Obama told to back off U.N. gun treaty

[atlas3025]

Keep in mind also that currently the .mil makes up only about 8/10 of 1% of the population. How many would turn on the .gov if things go hot? Some, not all but enough, take that oath sworn to the constitution VERY seriously. So 3% of even just gun owners is a dangerously large number to those that are working to usurp our liberty.

I believe you are correct...but what worries me is not that they will break their Oath, but how they interpret what "uphold the constitution" means. So many people disagree on what the consitution says. If there were to be a civil war...it wouldn't be the side that wants to throw out the consitution vs the side that wants to uphold it...both sides will believe they are upholding it.

[mikegideon]

If he signed onto the letter to Obama, then he's OK with me on this issue. "Monitoring the negotiations" may be some lip service. If they vote it down, they've done enough.

[Blitzen]

We won't have to wait long to see if Dick's prediction is right. Looking back at how Obama Care was passed I would tend to agree with him. No doubt the Second Amendment is next. They are not going to get the Second Amendment vote anyway. We look at fighting political battles in terms of right and wrong, constitutional and non-constitutional. The left fights the battles on winning and losing period. Sadly the treaty will be signed by our president and ironically on US soil.

[mikegideon]

The health care law would not pass right now. We have shed a serious number of Libtards since then. Thank God too.

[G27]

We won't have to wait long to see if Dick's prediction is right. Looking back at how Obama Care was passed I would tend to agree with him. No doubt the Second Amendment is next. They are not going to get the Second Amendment vote anyway. We look at fighting political battles in terms of right and wrong, constitutional and non-constitutional. The left fights the battles on winning and losing period. Sadly the treaty will be signed by our president and ironically on US soil.

I keep seeing people say stuff like this, but how does he sign a treaty without 67 Senate votes? I mean, I believe he would if he could, but there's about zero chance anyone would abide by a treaty not ratified by the Senate - it's literally as black-and-white unconstitutional as it gets.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I keep seeing people say stuff like this, but how does he sign a treaty without 67 Senate votes? I mean, I believe he would if he could, but there's about zero chance anyone would abide by a treaty not ratified by the Senate - it's literally as black-and-white unconstitutional as it gets.

Have read various opinions and dunno which is accurate. Some second amendment folk don't seem real concerned.

One allegation (which sounds almost reasonable, but dunno)-- That if a prez signs a treaty, the USA has to "act as if it is valid" until it is either rescinded by the pres or until it is sustained by the senate. So by that theory, even if the senate doesn't ratify, the treaty would be treated "the same as law" until Obama (or some other president) comes along and says, "I didn't mean it after all. Fugettaboutit!" So if that theory is correct, if Obama wins four more years we would be under the treaty at least 4.5 years. If Romney wins, maybe he would scorn the treaty. Or alternately maybe Romney would like the treaty too and leave it in place, explaining, "The treaty really isn't a threat to any hunter who wants a sensible gun like a .22 rifle or double-barrel bird gun. Nobody really needs those other weapons so the treaty doesn't take away weapons civilians really need."

Some folks "on our side" say there ain't nothing to worry about in the treaty even if it passes. Beats me.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Blitzen]

Now I'm one of those who thinks the Treaty can be big time trouble. Don't forget who is control of the Senate. Obama signs treaty, Senate sits on it. Obama gets four more years and does big time damage to the 2nd Amendment and could care less about the constitutionality of his actions all while getting three more appointments to the Supreme Court. Hopefully he does not sign it and we don't have a bunch of if's down the road. The NRA seems fairly concerned about the treaty and have been following it closely.

[Oh Shoot]

Now I'm one of those who thinks the Treaty can be big time trouble. Don't forget who is control of the Senate. ...

Fortunately not 2/3 control though.

[JohnC]

Google the "doctrine of the 3%". 3% of the gun owning population is likely all we would get, but hopefully all we would need. We aren't talking about showing up for a rally somewhere or writing a strongly worded letter to your congresscitter. This is the subject of armed rebellion, how many people do you think are honestly prepared engage in civil war?

Regardless of the nature the conflict takes, if you have a contingent of the population fighting against the government and it is hot enough to destabilize the government or the society at large, you have a state of civil war.

Keep in mind also that currently the .mil makes up only about 8/10 of 1% of the population. How many would turn on the .gov if things go hot? Some, not all but enough, take that oath sworn to the constitution VERY seriously. So 3% of even just gun owners is a dangerously large number to those that are working to usurp our liberty.

But the ones who will follow orders will have all the firepower and technology on their side. The 3% that would stand up and fight would look like the insurgents in Iraq versus the US Forces. Just take a look at how the war is fought over there to see how the locals gun owners here with deer rifles and AR's would end up. heh

I've watched plenty of battle vids from the sandbox. If they know where you are and you're too dangerous to get close to hitting with small arms, they'll just call in a tank or air strike to erase you. Those little 5.56/223 AR's and AR10's would be a joke even more if they fight like they're not worried about civilians or collateral damage.

[Chucktshoes]

That argument is brought up often by those who would dismiss an American insurgency. Here is the question I always ask in response. Who is it that sends their kids into the military? It isn't the upper class globalists in urban centers, it is mostly the urban poor or the rural folks. Like I said before, there is a significant amount of active duty personnel who take their oath seriously. Do you really think Johnboy is gonna go confiscate guns from his family and neighbors or people like them? Or maybe, he just might leave and take some tech with him. A group of college kids recently proved how easy it was to seize control of a drone with equipment bought at radio shack. Seize them if you can, crash them if you can't.

And to be perfectly blunt, the last 11 years have explicitly demonstrated once again that insurgencies work. What we have in both Iraq and Afghanistan are political exits, not true military victories (admittedly, we never had solid objectives in either conflict, the goalposts kept moving).

[G27]

One allegation (which sounds almost reasonable, but dunno)-- That if a prez signs a treaty, the USA has to "act as if it is valid" until it is either rescinded by the pres or until it is sustained by the senate. So by that theory, even if the senate doesn't ratify, the treaty would be treated "the same as law" until Obama (or some other president) comes along and says, "I didn't mean it after all. Fugettaboutit!" So if that theory is correct, if Obama wins four more years we would be under the treaty at least 4.5 years.

Yah, i don't think that's how it works - I'm pretty sure the President cannot ratify the treaty without Senate approval.

While not the be-all, end-all, the Wikipedia entry on this follows what I was taught regarding US treaty ratification:

"In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate a treaty, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.^[1] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.^[2] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is theTreaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War."

[Chucktshoes]

That's not even mentioning prior service personnel who have the same skill sets.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yah, i don't think that's how it works - I'm pretty sure the President cannot ratify the treaty without Senate approval.

While not the be-all, end-all, the Wikipedia entry on this follows what I was taught regarding US treaty ratification:

"In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate a treaty, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.^[1] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.^[2] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is theTreaty of Versailles, which was part of the resolution of the First World War."

Thanks for looking that up, and the explanation crimsonaudio. That sounds fine to me.

It won't hurt my feelings if they are not able to "pretend the treaty is in effect" until ratified. Then again maybe Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Scott Brown, Lindsey Graham, Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch. They might decide that the treaty sounds like a darn good idea. Cut out of the same cloth (if not bluer cloth) than Jeb Bush who thinks the modern R party has become too extreme-right-wing. If that famous, glamorous and brilliant saint of a trendsetting young conservative spokemodel Meghan McCain-- If she asks daddy to sign the treaty then McCain will be first in line to ratify. Yeah I know I'm too optimistic but somebody has to keep a positive attitude!

When they passed NAFTA, the president first signed the treaty, then it was ratified by the senate, and then the president signed a second time. So I guess one might expect Obama to do a first signing regardless whether he gets a chance to do the second signing? Or at least two signings are mentioned here--

http://en.wikipedia....Trade_Agreement

Edited July 10, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest ThePunisher]

If anyone has read Vince Flynn's Term Limits, then you get an idea of the possibility of the skills from former military that would or could come into play against the government officials. Flynn depicted a chilling scenario of government officials going against the wishes of the people, and the consequences incurred by doing so. I don't have a crystal ball, but if the government decides to bring a heavy hand down against the people, I believe there would be plenty of current and former military to join the other people to deter the government tyranny; however, it is not going to be a pretty scene, and will probably last a long time. Hope it never happens, but if we don't win the revolution in November at the polls, then the other revolution scenario is likely to happen.

Edited July 10, 2012 by ThePunisher

[TMF]

But the ones who will follow orders will have all the firepower and technology on their side. The 3% that would stand up and fight would look like the insurgents in Iraq versus the US Forces. Just take a look at how the war is fought over there to see how the locals gun owners here with deer rifles and AR's would end up. heh

I've watched plenty of battle vids from the sandbox. If they know where you are and you're too dangerous to get close to hitting with small arms, they'll just call in a tank or air strike to erase you. Those little 5.56/223 AR's and AR10's would be a joke even more if they fight like they're not worried about civilians or collateral damage.

If things were ever bad enough that required an armed insurgency our military would implode, if not outright rebel. Nevermind that our combat arms personnel are overwhelmingly to the right, there are a significant percentage of officers that have had 4 years of Constitution beaten into their heads. Generally speaking, the most competent of these officers are the ones that excel in career branches which would be critical for waging war or counter-insurgency: Infantry, Strategic Planning, Intelligence, Special Operations Forces... you get the idea. The ash and trash officers that occupy seats that would otherwise be filled by trained monkeys would not be able to pick up the pieces and run our military effectively.

Now lets factor in the backbone of our Armed Forces and the Servicemen they lead. Anyone that has ever served in a combat arms unit knows full well that these guys would not stand for illegal orders and wouldn't support a tyrannical government.

Of course, tyranny is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Critics (in their own time) have classified probably every one of our Presidents at one time or another of being tyrannical... well, except for maybe Harrison. I've heard it of Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and now Obama. What some define as tyrannical others would define as the political process. The pendulum will swing one direction until it reaches a critical point before swinging back the other way. It is the story of time. Our pendulum can be easily controlled by our right to vote. Sometimes it has to go far before people will vote accordingly, but such is the way our Nation was designed. There was one particular clause though; an Amendment which sought to ensure that if we lost control of the pendulum through our right to vote we could swiftly take our government back by possessing the proper tools to do so. I'm not convinced we're at that point or anywhere near it. The Civil War was probably the closest we ever came, but even then the problem could have been resolved politically over time rather than taking up arms. Now, at a time where the lines aren't as easily drawn I don't see an environment that supports such a method of reigning our government in. No matter how bad it seems right now, we are still in control. If you don't like the direction we're headed then just blame your fellow Americans that are setting us upon that path. Our politicians can't help but be crooked and self serving... like children they don't know any better.

In my head I can picture a scenario where I would fight, but we aren't anywhere near there and I don't think we'll reach it in my lifetime.

Edited July 10, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I keep seeing people say stuff like this, but how does he sign a treaty without 67 Senate votes? I mean, I believe he would if he could, but there's about zero chance anyone would abide by a treaty not ratified by the Senate - it's literally as black-and-white unconstitutional as it gets.

The President signs a treaty before it goes to the Senate. It gets an up or down vote requiring 2/3rds majority.

The Senate has nothing to do with a treaty unless he signs it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks for the interesting thoughts, TMF. Though it wasn't specified in the constitution perhaps the founders most-expected that any "throwing out of federal tyrants" might be performed by state militias or alliances of states? Just sayin, Washington didn't deal sympathetically with small local insurrections while he was president (though he was surprisingly merciful after the insurrections were completely crushed). That was when Jefferson was over in France writing his quips about a little revolution every once in awhile being a good thing, but then when Jefferson became president he didn't take any back-talk from the peons either. They seemed to only like revolution when "somebody was in firm charge of the affair".

Just thinking, if resistance was very localized it would just be rabble to be put down, like Waco. Or if resistance was over a national area but diffuse, same deal. When there was national resistance to the vietnam war but it was a few crazy SDS or weathermen types setting off a bomb here or there, the thin spread-out minority resisters didn't get any sympathy from the man on the street, and not many people minded them getting "mopped up". The vast majority of anti-war people didn't even mind mad dogs getting put down.

If there were lots of people mad enough to fight, but splintered and ready to fight for a hundred different causes, then most progressives, libertarians, conservatives would unite to wipe it out so they can go back to shopping walmart without having to look over their shoulder for trouble.

Just thinking, if an entire state happened to have a strong leader, and most folks in the state were inclined to follow, then maybe an armed insurrection would have a chance of not being wiped out like rabid dogs? Then again the vast majority of "strong leaders" kinda like staying in power and don't voluntarily step down like Washington did. So even if a state-wide or regional insurrection would be successful, maybe in 10 years the region would begin to resemble Cuba or Venezuela, unless they got really lucky with a virtuous strong local leader?

It is difficult to imagine though perhaps I'm not imaginative enough. Try it on for size, reading in the future history book, "Courageous leader Bill Haslam united the patriots of Tennessee to break away from the cruel grasp of the despotic federal government." Ummm, don't think so. "Heroic Don Sundquist snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by rallying Tennessee to endure vast suffering and eventually throw off the chains of bondage." Doesn't even sound like a plausible SciFi channel plot. "When Tennessee was in its darkest hour, Lamar Alexander was the right man at the right time..." Urp, Just ain't working well.

[TMF]

Just sayin, Washington didn't deal sympathetically with small local insurrections while he was president (though he was surprisingly merciful after the insurrections were completely crushed). That was when Jefferson was over in France writing his quips about a little revolution every once in awhile being a good thing, but then when Jefferson became president he didn't take any back-talk from the peons either.

Absolutely. I think the Whiskey Rebellion is a milestone in our post-Revolution history in regard to validating our government's authority while showing that the political process is the way. The mindset at the time was "if I don't like the gov I'll pick up a gun and fight." In reality, that is not how it's supposed to work here. If you don't like the government, vote 'em out. If your neighbor votes 'em in, tough titties. Washington handled that situation like the true leader that he was, not only leading troops to squash the rebellion, but also understanding the mindset of his countrymen and not going after them. Everyone went back to their homes without incident and the couple dozen insurgents that were actually arrested were later pardoned.

What was the long term result of this? Well, an up and coming political party exploited the discontent of the people and began to take power, which eventually led to the repealing of the tax that cause the whole mess in the first place. That is how it's supposed to work. Once that political party got a little to grabby, BAM... in comes another one to knock 'em down a few pegs. The rest, as they say, is history. This model seems to work just fine. It ain't perfect, but it works and I like it.

Just thinking, if resistance was very localized it would just be rabble to be put down, like Waco. Or if resistance was over a national area but diffuse, same deal. When there was national resistance to the vietnam war but it was a few crazy SDS or weathermen types setting off a bomb here or there, the thin spread-out minority resisters didn't get any sympathy from the man on the street, and not many people minded them getting "mopped up". The vast majority of anti-war people didn't even mind mad dogs getting put down.

Good point to bring up. See, an insurgency doesn't thrive off the the folks that are willing to pick up arms and fight. You can have an effective insurgency with very limited participation. You can also have a very ineffective insurgency with a vast participation.

It boils down to support; both idealistic and material. If the population supports an insurgency then the government will have a nearly impossible time trying to fight it. The only way to combat an insurgency is to win the support of the people, and to demonize the insurgents. Using the recent example of Iraq, despite how the news would portray it, there was very limited involvement in regard to the general population. Even with an environment with huuuuge unemployment numbers. Why? Well, the simplist answer is people don't like to die young. Hope that the future might get better is enough to keep most people from making a potentially fatal decision. Conversely, the same reason folks commit suicide; a lack of hope. This can bargained with tools such as money and indoctrination, which both use their own version of "hope" to tempt people into taking up arms. Then, of course, you have the very small minority of fighters that are the true believers; the ones that have probably suffered some loss or personal tragedy that has pushed them over the edge where their only hope is to create destruction... or they're just a born mental case.

So how did such a small number of folks keep us engaged for so long? No matter how awful we think the war was, we certainly gave a lot more than what we got. It wasn't as if we were losing by attrition or anything. We just couldn't put the nail in the coffin, so to speak. The trick was winning over the people, which is something we didn't have. You can't find out who the bad guys are or where they are without human intelligence. All the fancy schmancy gadgets in the world won't do you any good without the key element of human interaction. There are huge limiting factors there if you don't have the support of the people; money only goes so far. So reconcile with the local leaders.. the pillars of the community who not only have access to all the inside information, but can also influence the opinions of their people. At the same time turn the table on the insurgents. Highlight their atrocities against the people in every manner of the media you can. The attitudes of the Iraqis towards the Sunni insurgent groups changed so drastically and suddenly that many of those groups were left with little choice... quit or face embarassing defeat. So what did the US and Iraqi government do? Well we tried to bring them into the fold by legitimizing those groups and giving them a stake in the overall security, thus allowing them not to lose face and participate in the Democratic process. Many of those groups took the easy road. The ones that didn't kinda just withered into obscurity, not really able to make much of stink anymore. People wanted no part of it.

So the point being, without the support of the general population an insurgency can't be successful or survive for very long. Even in a country that experienced regular revolutions and coups like Bolivia, the leftist movement couldn't make any significant progress because the people didn't support it... and that's with the involvement of Che Guevara and the fame he brought to the fight.

If there were lots of people mad enough to fight, but splintered and ready to fight for a hundred different causes, then most progressives, libertarians, conservatives would unite to wipe it out so they can go back to shopping walmart without having to look over their shoulder for trouble.

Exactly. Folks aren't going to support anything that threatens their way of life. Right now, despite our economy, things are still good enough. People aren't going to support any movement which will destabilize all the comforts they currently enjoy. No support from the people, no insurgency.

Just thinking, if an entire state happened to have a strong leader, and most folks in the state were inclined to follow, then maybe an armed insurrection would have a chance of not being wiped out like rabid dogs? Then again the vast majority of "strong leaders" kinda like staying in power and don't voluntarily step down like Washington did. So even if a state-wide or regional insurrection would be successful, maybe in 10 years the region would begin to resemble Cuba or Venezuela, unless they got really lucky with a virtuous strong local leader?

I think secession would be handled today in much the same manner it was handled before. Furthermore, I believe that our armed forces would stay true to their duty and fight against any state that seceded. Besides that, the state would turn third world practically overnight, which would lose the support of the populous and, ultimately, those that do the fighting. Kinda like the Civil War, but on a much more advanced timeline.

It is difficult to imagine though perhaps I'm not imaginative enough. Try it on for size, reading in the future history book, "Courageous leader Bill Haslam united the patriots of Tennessee to break away from the cruel grasp of the despotic federal government." Ummm, don't think so. "Heroic Don Sundquist snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by rallying Tennessee to endure vast suffering and eventually throw off the chains of bondage." Doesn't even sound like a plausible SciFi channel plot. "When Tennessee was in its darkest hour, Lamar Alexander was the right man at the right time..." Urp, Just ain't working well.

Our politicians couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag. They are weak minded puppets compared to those that founded this country. However, if such a scenario occurred, the leader would be swiftly defeated militarily at the great cost of human life and suffering of the populous he represents. He would be remembered in history as the anti-Christ.

I don't have much of an imagination, but the line I draw for armed revolt is somewhere around an illegitimate coup of some sort or foreign troops on our soil to exert control for what ever reason. I don't see this happening any time soon; probably not in my life time. Much would have to change economically, socially and globally for that to happen. If Obama gets re-elected in November he will continue to erode our rights. Anyone sitting in that chair will; Obama just does it more efficiently. If that's the case then we'll have another four years of the pendulum swinging to the left, which will most assuredly result in it swinging back to the right in 2016. I don't like waiting that long, but that's the country we live in and that's the country I love.

Oh yeah.... WOLVERINES!!!

Edited July 10, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thanks for the good ideas, TMF. Excellent analysis as far as I can tell.

Dunno much about it. Perhaps a betting man would wager against a state or region being able to successfully secede, and would further bet against long-term improved conditions even if successful?

Was just guessing that odds of success would be better for an organized state or region, rather than a diffuse grass-roots revolution with fighters all on the "outside" of established local, state, or fed governments. Though the odds are slim that TN or Maine, via its established state government, could successfully secede-- It seems even less likely that for instance all the liberals in the nation, or all the conservatives in the nation, could get mad as hell and they're not gonna take it any more, spontaneously take up arms, pour into the streets and seize power.

Though improbable I don't think the odds are nil that a state or region could successfully secede-- It might happen several ways, depending on luck and "snap decisions" made by leaders, which can't easily be "walked back" later when cooler heads prevail?

====

If regionalism and polarization continues to worsen-- Consider even today-- If Governer Moonbeam declares today that the Sovereign Peoples Republic of California shall hereafter refuse to obey the USA Federal Government or follow USA Federal law. So maybe the feds would need numerous volunteers to go fight in Californy and break the insurrection. If the feds go recruiting in TN then maybe somebody would volunteer but not me. I would reply, "Good riddance. The place ain't worth fighting for. All they do is screw us up sending idiots like Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman to Washington."

Similarly, if TN were to secede then the typical Californian man on the street might consider it good riddance for identical reasons of opposite polarity? "Who needs TN and all those toothless rednecks who don't even have enough sense to admire the saintly genius of Nancy Pelosi or to appreciate Henry Waxman's statesmanship and good manners?"

Perhaps it could turn out a relatively easy balkanization via "good riddance syndrome"?

====

How willingly would USA military and police fire on fellow countrymen?

In 1991 mass civilian demonstrations on the streets of Moscow in support of liberalization, and the military chose not to shoot them down like dogs. Two years later mass civilian demonstrations against liberalization and the military took em down with predjudice. Supposedly in both cases, the military was conflicted and it was a "crap shoot" which side they would ultimately support. Just sayin, if Arkansas happens to secede-- Thousands of Little Rock citizens in support of the guvnor, average joes and grannies blocking an invading contingent of Federal tanks-- Do the good ole boys in the tanks shoot or fall back?

http://en.wikipedia....he_Soviet_Union August 1991 coup--

While coup organizers expected some popular support for their actions, the public sympathy in large cities and in republics was largely against them, manifesting itself in a campaign of civil resistance, especially in Moscow. Russian SFSR President Boris Yeltsin was quick to condemn the coup and grab popular support for himself.

Thousands of people in Moscow came out to defend the White House (the Russian Federation's parliament and Yeltsin's office), then the symbolic seat of Russian sovereignty. The organizers tried but ultimately failed to arrest Yeltsin, who rallied mass opposition to the coup. The special forces dispatched by the coup leaders took up positions near the White House, but would not storm the barricaded building.

After three days, on August 21, the coup collapsed, the organizers were detained, and Gorbachev returned as president of the Soviet Union. However, Gorbachev's powers were now compromised, as neither the Union nor Russian power structures heeded his commands.

http://en.wikipedia....tutional_crisis 1993 Constitutional Crisis--

A number of armed militants of Russian National Unity took part in the defense of the White House,...On September 28, Moscow saw the first bloody clashes between the special police and anti-Yeltsin demonstrators. Also on the same day, the Interior Ministry moved to seal off the parliament building. Barricades and wire were put around the building. On October 1, the Interior Ministry estimated that 600 fighting men with a large cache of arms had joined Yeltsin's political opponents in the parliament building.... Ten tanks were to fire at the upper floors of the White House, with the aim of minimizing casualties but creating confusion and panic amongst the defenders. Then, special troops of the Vympel and Alpha units would storm the building.^[39] According to Yeltsin's bodyguard Alexander Korzhakov, firing on the upper floors was also necessary to scare off the snipers.....By sunrise on October 4, the Russian army encircled the parliament building, and a few hours later army tanks began to shell the White House. At 8:00 am Moscow time, Yeltsin's declaration was announced by his press service. Yeltsin declared: "Those, who went against the peaceful city and unleashed bloody slaughter, are criminals. But this is not only a crime of individual bandits and pogromshschiki. Everything that took place and is still taking place in Moscow is a pre-planned armed rebellion....Fascist-communist armed rebellion in Moscow shall be suppressed within the shortest period."....By noon, troops entered the White House and began to occupy it, floor by floor.... By mid-afternoon, popular resistance in the streets was completely suppressed, barring occasional sniper's fire....The "second October Revolution", as mentioned, saw the deadliest street fighting in Moscow since 1917. Police said, on October 8, that 187 had died in the conflict and 437 had been wounded. Communist sources named much higher numbers: up to 2,000 dead....Some claim Yeltsin was backed by the military only grudgingly, and at the eleventh hour...

Edited July 11, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[atlas3025]

An intersesting scenario would be if it were a regional succession effort. Highly unlikely and equally unnecessary. TMF is correct, any single or small number of states would be immediately crushed, which is outrageous, but a fact. However, if a larger group of Red States went rogue...it would be interesting. Not for the obvious reasons, but if they held out, starving the Blue states of the Federal Tax Dollars they need to maintain their massive debt (yes, Red states have debt too...but nowhere near the levels of the combined dozen or so Blue states). What would happen? Could the Fed print enough money to keep the "Blue" Heavy Union from imploding? Could the ecomony survive the amount of printing that would be necessary? Would the US Gov be willing to bargain with the rogue Red States to bring them back into the fold peacably for nothing else than than saving the economy?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

An intersesting scenario would be if it were a regional succession effort. Highly unlikely and equally unnecessary. TMF is correct, any single or small number of states would be immediately crushed, which is outrageous, but a fact. However, if a larger group of Red States went rogue...it would be interesting. Not for the obvious reasons, but if they held out, starving the Blue states of the Federal Tax Dollars they need to maintain their massive debt (yes, Red states have debt too...but nowhere near the levels of the combined dozen or so Blue states). What would happen? Could the Fed print enough money to keep the "Blue" Heavy Union from imploding? Could the ecomony survive the amount of printing that would be necessary? Would the US Gov be willing to bargain with the rogue Red States to bring them back into the fold peacably for nothing else than than saving the economy?

Thanks atlas3025

Am not advocating secession of any region. Only something I've thought about occasionally from the theoretical feasibility angle. As related to "the initial purpose of the 2nd amendment". Maybe a regional secession would be crushed or maybe not. It would be possible for feds to nuke a region into the stone age, or conventional bomb them into rubble, or successfully invade and occupy in spite of rednecks routinely blowing up convoys with IED's. Military superiority is military superiority, no doubt about it. But would they?

Russia didn't mind crushing any and all resistance in the consolidation years after 1917. It still seemed like a good idea to the Russians in 1956 dealing with the Hungarian Revolution. But by the 1980's it had got to the "whats the point" "good riddance" stage and they allowed balkanization without much effort wasted trying to crush rebels. Russia could have bombed the satellite nations into the stone age, or gone into full war footing and invade-occupied all of those nations just like they were having so much fun doing in Afghanistan, but they decided not to.

A similar evolution with the British Empire. Most Brit colonies were not capable of successfully revolting, but eventually the Brits just got tired of the hassle and let em go peaceably.

In 1860 the USA was willing to kill off millions of its own people over a disagreement about flags and real estate, but that isn't necessarily true today. Granted it may be true today, in which case would prove us even more bull-headed than the Russians when faced with the inevitable.

Now on the economic, federal budget, monetary issue-- IMO we are past the point of no return and it is vanishingly unlikely to be fixed. We are too far behind the 8 ball. Regardless whether the USA would balkanize. It might have been fixable with luck and care around Y2K, because we had struggled into an "almost balanced budget" position. It wasn't really balanced except in the accountant's fantasy land, and there was massive debt, but it was real close to balanced and we could have kept at it. But we didn't. We could try again to struggle back to the same fiscal situation as Y2K given a decade or two, but we won't. It will be too painful and every time any politicians try they will get voted out and replaced by big spenders buying bread and circuses and "regional military adventures".

There are detailed documents and spreadsheets that can be downloaded from various gov agencies. I'm not real smart but a couple of years ago spent awhile studying the numbers, and we are so far behind the 8 ball it ain't funny. Talking heads on the radio saying we can fix it by cutting taxes and cutting spending-- Even Ryan's plans for fiscal salvation-- They make it sound way too easy. Its crazy talk that won't even be effective. Its like a doctor talking about amputating a little toe when in fact the only way to save the patient is to immediately amputate both legs. If you don't believe me, take awhile to look at the actual numbers. Maybe I'm all wrong but I suspect that not only do politicians not read the laws they pass, but they also don't bother to read the spreadsheets generated by civil service accountants.

So anyway in the future states might secede from economic/fiscal motivations, trying to stay fiscally sound, rather than "opposition to federal tyranny". Rats leaving a sinking ship.

The red state vs blue state fed tax issue is interesting-- Maybe nowadays the numbers have shifted, but only a few years ago in the era of G.W. Bush, most red states received more money from the fed than they paid in tax, and most blue states paid more money to the fed than they got back. Some blue state citizens were grumbling that the red states not only don't appreciate the high moral fiber and genius intelligence of Harry Reid or Albert Gore Jr, but red states also mooch off the blue states taxes, and the blue states would be better off without them. At that time the numbers worked out that way. Maybe nowadays they don't, haven't seen the recent stats.

[gjohnsoniv]

Well ya know if there weren't so many handout programs then maybe there wouldn't be any mooching happening in the first place.

[atlas3025]

The red state vs blue state fed tax issue is interesting-- Maybe nowadays the numbers have shifted, but only a few years ago in the era of G.W. Bush, most red states received more money from the fed than they paid in tax, and most blue states paid more money to the fed than they got back. Some blue state citizens were grumbling that the red states not only don't appreciate the high moral fiber and genius intelligence of Harry Reid or Albert Gore Jr, but red states also mooch off the blue states taxes, and the blue states would be better off without them. At that time the numbers worked out that way. Maybe nowadays they don't, haven't seen the recent stats.

I think you are right...but how much Red State debt comes from Federally Mandated Social Spending? I would suspect a big ole hunk of it.

[robin48]

I keep seeing people say stuff like this, but how does he sign a treaty without 67 Senate votes? I mean, I believe he would if he could, but there's about zero chance anyone would abide by a treaty not ratified by the Senate - it's literally as black-and-white unconstitutional as it gets.

The way I understand it is this. If the Senate doesn't take up the treaty to vote on it becomes valid. Look for a Harry Reid power play.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[G27]

The way I understand it is this. If the Senate doesn't take up the treaty to vote on it becomes valid. Look for a Harry Reid power play.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

A treaty is un-ratified unless / until the senate approves with a 2/3rds majority - simple as that.

IOW, Obama can sign it, but unless / until it's constitutionally ratified, it's meaningless.