? You make have years of it on hand at home, but if this is a real war you'll have to take the fight to the enemy, they won't all line up outside your door.

Will any of OUR military join us? A good sized chunk would have to for us to have a chance and I just don't see it happening.

Ever see what kind of ratio a real army gets against irregulars? Even without smart weapons. 4.5:1 is not near enough. 100:1 is close to break even. Think we'd have those kind of numbers?

Don't get me wrong, if it starts my old fat ass will be fighting. And I will die. I take no comfort in it.

Matthew Carberry says:

on 8/10/2011 3:31:52 PM

McThag,
I think you are very wrong about the US Military; based on everyone I've ever encountered in my 13 years in the Marines anyway. The shooters to a man are definitely a bunch of right-wing (well, some "working-class left") gun nuts. There's few to none that would let a foreign force intervene, regardless of which side of the American cultural divide they live on (nobody beats up my brother but me).
Anyway, "they" still have to get to Mexico and Canada, past our military, with enough to matter. The current Chinese groups on the Canal and various SA ports are obvious threats (for example) but there aren't that many and they are a ways away.
Even if "they" get there unopposed, and for some reason the Canadians and Mexicans go along with it, they have to get from there to here with enough to matter. They won't be merrily driving down Canadian or Mexican highways, they will be fighting off looters and such the whole way. If this goes down any invader will have the exact same logistics and economic issues we do, except they will be outnumbered and outgunned, on our turf. The fact is we actually have expeditionary logistical capability to move militarily once "there", no other nation does. Even most European armies can't operate outside their own borders without us providing the logistics (see Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc)
Economics being what it is, if we go the rest of the world will not be merrily chugging along, they will descend into anarchy and start their own little fights; who's to stop them, the UN?.
If the US goes down there won't be a cohesive "them" left to take "us" on in any coherent way. Invading a "non-protected by the US" Europe is a lot easier for the Russkies than trying to cross either ocean. China is a lot closer to the resources of Japan, the Koreas, the PI and even Australia; crossing the Pacific with their limited capability knowing what's waiting is foolhardy.
The rest of the world doesn't have the capability and will go back to fighting their neighbors once the ever cracking lid of US Supremacy disappears.

Again, I don't think things are that bad, or will get that bad, but even if they do, a US Civil War will be 99% in house.

Comments have been closed on this topic.