Term Limits would be good but I think one of the past action that played the biggest part in changing the U.S. from a true Representative Republic was the passage of the 17th amendment (Direct election of Senators)
I would like to see this amendment repealed.
When Leprechauns begin falling out out of the arse of jet plains so think they cloud the sun, and sovereign pass laws against Leps, tending to legitimize them, then I think the answer is, YES.
Thanks Mods for the Sticky.
Kids say the darndest things for sure.
I commented how every Big Foot photo was blurry. My son said the obvious, "maybe Big Foot are just blurry creatures!"
But no joking, I have wondered, and commented as to who a drone was not outfitted with a can of silly string as a way to take down opponents drones.
WOW! This could have major implications on these actions being disclosed.
Can't wait to read of the reply to this inquiry.
This is Sticky Worthy. The simple title belies the impact of this comm.
There is no proof?
I'm are sorry mate, I did not know. Now that I do, and operating by the "Requires Proof" rule, I have to go delete 99.9 percent of everything I have contributed to this site. (sarc)
(Please don't be offended, I am saying this "tongue in cheek")
Does lead one to that suspicion doesn't it?
It does seem odd, considering actions by states which affirm the reality of (ThemTrails) to proscribe any mention of it on this site.
To take care of these slow approaching loitering drones, you know the hobby type drones that have the two wires at front, that when flown into target, the wire/rods cross and detonate the explosive, all you need is a shotgun.
For years I have been sharking my head and wondering for both Ru, and Ukr side why the heck they don't have some men armed with shotgun riding atop the multi-million dollar armored unites. GRRRRRR.
Just does not make sense to me. A couple thousand dollar cheap drone taking out muti-million dollar armored unites that in many cases could be saved with one guy with a shot gun. (would not work so well against Lancet's or the ones that hoover high above and drop ordinance)
Then I began to see vids where Ru soldiers were shooting down drones with shotguns. Good for them.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Matthew 5:15
I stole it 5 minutes prior.
Thanks
꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღ
I'm backing lol.
Thanks.
꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღTRUMPღ꧂꧁ღ
I think to say it was Dumb Luck might miss the point that Henry's choice to fight in a narrow, muddy field was deliberate, not serendipitous.
Sure, without consensus, the justification for armed resistance fractures. Historically, successful rebellions, like the American Revolution, required broad ideological alignment, not just weapons.
Other points understood, and relevant. Gunpowder-based firearms remain relevant as a deterrent against tyranny, but their role is neither absolute nor obsolete.
And I guess we need to add the Grok angle.
Gunpowder-based firearms are not obsolete as a deterrent against government tyranny, but their effectiveness is context-dependent and heavily debated.
The core argument for their relevance hinges on the principle of distributed power: an armed populace can resist oppressive governance through deterrence, asymmetric warfare, or symbolic defiance. However, modern technology and military capabilities complicate this dynamic.
Arguments for Relevance:
Deterrence and Resistance: Firearms, even if outdated compared to military hardware, enable decentralized resistance.
Historical examples like the American Revolution or modern insurgencies (e.g., Afghanistan) show that small arms can challenge superior forces through guerrilla tactics, especially in prolonged conflicts where morale, terrain, and public support play roles.
Sheer Numbers:
In the U.S., there are roughly 120 firearms per 100 people (based on 2020 Small Arms Survey estimates), with over 300 million privately owned guns. This volume creates a logistical nightmare for any hypothetical oppressive regime, as widespread confiscation or suppression would be resource-intensive and provoke backlash.
Symbolic Power:
Firearms represent a cultural and political check on government overreach. The Second Amendment’s intent, as articulated by figures like Jefferson, was to ensure citizens could resist tyranny, not just hunt or defend homes. This symbolism can galvanize political movements or deter authoritarianism before it escalates.
Adaptability:
Gunpowder-based firearms (e.g., rifles, shotguns, pistols) remain lethal and versatile in close-quarters or rural combat. Modern designs like AR-15s are reliable, customizable, and widely available, making them viable for self-defense or resistance.
Arguments for Obsolescence:
- Military Disparity:
Modern militaries wield drones, tanks, air support, and cyber capabilities that outmatch civilian firearms. A 2023 RAND study noted that small arms alone are insufficient against advanced military tactics, as seen in conflicts like Ukraine, where insurgents rely on external support (e.g., anti-tank weapons, drones) to counter conventional forces.
Technological Gap:
Emerging technologies—AI-driven surveillance, autonomous weapons, non-lethal crowd control—reduce the need for direct confrontation, limiting the impact of firearms. For example, China’s social credit system shows how tyranny can be enforced through data and economic control, not just physical force. Urbanization and Logistics: In urban settings, where much of the population resides, firearms are less effective against coordinated state forces. Supply chain control, communication blackouts, or economic sanctions can neutralize resistance without engaging in direct combat.
Legal and Social Constraints:
In many democracies, strict gun laws or social stigma limit the ability to organize armed resistance. Even in the U.S., federal and state regulations (e.g., ATF rules on automatic weapons) restrict access to military-grade firepower, capping the potential of civilian arsenals.
Nuanced Perspective:
Firearms alone don’t ensure deterrence but remain a piece of a broader puzzle. Effective resistance against tyranny often requires a combination of:
- Armed Capability: Firearms provide a baseline for self-defense and localized resistance.
- Organization: Militias or community networks amplify impact but face legal scrutiny (e.g., U.S. militia groups monitored post-January 6, 2021).
- Information Warfare: Modern resistance leans on cyber tactics, propaganda, or international support to counter state power.
- Political Will: Public sentiment and institutional checks (e.g., courts, elections) often outweigh raw firepower.
In practice, gunpowder-based firearms are most effective in rural or decentralized conflicts but less so in urban or high-tech scenarios. Their deterrent value lies in raising the cost of oppression, forcing governments to weigh the political and social consequences of escalation. However, they’re not a silver bullet—tyranny can adapt, using non-military tools to maintain control.
No matter what the state of weapons systems, picking wisely your battle space will always play a huge role in determining success.
Nice point. And correct, since 2007 things have advanced exponentially.
This research states:
Translated from Russian:
Of all Russian injuries received during non-active combat, more than 75% were by attacks by Ukrainian UAVs.
Another 20% of the concerned were injured as a result of artillery shelling, and 4% was by small arms.
*Note - Doctors classify inactive combat exercise objective as, low-intensity clashes and positional warfare, when the parties do not conduct an offensive
Technology, particularly drones, has to a large extent made moot my question regarding obsolescence I suppose.
The Russian-Ukrainian War is the first large-scale conflict in which drones are so widely used. According to the Ukrainian side, on the attacks of the UAV has to 70 to 80% of all military losses.
Still firearms for a good while I suspect will work in keeping the wolves from our door.
Sorry I mean to say medieval society.
I got up this morning already feeling like a stupid piece of shit no worthy to occupy human skin, so thanks for your gentle correction in saying:
Hey stupid, the word is not mid-evil, IT'S MEDIEVAL!
Hippy - Member of a loosely nit non-conformist group, especially one that rejects conventional social mores. (I've remembered that definition since the 70's)
What I contemplate occasionally: When will gunpowder based weapons may become obsolete, no longer a deterrent against tyranny?
Consider that:
Behind every law is the implicit threat of force, and behind ever vote, is the implicit threat of rebellion. That's the bargain that holds a free society together, and no society with a large power imbalance remains free for long.
Democracy only arose when the ability to deploy force was decentralized.
If you go back to the middle ages, the state of the art weapon's system was the armored knight. He cost a fortune to train, feed, and equip, but a mounted armored knight could overpower almost any number of peasants on a battlefield. The distribution of political power in mid-evil society reflected this. Authority was vested in a tiny minority, and the people had no choice but to obey.
Then with the advent of gunpowder, that all changed. Suddenly you didn't need a highly trained specialist warrior to win on the battlefield. All you needed was a warm body who could fire a gun. Anything they could aim at, they could kill, and from that point the edge in warfare went not to highly trained warriors, but to the side that could field the most people, at which point we saw the rise of the nation state, and nationalism as a concept as a logistical requirement for fielding and ever larger conscripted army, but this changed the political dynamic.
The nobles could no longer ignore the demands of their subjects. Those subjects now had to power to kill them, or to refuse to fight in their wars, so kings began to cede more power and authority to representative bodies of the people, like congress, parliaments and so on.
Cool, nice to no. Keep us informed please of your research.
Surely you are not referring to my error of not capitalizing "Commander in Chief", right?
Otherwise, can you please explain what the "this" refers too?
Q is not asking us "Who is commander in chief of the military", but you know that. This is classic Socratic Methodology, a process of questioning that inspires critical thinking and analysis.
What amazes me about some of the progress on issues is it seem that no sooner is a problem identified that work begins to resolve the issue, and a statement goes out that issue has been resolved.
Never before in government could something like this happen so quickly. Under normal government way of operating it would take 5 years before the plan was approved, and work started.
And a big part of the problem was not that all people involved were incompetent, the slow down was caused by everyone maneuvering to get their piece of the pie.
Which would work to restoring the U.S. as a true representative republic, imposition of term limits, or revocation of 17th amendment?
Revoking the 17th Amendment would likely do more to restore the U.S. to a "true representative republic" as envisioned by the Founders, who prioritized a balanced federal system with states as key players in governance.
It directly addresses the structural erosion of state influence, a cornerstone of the original republic, and aligns with the Constitution’s design to prevent centralized tyranny.
While term limits promote fresh representation and accountability, they don’t tackle the federal-state imbalance and could introduce governance inefficiencies.
However, revocation risks public pushback due to reduced voter power, so its success depends on public understanding of federalism’s value. Term limits, while impactful, are a less fundamental fix for restoring the republic’s original framework. Final Answer: Revocation of the 17th Amendment.