Even the Department of Justice agrees

[midnight Target]

Funny then how a gun control law has NEVER been overturned based on 2nd amendment grounds.

Maybe because the executive branch doesn't make or even interpret the laws?
hmmmm?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Any person who does not think a pissed off person or group of people with a gun can not make trouble for an Army, even one as mighty as the US Army just has to look to Iraq.


Plus the US army is made of US citizens, you would be hard pressed to get most to shoot their uncles, brothers and fathers.

just gonna point out the obvious here.

You use Iraq as an example in the first part but ignore it in the 2nd. Plenty of Iraqi's are killing each other. They don't care whose unlce, brother, father it is.

1)Guns will never help you if the government does something you don't like. (randy weaver, branch davidians...etc) You would at least have a chance of getting your way through lobbying i.e. cash

2)See #1

3)It makes me laugh, I almost wish the government would try to take all the guns just so we could see who would actually put their life at risk to protect their guns.  My guess more than half the gun nuts on this board would hide em in a toolshed at their "unlces" house rather than face off with the U.S. government/military.

[Toad]

Zogby Poll Questions:

Right-to-carry law: Current members of the military and their families support the law by a 74% to 18% margin, 76% of veterans and their families support the law.


Just sayin'

[Wotan]

Living stantards had to do with the revolution thing, started by change of the 2nd amendment.
Revolutions are quite messy business.
Besides the private gun owners would have little say in a revolution.

Nonsense it's private gun owners that make a 'revolution' to begin with.

Were 'living standards' ruined after the US kicked out the Brits? No it increased. Those who chose revolution then were those with the most to lose (and to gain if successful)

Nowadays it'd be all about the actual army and their equiptment.
Whoever the army supports, will be leading the country as he wishes and nobody has any say in that, did the 2nd amendment exist or not.
If part of the army defects to rebels, that army would play a major role in the revolution, not "the people of the 2nd amendment".
It could been different back in the days, when "the people of the 2nd amendment" WERE the army.
Back then you could've also fought the enemy also with bayonets, because the enemy was equipped with similar weapons.

Besides, why to force people into something, it's all about manipulation nowadays.
So, in practice the 2nd amendment hardly protects anyones freedom.

Tell that to the various 'peoples armies and insurgencies through out history.

How would you know if the Second Amendment hasn't preserved freedom?

History shows that democracy gets followed by dictators. Some American citizens are well armed. As well armed as any average infantry men in the world (if not better).

So instead of just making things up just admit you have no clue and you are just regurgitating back the same nonsense that some left wing kooks have spoon fed you.

The Bush government already got you guys into a war against Iraq, with the major reasons for the war being lies. All they did, was to manipulate majority of the people to support the war by making them believe it's all true and an immediate threat to their lives.
the capitalism and free press is a lovely thing when you lead them with a carrot at the far end of a stick.
If need be, the media makes up the opinion of the majority to support your agenda.
No gun nor constitution protected your freedom from a propaganda, a fact which hundreds of US soldiers and families have faced with the Iraq war.

More left wing nonsense. I am not in a war. Bush has not drug me or the majority of Americans into any 'war'.

There's 300 or so million Americans how many are in Iraq?

As far as war goes 'Iraq' is extremely limted in terms of troops on the ground and over all casulties. All US troops in Iraq are there as volunteers etc...

So my answer to that is 'so what'.

I am as 'free' as I was before Iraq and will remain 'free' well after.

As for your nonsense about the 'media' controlling every ones mind maybe you should try a tin foil hat. In the mean time show me where the 'media' conspired with Bush to bring war in Iraq and convinced all us 'lemmings' to go along with it. Post some examples please.

You can't deal with the questions in my post so you run off on some tangent about how 'Bush lies and we are all stupidly controlled by some 'media conspiracy'.

As far as explosives go I could make some pretty deadly stuff right in my back yard if I were so inclined. I am pretty sure I could make some decent firearms as well. I have no impulse or interest in doing so but any one else with 2 brain cells can make some pretty big bangs.

Raider179,

Randy Weaver and the Davidians and others along this line locked themselves into a building and allowed themselves to be surrounded. They didn't wage war they were attacked by the Federal Government.

There are other examples of groups and lone wolves carrying out very successful attacks against the government and getting away with it for years. Look it up if you like.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Wotan

As far as war goes 'Iraq' is extremely limted in terms of troops on the ground and over all casulties. All US troops in Iraq are there as volunteers etc...

So my answer to that is 'so what'.

Raider179,

Randy Weaver and the Davidians and others along this line locked themselves into a building and allowed themselves to be surrounded. They didn't wage war they were attacked by the Federal Government.

There are other examples of groups and lone wolves carrying out very successful attacks against the government and getting away with it for years. Look it up if you like.

1) They are not all volunteers. You must have missed the parts where they extended people's tours and brought back retirees to fight.Not to mention the CO that are over there.

2)Maybe the war is nothing to you because you are not involved in it but one of my friends died over there. SO Take your "I Am Not in a War" and shove it directly in your ass. His name was Chris Holland and next time you take the war so light-heartedly go look as his picture and thank him for making your life so ****ing easy.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/page3.html

I wrote more in response to you but i erased it no point arguing with a fool.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

PPFFFFFFFFFFT  

There has not been a draft in this country since Vietnam. So everyone who is in is a volunteer. You are told when you sign up you may not get out when you so desire, or that you may be recalled, if certain conditions exist.

Certainly there are those who joined the military believing there would be no need for military force while they were in some branch of the armed forces. The same thing happened during Desert Storm. There were those who joined up to get money for college, or for any number of reasons, believing there'd not be any need for military force.

If you are not willing to be a professional soldier and go wherever you are told and do whatever you are told, you should not join the military. It's just that simple.

REGARDLESS of the administration that happens to be in power, the U.S. has had military units stationed in nearly every corner of the Earth at one time or another for at least a century. At any given time, SOME of those forces were in harm's way, again, RGARDLESS of whatever administration happens to be in power at the time. Whether they were sent in harm's way, or harm's way happened to come in their direction, it happened.

You could just as easily argue Clinton should have left Somalia, or should never have gone to Kosovo. Good men died there as well.

I have lost friends and family in war since I have been alive, one of my uncles, one of my Father's brothers, was killed before I was born. I personally am 4F, the military wouldn't take me when I was younger, and now, I'm 41 when they just raised the enlistment age to 39. I CAN'T go, they won't LET me. I currently have friends AND family in harm's way. I know what is possible, just as they do. EVERY ONE OF THEM believes in what he is doing, and believes the country is doing the right thing.

So go ahead and curse me like you did Wotan. Unlike you, I will not do anyone who has given his life for this country the dishonor
of cursing people in his memory and arbitrarily declaring his sacrifice to be in vain.


Oh, and anyone who thinks the proliferation of arms in the hands of honest citizens contributes to a reduction in the standard of living is sadly misled and mistaken.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts


So go ahead and curse me like you did Wotan. Unlike you, I will not do anyone who has given his life for this country the dishonor
of cursing people in his memory and arbitrarily declaring his sacrifice to be in vain.
 

I cursed him for his cavalier attitude towards the war in Iraq. The "it doesn't affect me so we must not be in one" attitude. I never declared any armed forces death to be in vain.

[Wotan]

You must have missed the parts where they extended people's tours and brought back retirees to fight.Not to mention the CO that are over there.

Those extensions are part of the contract they signed when they volunteered.

Maybe the war is nothing to you because you are not involved in it but one of my friends died over there. SO Take your "I Am Not in a War" and shove it directly in your ass. His name was Chris Holland and next time you take the war so light-heartedly go look as his picture and thank him for making your life so ****ing easy.

Spare me your heart break story. People die every day. If your buddy died in car accident you be on here crying about speed limits or some such nonsense.

I served my country. I did my time and moved on. Iraq isn't my war. It isn't 90% of America's war.  My life is good because I made it that way.

I wrote more in response to you but i erased it no point arguing with a fool.

Arguing? You are just filling this thread with emotion filled straw men.

One thing you need to learn is the idea of 'context'. The first part of my post was directed at and in response to Fishu (as the quotes demonstrate) and have nothing to do with you. I don't care that you replied but I am not responsible for how you interpret things.

Your emotional well being is not my concern. You may want to reserve them for the more egalitarian members of the forum.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Wotan
Those extensions are part of the contract they signed when they volunteered.

Spare me your heart break story. People die every day. If your buddy died in car accident you be on here crying about speed limits or some such nonsense.

I served my country. I did my time and moved on. Iraq isn't my war. It isn't 90% of America's war.  My life is good because I made it that way.

Arguing? You are just filling this thread with emotion filled straw men.

One thing you need to learn is the idea of 'context'. The first part of my post was directed at and in response to Fishu (as the quotes demonstrate) and have nothing to do with you. I don't care that you replied but I am not responsible for how you interpret things.

Your emotional well being is not my concern. You may want to reserve them for the more egalitarian members of the forum.

Your attitude was "The iraq war doesnt affect me so I and 90% of America are not at war".

That is disrepectful to the troops and find it hard to believe a vet would say it.  simple as that. nice use of the new buzzword though. strawman lmao

If that is not what you meant then I apologize.

[Wotan]

Your attitude was "The iraq war doesnt affect me so I and 90% of America are not at war".

That's not correct....

My reply[/i] to one of Fishu's points:

The Bush government already got you guys into a war against Iraq,...

was:

More left wing nonsense. I am not in a war. Bush has not drug me or the majority of Americans into any 'war'.

There's 300 or so million Americans how many are in Iraq?

As far as war goes 'Iraq' is extremely limited in terms of troops on the ground and over all casualties. All US troops in Iraq are there as volunteers etc...

So my answer to that is 'so what'.

Now I don't know what you read into that but I think my reply is clear if read in context.

No need to apologize I would just ask that you take time to understand the context before jumping to an emotional assumption.

I don't think my reply is any more disrespectful to the troops in Iraq then Fishu's assumption that the guys over there are all dupes and tools of the Bush media conspiracy...

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Wotan

No need to apologize I would just ask that you take time to understand the context before jumping to an emotional assumption.

I don't think my reply is any more disrespectful to the troops in Iraq then Fishu's assumption that the guys over there are all dupes and tools of the Bush media conspiracy...

Its offered anyway.

He is from Finland what do we care what he thinks? lol
jk or am I? lol

[Fishu]

The Iraq war was started with the popular suport, by people who had been lied up their faces that Iraq poses some kind of threat to them.
Media worked as an excellent relay to spread this bullcrap to the people, since they report everything that Bush says and everything which says there could be a threat to the USA.
The Bush government didn't even need to ask the press to cooperate, they did it for their business. The media knows what people wants to read and the Bush government knew whats a good bait for the media.

So they got people to believe that Saddam was harboring terrorists, having warehouses full of WMD with the target being the US interests / the USA itself and somewhere on the line some people even thinks Saddam had a part with the 911.

Then Bush simply started his "little" war in Iraq, with the popular support.
It's all about how you utilize the media, you don't need to tell them what to write.
No conspiracy there, we all should know by now that the major reasons for the war in Iraq were a lie (well, I guess the american history goes to claim it was just an extremely bad case of misintelligence.. ops).


Is it too simple to realise?


What comes to the stantard of living, I was clearly talking of the living stantards during a civil war.
It would badly affect the economy for a long long time.

What comes to the history of revolutions...  in the 20th century in waste majority of the revolutions the regular army played the key role.
In many places there was strict gun regulations, but yet failed to prevent the people from rebelling.
Like for example the Czar's russia, it was pretty much played out by most the regular army turning into the revolutionary cause and that was the end of Czar.
If the army had somehow stayed loyal to Czar, it would been a long and bitter civil war, but thats hardly likely since the armies are made of the people.
Russia had a strict gun control.

Nowadays it is even more about that who controls the army.
If the army stays loyal to the government, it doesnt matter how much firearms the civilians had prior to the rebellion.

[storch]

Originally posted by Swoop
If the British had some equivalent right to bear arms there'd have been a revolution by now......

damn I wish we did.

what sparked the American revolution was that British troops were dispatched from Boston with orders to confiscate weaponry from the citizens living in rural communities.  Once word travelled out the minutemen were assembled and waiting.

The Persians under Xerxes also attempted to collect weapons from three hundred Greeks. When asked to surrender their weapons King Leonaides responded with a terse "come get them".

The second amendment is the what gives our populace teeth.
It's not about hunting or target shooting.  It has been watered down considerably since the early 20th century.  I don't believe many of us will allow any further erosion of this fundamental right especially at the hands of the black robed oligarchy.  what you may see is the other two branches of government being forced by public opinion to curb those unaccountable elitist lawyers.  changes are coming friends but they won't be to the constitution.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Fishu
The Iraq war was started with the popular suport, by people who had been lied up their faces that Iraq poses some kind of threat to them.
Media worked as an excellent relay to spread this bullcrap to the people, since they report everything that Bush says and everything which says there could be a threat to the USA.
The Bush government didn't even need to ask the press to cooperate, they did it for their business. The media knows what people wants to read and the Bush government knew whats a good bait for the media.

So they got people to believe that Saddam was harboring terrorists, having warehouses full of WMD with the target being the US interests / the USA itself and somewhere on the line some people even thinks Saddam had a part with the 911.

Then Bush simply started his "little" war in Iraq, with the popular support.
It's all about how you utilize the media, you don't need to tell them what to write.
No conspiracy there, we all should know by now that the major reasons for the war in Iraq were a lie (well, I guess the american history goes to claim it was just an extremely bad case of misintelligence.. ops).


Is it too simple to realise?


What comes to the stantard of living, I was clearly talking of the living stantards during a civil war.
It would badly affect the economy for a long long time.

What comes to the history of revolutions...  in the 20th century in waste majority of the revolutions the regular army played the key role.
In many places there was strict gun regulations, but yet failed to prevent the people from rebelling.
Like for example the Czar's russia, it was pretty much played out by most the regular army turning into the revolutionary cause and that was the end of Czar.
If the army had somehow stayed loyal to Czar, it would been a long and bitter civil war, but thats hardly likely since the armies are made of the people.
Russia had a strict gun control.

Nowadays it is even more about that who controls the army.
If the army stays loyal to the government, it doesnt matter how much firearms the civilians had prior to the rebellion.

I suppose you'd like everyone to believe Saddam NEVER sponsored terrorists. He never paid terrorists either. Poor Saddam, he never had any aspirations of having weapons of mass destruction. He was such a sweet guy, he obeyed the UN sanctions to the letter. He followed all their memorandums as well. He never gassed the Kurds either. Saddam never was aggressive, his troops just forgot to take that left turn at Albuquerque, and accidently wandered into Kuwait. He never harbored terrorists, Abu Nidal was not really a terrorist, he was really a philanthropist travelling incognito.


Oh yeah, the mainstream U.S. media is full of Bush fans, and the rest are all dupes. They all realy love Bush. Like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Helen Thomas, and all the rest. All those anti Bush stories were just a cover, behind the scenes they nearly killed themselves working so hard to get Bush elected, and then re-elected.

Woops, I almost forgot, 95% of Americans are total fools. They'll swallow whatever drivel the media and the government are passing out. They're easily manipulated mindless morons, unable to think for themselves.

[Momus--]

Wotan, history is replete with examples of democratic governments going to war on behalf of special interests and using the media to get public opinion on-side, and the US is no exception, in fact it provides some of the textbook examples. No "left-wing nonsense" there, just historical fact. And as Fishu correctly states, the media's relationship with government is generally so incestuous and dependant on political patronage that the main outlets can almost always be relied on to report the governments line.

Virgil, the two biggest sponsors of terrorism and islamic extremism in the world are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and both are key US allies and have been for decades. Why don't you ponder the significance of that fact before spouting the usual half baked war-rationalisations.