I do not own any guns, haven't built any (trébuchet, patator) except small variants of rockets when a kid, and water/coca-mentos bombs, would totatlly buy a spitfire Mk IX with all guns if I had the money.
I totally despise powdered guns owners for their total lack of efficiency in any field that matters including lethality or capacity to win a conflict.
I think Article 2 of US constitution is totally misunderstood due to the use of a poor accidental idea of gun ownership.
And once a week as a totally immature fan of pinky and the brain I already have designed the best plans to successfully overthrow any government. None of them require firearms, however they all require guns, most of them free of possession and lethal.
The ultra scary truth : there are scary people out there.
I guess with the next chapter, you might consider me one of them.
Because I am found of war stories at the point I also read the parts on civilian and military casualties, I hate wars. But also, given the horror of wars, I violently oppose to becoming one myself. So I developed a weird imagination of tactical self defense ; if threatens by the biggest killers of the History (States) how do I win alone against them.
Luckily, my constitution makes me a good citizen ; in the equivalent of our constitution, we have as the first non negotiable freedom the right to resist the oppression including the one of our government.
You see, what matters here is not guns, but the reason of their use. Resistance to the oppression.
I am here gonna convince you that pro/con firearms law are both going against your capacity of overthrowing your government, because they use a restricted, outdated version of what guns are thus restricting freedom to carry the weapons that really matters.
Okay psychopath mode on: if I was left 1 month and full freedom to prepare the ultimate gun for a battle royale fitting on a big truck I am pretty sure I would go for an H bomb set on portable bunker with wheels.
Could I win ? If people live with in mind the actual definition of the code of laws, for guns and must abide by the law, I do win.
No citizens can legally build an H bomb, that on the other hand governments have. Any components, tools to build an H bomb are more heavily regulated than possessing a fire arm. I know it I made my research to see if it was doable.
A good plan for tactical self defense against a government include the will to win.
Dear NRA and gun owners, do you think you can win with your rifles against a government if they decide to turn the nuclear war heads against you ?
Okay, the hypothesis of the use of the nuclear bomb against your own citizens is not realist and as a good strategist I think it is right to base your plan on more likely to happen hypothesis.
R&D budget for government insurrection is based on the acceptation of a systemic asymmetry in favor of the government for legal guns.
Ex, can I own a tank ? If government send some, how can I win ?
You will notice that since 1945 the pattern of the tank used by governments against a democratic popular movement is not a fantasy.
<< put picture of Tien An Men, pragues springs, arabe springs here>>
So, are your firearms any where close to help you resist a government that would go nuts against his citizens ?
No
But the laws made to protect your right to bear arms are preventing any reasonable development of anti-tank reasonably cost efficient guns.
For the right to bear your wooden stick to fight against an armoured knights, I am forbidden to have the right to build a gatling.
NRA, gun lovers, firearms owner convinced they could be dangerous for government are like kids not even trying to seriously think of rebellion against any kind of serious government as long as they have their toys.
And if you defeat tanks, you think governments would send their toys one by one like the stupid evil james bond mad scientists letting you a chance to organize you better ?
So if we want to redefine what a gun should be, it would have to be defined based on its intended use ; a restricted freedom accepted by all parties in order to prevent total annihilation if both parties fight against one another.
I mean I actually think as reasonable to have the right of building nuclear weapons in case I have to fight in a insurrectional war or I am being occupied.
If you can gather as good scientists as the manhatan project have and have the budget and time, you may be able to build one.
So I think first that the right to have nuclear weapons should be granted to any citizens living in a country which government have nuclear warheads.
Dear gun lovers, would you feel safer ? More likely to be able to resist oppression ? Don't you think it is nightmarish the idea that clearly deranged persons could be granted the right to nuke the planet just because they have money and have suicidal thoughts after their first break-ups ?
Did a convinced nuclear weapons enthusiasts convinced you that firearms are to be regulated because well, they are dangerous.
Let's try to make better use of defining rightly our rights to overthrow the government. What are the true weapons that really make people win wars ?
First of all a fully non censored weaponized education is the first and only gun citizens should be free to have.
How do I know about budgets, basic of H bomb, their success in war and their devastating power ? Because I read it in books and not everything is censored on this knowledge.
But when it comes to older history national pride, reason of security some knowledge are censored.
And that may be where the true guns that worth holding are.
Knowledge absent of our books : how to make stabilized explosive. Can bombs be cheap ? Yes. Can they help resist a modern government with tank. Yes. Would it be legitimate to know this just in case ? My answer is : if the government has the right to have weapons, I want the knowledge to build alternatives and parades of the same grade. If it is forbidden to use tanks against citizens I am okay with not demanding the right to learn how to destroy tank and cheap access to the components
Having synthesized TNT during chemistry lessons, like 36 other students in my high school, did not saw us involved in terrorism afterwards.
Could I make explosive outside of the classroom ?
When I was 10, with my friends my cousin, later when skipping schools the kids of my generations and city were making explosives for the fun.
Classical black powder (lots of smoke), vinegar + chemical yeast, integration of small rockets to make bigger ones, gasoline ...
So as any kids lucky enough to have survived his own youth in one piece I have stopped falling for all this stupid kind of "hold my beer" moments. However, I know enough of explosive by having tried to develop another cheap scary weapons to know you cannot build the funny explosive that matters.
White powder, the dream of all teenage tinkerer! Luckily for me, my crazy government regulates the access to the main component for this. Knowing my old young self, given every big amplitude stupid stuff I made, I am pretty glad we survived this.
So I do think right to bear arms should include practical and theorical knowledge to build real weapons, but I kind of think it is wise to regulate the market, I think it would be also wise the citizens have a right to regulate the weapons the government owns or sell.
I had another plan for overthrowing a government with true weapons proven on the battlefield. Bio-weapons.
Having severly intoxicated myself doing my own alcohol and charcuterie, I have first hand experience of how easy it is to produce them and how dangerous they are.
Plus while skipping school, I learned of the awesome plants in my region, some of them being either deadly poisons, or just debilitating. So dangerous some of them are cultivated in the public space, because they look so nice.
The problem with plant based poisoned is that there is no way to prevent them if we talk of endemic species.
Stuff you find in your garden and fields.
So does the government use plant based/bio weapons during demonstration ? Yes pepper spray/tear gazs. Should we be able to make them. Yes ...
Incidentally some of my revolution plans require massive dose of fertilizer that are controlled because of the restriction on our right to build efficient military grade conventional explosives. A peaceful plan of revolution by the (incapacitating) plants is denied to me because teenagers and terrorists are denied the product to mass produce cheap good explosives.
So as you see with truly uncensored knowledge I think we would have the best weapon to overthrow any government.
But really, seriously you have to be an idiot to think you have any weapons. You may train, you may imagine to resist to tanks with your guns during epic battles, but you lack the true knowledge ; not the art of winning the battle but the war.
Modern wars and insurrection are a mess, but they have one point in common, they always last longer than expected.
My dear gun owners, I would not hire you to resist.
I would prefer people hacking drones, explosive researchers, cyber-warfare : they all have in common to be based on easily accessible product requiring almost no complex logisitc.
If you want the right to bear arm to overthrow an oppressing government you normally should think of a long movement, and having to be able to produce or smuggle the ammos. So you need either the right for guys like me to build explosives/H bomb. Or ... the right to have anything that helps smuggling : cash, good redundant physical networks for travel and transport and public infrastructure made to support any war grades disruption.
You see the USA ? You see Puerto Rico ? All it would take to disorganize a urban resistance is of the grade of a hurricane. Imagine the government come to break you, how will you resist without a good electricity, water, road, energy network ?
#lol
If you seriously want to be able to constitutionally resist to oppression, you have to seriously demand the mean of resistance to your government. And world war I taught us a very important lesson : public services/government owned transport companies are a weapon.
In fact, I should not insult other Nations, but there are some holes in the knowledge I was taught.
I was taught french army was competent and well equipped for instance, and that WWI was the first "modern war" with tranchees.
Was not the american civil war also involving tranchees, (very few) machine guns and many aspects of modern warfare ? Maybe other countries too.
What I learnt is in modern war efficient motorised logistic is a must.
The combination of trains, rivers, taxis (roads), airplane for transport saved the french. And Germany on the other hand had some difficulties because of being less advanced in motorized transport : french had truck with tires while german metal wheels did not help in the mud sometimes with horse traction.
Trains, planes, horses, boats .... the freight all over the world during WWI must have been very intense.
But in fact public owned companies do not matter. What mattered really was the physical netorks (rivers, road, railroad) were maintained properly.
To show you how much of a weapon good (enough) maintained network are, let's see how to beat the Axis, the Allied and the Super Powers who have understood motorized logistic is one of the most important weapons in modern wards. Including people doing an insurrection against a government they consider oppressive.
Let's talk about the Viet Mhins
I am sorry for my lack of any more information than : they have beaten the best equipped States in a case of insurrection according to our books "Axis, France, USA"
Okay, let's make fun of the french....
Imagine you have to fight a revolt in a country. Where do you put your HQ?
In a place where you have good access to roads, harbour, airport.
You have the foreign legions, airplanes, trucks and a good logistic. But... after someone look at where you placed your HQ they see these big hills around the HQ that would make a very good place where to put artillery.
And the french army says, we have planes, tanks, trucks, we do reco mission, we have advanced communications these peasants don't have, what could they do ? They do not even have a fucking truck to transport anything.
True they had not a single truck. They however had their artillery delivered at dien bien phu in DIY kit. And during weeks, under the nose of check points, recognition mission of planes/helicopter, they would use the best french weapons against the french : the peugeot ! The cycles Peugeot.
For weeks they used bikes to transport the canons in the jungle, in the hills under the nose of a proud modern army.
Did the USA learned anything?
Viet Mhins used bikes, boats, added some undergrounds tunnel.
They beat the nations with the best motorized army by having a worst physical network and having a better use of it.
In case I have to fight France, USA, Canada, Russia as a citizen legitimately have the right to consider, I think logistic is a weapon. As such, I don't want the government to decide to much on it without the consent of the citizens.
You see, I strongly disagree with the dogma that motorized transport is the alpha and omega of transport, and in case I must resist the oppression of my government that failed once against bikes, I want the right to be able to use all the road network with my bike.
How I have all this dangerous potentially weaponizable knowledge ?
I skipped classes, and had a freer youth than most young have nowadays.
The more I think on what would make a very dangerous education that would enable all citizens to be able to make stronger government that cannot oppress them the more I think a strong sense of questioning authority is a must. Thus I do not see heavily centralized education and certifications (work regulations) in any other way than an easily influenced monopoly.
Think of it, why all kids should be taught to be kids of an ideal city that does not exists ?
No one is truly french, or american or german or syrian or whatever ...
With all have familial, regional, historical divergences. School tried to teach me I have catholic traditions, my lutherian communist family told me : hell no!
There are first nations in amazonia that were probably told the same (the maroni), and I pretty imagine their parents telling : Hell no!
National educations are a fiction. There are no such thing of a good national education : adaptation requires the knowledge of your environment.
A future dangerous person in case of resistance to the oppression should better be taught the name of his local plants, how to survive and rescue in her place, practical science, biking and rules for sharing the common place, their rights and how to enforce them, to trust her/himself, how to read and write maps all battles, not only those of the kings and queens but of the revolts of the people without judging on who was right, without lies just for creating great strategists. For avoiding to create psychopaths I would really like that if someone wants to over invest in studying warfare the person equally invest in an activity of civil relief with the same level of involvement.
You see, more than ever knowledge is power. But maybe more the small knowledge like the one of the Viet Mhin than the one of Elon Musk.
So as you see I despise those of the pro/con gun owners, anarchists, fucked up patriots that hold to the right to hold a wooden stick against an armoured knight while I claim the true dangerous weapons are denied to us, and that the first grade weapon is an education that build us into strong self confident citizens with useful knowledge rather than conforming sheep with their heads filled with propaganda.
Power to the potatoes !
No comments:
Post a Comment