Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Terror on May 09, 2005, 03:14:05 PM
-
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms.
From http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm)
A well written interpretation of the Second Amendment concluding that the Second Amendment is about Individual right, not states or government rights.
Terror
-
Hmmm... IIRC, the Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.
-
It's one of the most outdated parts of the constitution... everything else sooner or later gets modified in some way to reflect the requirements of todays world.
-
The day the Second gets "revised" will probably be marked in history books as the beginning of the Second Civil War.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The day the Second gets "revised" will probably be marked in history books as the beginning of the Second Civil War.
So its worth it to start a war over exagerated amounts of guns and also ruin the living stantards?
Gee.. some people are in worse need of a shrink than I thought.
-
So its worth it to start a war over exagerated amounts of guns and also ruin the living stantards?
It has nothing to do with 'living standards'. Freemen remain free only when they have the ability to defend themselves. There's a difference between a 'right' and just wanting something.
Who are you to say anything about what's 'outdated' in our constitution anyway? What study have you made of it?
The 2nd Amendment isn't just an issue of the 18th century.
However, its doesn't really matter a whole lot what the Justice Department thinks. The AG doesn't tell the Court whats what, it happens the other way around.
-
TY, Wotan.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It's one of the most outdated parts of the constitution... everything else sooner or later gets modified in some way to reflect the requirements of todays world.
Ummm, you live in Finland.....who are you to tell us which parts of our Constitution are outdated? :)
-
I firmy believe it is the most important right.
Without it out ultra melone politicoes would walk on us even more.
Maybe if you cared more about rights in finland your government would not have gone to that wacky light for months dark for months system that seems to drive you people mad.
-
I firmy believe it is the most important right.
Without it our ultra melon politicoes would walk on us even more.
Maybe if you cared more about rights in finland your government would not have gone to that wacky light for months dark for months system that seems to drive you people mad.
-
If the British had some equivalent right to bear arms there'd have been a revolution by now......
damn I wish we did.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Originally posted by Wotan
It has nothing to do with 'living standards'. Freemen remain free only when they have the ability to defend themselves. There's a difference between a 'right' and just wanting something.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
So the rebels in Iraq are winning the "war" for Iraq, eh?
Besides, the explosives aren't covered by the 2nd amendment, thats what creates most of the victims in Iraq, soldiers and civilians.
People with just firearms wouldn't be big of a trouble down there, at most a nuisance, even if deadly at that.
Without a strong army, they would be inferior in training, organization and supply, unable to start any kind of a decisive campaign.
It is all about the control of the conventional army.
Plus the US army is made of US citizens, you would be hard pressed to get most to shoot their uncles, brothers and fathers.
Well, they already did that back in the 19th century, didn't they.
Besides, that just leads to my point again; the control of the army.
If they feel it'd be wrong to fight for the cause of the government, they would become defectors, which in effect would mean a conventional rebel army, which again would mean they'd be the bulk of the revolutionary forces.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It's one of the most outdated parts of the constitution... everything else sooner or later gets modified in some way to reflect the requirements of todays world.
how do you know the world doesnt reflect the modifications?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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'
-
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.
-
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.
-
PPFFFFFFFFFFT :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
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.
-
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.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
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.
.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
One serious flaw in that reasoning. Neither of those governments is or was at the time OPENLY hostile to the U.S., nor were they openly and publicly funding terrorism in the way Saddam Hussein was. Further, both of those goverments have, at their own risk, joined in the war against terrorism. maybe not as aggressive as we'd like, but still, far more than Hussien ever would have.
Why don't YOU ponder THOSE facts before you go spewing the same crap and toeing the lefty line?
Have a nice day.
-
Terror... thank you for the link.
I have been trying for a while to find it. This is an extremely important work and will indeed have bearing on what the supreme court does in the future. This will be a highly quoted document.
MT... tell your wife that no federal law stating that the second was not an individual right has ever been made so therefore.... non has ever been repealed.
fishu... is the first amendment "outdated" and in need of modernization also? how bout some others? Read the frigging DOJ paper and then we will talk about it.
I think Bush putting in some constitutional minded supremes and this document and... the sucess of the concealled carry laws all speak toward us keeping our human rights to defend ourselves... and that don't mean women and old people strying to stopp a couple of thugs by using some cricket paddle thingie and a lisp.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
.
One serious flaw in that reasoning. Neither of those governments is or was at the time OPENLY hostile to the U.S., nor were they openly and publicly funding terrorism in the way Saddam Hussein was. Further, both of those goverments have, at their own risk, joined in the war against terrorism. maybe not as aggressive as we'd like, but still, far more than Hussien ever would have.
Actually there's been no link between Al Queda and Sadaam Hussein....just sayin.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT... tell your wife that no federal law stating that the second was not an individual right has ever been made so therefore.... non has ever been repealed.
lazs
Oh yea? Well she also said your brain was in your prothesis... but I told her she was wrong. She argued a little till she looked down the barrel of my glock. :p
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
.
One serious flaw in that reasoning. Neither of those governments is or was at the time OPENLY hostile to the U.S.
Oh, so it's ok to export extreme militancy to the corners of the globe, send billions to a plethora of millitant groups, arm those groups, provide logistical support and safe havens, so long as the host government is not openly hostile to the USA? So it's ok as long as the general public doesn't know, is that what you are saying? Ignorance is bliss? It doesn't matter until Dubya and the luminaries on your chosen media outlet tell you it is an issue, is that right?
nor were they openly and publicly funding terrorism in the way Saddam Hussein was.
I hate to break it to you, but their support for terrorism far outweighs anything Saddam ever did in that line of business.
Further, both of those goverments have, at their own risk, joined in the war against terrorism. maybe not as aggressive as we'd like, but still, far more than Hussein ever would have.
Over the last 3 decades the Iraqi ba'athists have done as much if not a lot more to combat the threat of Islamic militancy than the US and allies.
It's plain that you don't know a thing about the structure and workings of either the Saudi or Pakistani regimes. Just because President Musharraf and Crown Prince Abdullah pay lip service to George Bush, you think that makes any difference to the reality of the situation? You think they are actually in full control of their respective regimes. Saudi Schools continue to teach that the USA is the centre of infidel power in the world and is the enemy of Islam. Saudi businesses and private citizens continue to funnel hundreds of millions of dllars to extremist groups. The Pakistani ISI continues to be inextricibly linked with organisations such as Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Al-Qaeda themselves. By your logic this is insignificant since their respective host nations are not "OPENLY" hostile to the US, correct?
Why don't YOU ponder THOSE facts before you go spewing the same crap and toeing the lefty line?
The problem, as far as you are concerned, is that I am familiar with the facts of the matter whilst you plainly are not. Even if I was a left winger, which I am not by my own domestic standards, I would still be right on this. That you resort to accusations of leftism as a rationalisation just demonstrates your own intellectual bankruptcy.
-
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.
The problem, as far as you are concerned, is that I am familiar with the facts of the matter whilst you plainly are not. Even if I was a left winger, which I am not by my own domestic standards, I would still be right on this. That you resort to accusations of leftism as a rationalisation just demonstrates your own intellectual bankruptcy.
Since you are so full of facts then please explain how Pakistan has been an allie to the US for decades. We had sanctions against them until shortly after 9/11 and they were only removed because they cooperated with us.
-
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?
None of that is accurate. its just the ramblings of a left wing Euro-tard.
You kept stating your opinion as fact yet you don't provide evidence. You do realize that there is no 'universal media'. You do realize that the government doesn't control the 'media' and has little power to 'trick' them into printing anything.
You do realize their were a lot of questions in the media about the validity of the Bush decision to invade Iraq.
You do realize that the majority of the worlds intelligence services believed that Iraq had WMD not just Bush.
you do know that Iraq paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Is it real that big of a stretch to imagine that Saddam wouldn't finance or aid an attack against America? After all he sponsored an assassination attempt against Bush 1.
He used used WMD against his own people. He had mountains of chemical agents unaccounted for etc...
The fact that no WMDs were doesn't prove you right and does nothing to address the legitimate concerns at were held at the time.
So spare us you 'Bush and his tools in the media' conspiracy nonsense. None of this has anything to do with my freedom or the Second Amendment anyway.
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.
People who would be so inclined to revolt would not be overly concerned about the the 'economy'.
'We can't revolt today because our economy will suffer...'
Nowadays it is even more about that who controls the army.
If the army stays loyal to the government, it doesn't matter how much firearms the civilians had prior to the rebellion.
Nonsense there are far more folks with guns then there are military personnel and equipment.
You are just making it up as you go...
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.
That's left wing nonsense at it finest. See my reply to Fishu. If can prove me wrong post a source that shows the media being duped or at the very least a tool of GWB.
I didn't vote for Bush either time (or his father). i don't care the guy at all. But that completely different from the paranoid delusions espoused by you and your Finnish Comrade.
-
Raider(shade)179
"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."
Yeah it does not suprise me one bit you would like to see Americans killing americans. Scumbag.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Raider(shade)179
"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."
Yeah it does not suprise me one bit you would like to see Americans killing americans. Scumbag.
yeah but you forgot the qualifier "almost"....lol but i deserved that so...
-
That was a cheap shot I will admit, but I do not wish death on people I do not agree with. Not even almost.
-
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed."
I for one certainly do not expect modern day europeans and liberal americans, to grasp the concept of individual freedom, but I know their intent is well meant.
-
Hey.. I'd like to have guns myself too, but I don't buy the excuse that the right to carry arms would somehow make people able to remain free from the states oppression / make the state behave rationally.
-
So its worth it to start a war over exagerated amounts of guns and also ruin the living stantards?
Hmm, how to put this...
Umm...
YES!
-
Incredible how some people take any opportunity, no matter how slight to not only bash Bush but to continually spew the same diatribe over the Iraq war.
Not one of us here on this board could have done anything to stop the American army from invading Iraq.......get over it already.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1) They are not all volunteers. You must have missed the parts where they extended people's tours and brought back retirees to fight.
Yes, in fact they are volunteers. This is all part of the contract when you volunteer.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
Yes, in fact they are volunteers. This is all part of the contract when you volunteer.
If it got to the point that we were having to use these "clauses" in their contracts then I would think our military is way understaffed. And I don't count as a volunteer as someone who has served their tour, doesn't want to be in Iraq, and is forced to go back because of the "emergency" clause. You might but I don't.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
If it got to the point that we were having to use these "clauses" in their contracts then I would think our military is way understaffed. And I don't count as a volunteer as someone who has served their tour, doesn't want to be in Iraq, and is forced to go back because of the "emergency" clause. You might but I don't.
Everyone who volunteers has inactive reserve time on their contracts. The inactive reserve time can be served prior to your enlistment (in the case of delayed enlistment folks like myself) or at the end of your tour. Those folks are reserves that can be called back anytime during their inactive reserve duty. Or they can be kept on active duty until that reserve time is finished.
They are still volunteers. They volunteered knowing they had reserve duty after their active duty was finished.
-
Its kind of a misnomer, a genuine volunteer is free to choose not to volunteer at any time. Rather, people who enlist in the military agree to abide by a contract with the government. I am pretty sure the contract states that the enlistee can be retained indefinately at the governments discretion. So...you could say they voluntarily agree to sign a contract but once signed they cannot simply quit whenever they want to. This reality I believe, shows itself in diminished recruiting to the military. Average young people are beginning to understand that military service is a contractual obligation. Once entered into you become the property of someone other than your mother.
-
What with the well know corruptability of thomas jefferson and his constant state of debt & horniness, one is lead to wonder how much the firearms lobby paid him off
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It's one of the most outdated parts of the constitution... everything else sooner or later gets modified in some way to reflect the requirements of todays world.
We do that by something called a "Constitutional Amendment".
Two thirds of the State Legislatures must pass it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... IIRC, the Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial Branch.
And the Judicial Branch simply interprets the law....If they attempt to improperly interpret the Bill of Rights to project their own ideologies, we will spell it out to them very clearly with a Constitutional Amendment. The "Bill of Rights" are rights given to the people, not the Government. If they can not understand that they can be removed through impeachment.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
If it got to the point that we were having to use these "clauses" in their contracts then I would think our military is way understaffed. And I don't count as a volunteer as someone who has served their tour, doesn't want to be in Iraq, and is forced to go back because of the "emergency" clause. You might but I don't.
Obviously... but it doesn't matter. When you sign on (volunteer), you either know/knew what you are/were getting in to, or you aren't/weren't paying attention. When I signed on... I knew I was 4 active and 4 Inactive reserve. When I retire, I know I'll be eligible to be called back up. It's a simple as that, and not paying attention to what your volunteering for is not an excuse.
-
I understand what you are saying. I just am not sure about the terminology of "volunteer" army. Technically why would we need such a clause in the contracts? Couldn't congress just pass a law overnight like the shiavo one which says we can keep people past their enlistment agreements and call back retiree's if neccessary. My point is that if it has gotten to this point where we need to do that to our soldiers, we need more soldiers. What happens if a war breaks out somewhere else now?
-
mt.. I understand... I just thought that it was time your wife picked up a new anti second amendment cliche from some of the far left corners of the internet.
Raider... I doubt that many people would stand alone against large government forces for any freedom... That is like saying that we should take away freedom of speech to see how many would resist arrest.
If the government simply banned all private ownership of guns they would be clumsily (and messily) puting out uprisings all over the place... their heavy and clumsy hand would enrage even more people and riots would ensue. those "guns hidden at an uncles house" would come out.
I am curious tho as to why you trust the government so much that you feel that they should be the only group armed in America. You seem very afraid of organized religion and it would follow that you would fear an even more powerful entity like government yet.... you would assure that they were even more powerful? Perhaps you feel that the government will allways be in agreement with your beliefs?
lazs
-
Hey.. I'd like to have guns myself too, but I don't buy the excuse that the right to carry arms would somehow make people able to remain free from the states oppression / make the state behave rationally.
If you'd like to have guns why don't you? You're not making any sense.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If the government simply banned all private ownership of guns they would be clumsily (and messily) puting out uprisings all over the place... their heavy and clumsy hand would enrage even more people and riots would ensue. those "guns hidden at an uncles house" would come out.
They'd never ban all the private guns, you just would need an actual reason to own one and you would need a license for each gun.
It hasn't drawn out people elsewhere in the world either.
Finland has this "de-militarized" zone called Åland, which is an autonomical island.
They do have more registered guns per population than rest of the country and speculations are that they have a bunch of unregistered guns too, making it possible to give a weapon for each of its ~20,000 residents.
It becomes a horribly outcry for them, if even a single unarmed person in military dressing steps out of a ship on the way by.
So the gun control isn't exactly the total gun ban nightmare you're thinking of.
Siaf,
Didn't I express myself clearly?
I wouldn't get a gun for myself or defend having a weapon with an excuse that it will keep me and my fellas 'free' of the government, if they someday go nuts.
If the government goes nuts, the guns of the 2nd amendment wouldn't do a jack to stop them, neither my fellas.
However if I could choose to have legal firearms, grenades, other explosives and shoulder launched missiles, then I'd say the excuse would be valid.
So why doesn't it make sense?
I could want the guns just for the guns itself, or hunting or target shooting.... right?
I'd say that hardly anyone in the states actually buys the guns just in case the government goes nuts.
It's either related to a hobby or personal security, against the other armed wackos.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/page3.html
I had a... somewhat... positive feeling when I saw the Italian casualties listed among the others.
It's like a recognizment(sp?) of the contribution given by my country in Iraq (of wich I disagre), and in Afganistan (of wich I agree).
Side by side, even if many here think otherwise.
Nice done CNN.
-
Hey.. I'd like to have guns myself too
This part is not clear. Are you saying you can not have guns for some reason or what? And if not, why? Do you have a mental illness or a criminal record stoping you from getting one?
They'd never ban all the private guns, you just would need an actual reason to own one and you would need a license for each gun.
You forget that lazs has watched every X-file episode there is. He's convinced that the cancer man will collect all his toys away immediately if he registers them.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
This part is not clear. Are you saying you can not have guns for some reason or what? And if not, why? Do you have a mental illness or a criminal record stoping you from getting one?
Haven't bothered to get any weapons yet.
-
I have herad recently that new jersey law makers are considering a bill that would confiscate the personal property of citizens found to have unregistered firearms. For all intents and purposes the state would be confiscating the homes and vehicles of people who by most reasonable standards would be a law abiding citizens with the exception that they failed to register their rifles and handguns.
I would not take kindly to that sort of infringement if I were unfortunate enough to live in new jersery.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Raider... I doubt that many people would stand alone against large government forces for any freedom... That is like saying that we should take away freedom of speech to see how many would resist arrest.
If the government simply banned all private ownership of guns they would be clumsily (and messily) puting out uprisings all over the place... their heavy and clumsy hand would enrage even more people and riots would ensue. those "guns hidden at an uncles house" would come out.
I am curious tho as to why you trust the government so much that you feel that they should be the only group armed in America. You seem very afraid of organized religion and it would follow that you would fear an even more powerful entity like government yet.... you would assure that they were even more powerful? Perhaps you feel that the government will allways be in agreement with your beliefs?
lazs
Your right they are both powerful entities.
I am not anti-gun, I just think we need to do something and I am not sure what. Quite a few gun threads come and go and even though I argue for some measures it is doubtful anything would stem the problem.
Now that being said, I trust the government partly, not explicitly because in order for them to do some crazy stuff to the American people they would need the backing of the military and or law enforcement. Now I sincerly doubt that either of those organizations is gonna go along with something that is gonna wind up killing lots of Americans. I have faith in the military and police to do whats right regardless of what their "ordered" to do. Those guys are just average joes.
Religion is a lot more dangerous because of the fanaticalism that tends to arise out of it. This isnt a thread about religion though so i will stop with that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I have herad recently that new jersey law makers are considering a bill that would confiscate the personal property of citizens found to have unregistered firearms. For all intents and purposes the state would be confiscating the homes and vehicles of people who by most reasonable standards would be a law abiding citizens with the exception that they failed to register their rifles and handguns.
I would not take kindly to that sort of infringement if I were unfortunate enough to live in new jersery.
I dont agree with that either. Maybe take the fire-arm, MAYBE. You can't seize someone's home for not registering a gun, unless they are a criminal then throw the book at em.Got a link to the law?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Your right they are both powerful entities.
I am not anti-gun, I just think we need to do something and I am not sure what. Quite a few gun threads come and go and even though I argue for some measures it is doubtful anything would stem the problem.
Now that being said, I trust the government partly, not explicitly because in order for them to do some crazy stuff to the American people they would need the backing of the military and or law enforcement. Now I sincerly doubt that either of those organizations is gonna go along with something that is gonna wind up killing lots of Americans. I have faith in the military and police to do whats right regardless of what their "ordered" to do. Those guys are just average joes.
Religion is a lot more dangerous because of the fanaticalism that tends to arise out of it. This isnt a thread about religion though so i will stop with that.
No it only took Ruby Ridge and Waco under the watch of a guy respecting the office by getting freebies in a side closet.
-
Originally posted by bustr
No it only took Ruby Ridge and Waco under the watch of a guy respecting the office by getting freebies in a side closet.
1) Both parties should have came out to law enforcement after they were identified. Not saying Weaver's wife deserved to be shot, she clearly did not but thats why when the government wants to talk to you, you might wanna think about coming out for a watermelon chat.
2) Like that office has never seen freebies. lmao
-
Originally posted by Raider179
1) Both parties should have came out to law enforcement after they were identified. Not saying Weaver's wife deserved to be shot, she clearly did not but thats why when the government wants to talk to you, you might wanna think about coming out for a watermelon chat.
2) Like that office has never seen freebies. lmao
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/weaver.shtml
Surrender to agents who just shot your dog (w/o provocation), then your son who only sees masked men in camoflage fires back and is killed? I wouldnt.
Interesting that in the trial concerning the Ruby Ridge incident that the defense didnt call any witnesses, convinced that the 50+ prosecution witnesses had destroyed the gov'ts case. They were right.
It's also interesting that no federal agents have been brought to trial for the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver.
-
It's been my long experience that the only time the government wants to talk to you is the prelude to taking your money, property, freedom or life. Otherwise you mean nothing to them but a social security number at the IRS.
You'll have to excuse me, both of my parents retired form the NSA and my sister worked for the Bureau of Reclamation, Indian Affaires. I grew up in the Militairy because of my father and with family freinds who were militairy, Federal Agents and NSA spooks.
Our government is not the nicest in the world, but is better than many................
-
Originally posted by Elfie
http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/weaver.shtml
Surrender to agents who just shot your dog (w/o provocation), then your son who only sees masked men in camoflage fires back and is killed? I wouldnt.
Interesting that in the trial concerning the Ruby Ridge incident that the defense didnt call any witnesses, convinced that the 50+ prosecution witnesses had destroyed the gov'ts case. They were right.
It's also interesting that no federal agents have been brought to trial for the murder of Vicki and Sammy Weaver.
Did you just not read where I said AFTER they were identified as agents?
As for the trial thing, that is the kind of thing that happens when everyone owns guns.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Did you just not read where I said AFTER they were identified as agents?
As for the trial thing, that is the kind of thing that happens when everyone owns guns.
First, what does the trial have to do with everyone owning guns? Btw, not everyone owns a gun.
Second, in an incident like what happened at Ruby Ridge I would NOT talk to any of the Federal agents. I would NOT surrender to them.
From the link I posted:
As part of their efforts to make contact with the Weavers, the FBI sent a robot with a telephone to the cabin. But the robot also had a shotgun pointed at the door, so the Weavers feared that reaching for the phone could result in death or injury
Would you reach for the phone the robot was holding when you saw it had a shotgun pointed at the door? I wouldnt and I bet you wouldnt either.
The gov't screwed the pooch at Ruby Ridge.
Marshall service witnesses told about a series of pre-siege scenarios to root Weaver out of his cabin. But when pressed by the defense, they said they never considered simply knocking on the door and arresting him.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Did you just not read where I said AFTER they were identified as agents?
As for the trial thing, that is the kind of thing that happens when everyone owns guns.
Sure and then we would have a trial sooner and with less open information to the general public because only the government has the guns so you cannot resist what your personal convictions tell you is a violation of your constitutional and natural rights. His resistance is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was created for. The government acting in open violation of his rights. The trial proved he was setup and his rights violated. But the government always has to save its face because you dared to embarrase it................
His son only knew that his dog had been harmed on his fathers "Private" property. The Marshals did not simply walk up to the front door and identify themselves. Bull compost on them being afraid he was armed, it was his private property and right to be armed against assailants of his life and families life and freedom. They snuck around in the brush like assasins. In that situation I would have shot the jack arse Marshals also.
Raider you seem to want us to bend over every time the government tells us to drop em and spread em. If you think its such a great idea, please take all of our turns for the next 50 years. I'll be glad to put your SSN on any gov docs I sign from now on...............
-
Originally posted by bustr
Sure and then we would have a trial sooner and with less open information to the general public because only the government has the guns so you cannot resist what your personal convictions tell you is a violation of your constitutional and natural rights. His resistance is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was created for. The government acting in open violation of his rights. The trial proved he was setup and his rights violated. But the government always has to save its face because you dared to embarrase it................
His son only knew that his dog had been harmed on his fathers "Private" property. The Marshals did not simply walk up to the front door and identify themselves. Bull compost on them being afraid he was armed, it was his private property and right to be armed against assailants of his life and families life and freedom. They snuck around in the brush like assasins. In that situation I would have shot the jack arse Marshals also.
Raider you seem to want us to bend over every time the government tells us to drop em and spread em. If you think its such a great idea, please take all of our turns for the next 50 years. I'll be glad to put your SSN on any gov docs I sign from now on...............
So explain how Weaver having guns protected him? looks like to me it cost him his wife and son and dog. Its a dangerous thing to have guns around wether for protection or fun. I will not defend the actions of the agents but I will defend the governments right to investigate "criminals". They are not always right about who is a criminal though and this is case in point.
So the son shot at someone that killed his dog? Thats pretty rough retaliation. Sounds like just what I said. Guns are dangerous. Especially in the hands of children.
How many times has the government told you to bend over and spread them? Zero? If it asked me to I would, what I wouldn't do is go reaching for my gun and start yelling about my freedoms and liberties. I like my government and I appreciate that it tries to act in the public good. Even if sometimes the wrong people get in charge. Weaver was exonerated correct? So the system works even if the people failed it.
By being a citizen of the state you agree to allow the government to govern you. You are not forced to live in America or anywhere else, you do so by choice and by making that choice thereby agree to follow all laws, even the ones that bend you over. Signing documents is a big deal? man who do you think is in charge, the Gestappo? lol Oh no the evil government knows I own 50 rifles. lol
-
Originally posted by Elfie
First, what does the trial have to do with everyone owning guns? Btw, not everyone owns a gun.
Second, in an incident like what happened at Ruby Ridge I would NOT talk to any of the Federal agents. I would NOT surrender to them.
Would you reach for the phone the robot was holding when you saw it had a shotgun pointed at the door? I wouldnt and I bet you wouldnt either.
The gov't screwed the pooch at Ruby Ridge.
1)If the weavers wouldnt have been armed this wouldnt have happened. Hard to prosecute a law enforcement officer for shooting people who refuse to surrender and have guns. I know about his wife so yeah like you say they screwed the pooch. btw it was a figure of speech.
2)Sorry but I do not agree with your no surrender policy. That is just the way you get Waco'd.
3)I have no idea how I would act in his situation becaue I would never allow myself to get into one like that. Holding the Feds at bay just isnt my bag.
-
If you have ever read the full story about Ruby ridge his son was a trained and competent marksmen and hunter because part of the families survival was hunting. They lived in the boonies and his son had also neede to deal with four legged predators. Children who live in rural areas very often are thaught to handlel firearms and hunt at an early age. I've known children who killed and dressed their first dear at 6.
The constitution does not make the government our masters, nor give them the right to act in the manner they did. Last I checked the document said We the People. The governments power is vested by us to them as a privlage. The second amendment recognises each individuals right as the Right of the People. You act as though "living at any cost" for 1 second longer is worth more than standing your ground for your life and freedom and risking your life. Peace is easy. Just don't resist no matter what. You can have peace in handcuffs, a jail cell, flat of your back with a hole in your chest, harrased by BATF and the IRS. But peace is not freedom, it has always cost lives.
The transition of Germany from a democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship happened in the blink of an eye through a legal system of elections. The population wanted to beleive in the imagery in Hitlers promises of the future. Much of the german intelligensia beleived as you do about resisting the government or that the government could ever become detrimental to the citizens of Germany. All the guns were registered then confiscated. The jews took gas baths. And in the end what a great flight simm the whole ugly episode has enabled us to play in.
-
2)Sorry but I do not agree with your no surrender policy. That is just the way you get Waco'd.
I didnt say I wouldnt surrender at all, I just wouldnt surrender to the thugs that instigated the events at Ruby Ridge. I would most likely do like Randy Weaver did and surrender to a 3rd party just to ensure my family and my own safety.
Hard to prosecute a law enforcement officer for shooting people who refuse to surrender and have guns.
At no point prior to shots being fired did the Federal agents identify themselves as Federal agents. You CAN prosecute those agents for violations of civil rights and for murder.
If the weavers wouldnt have been armed this wouldnt have happened.
If the Weavers hadnt been armed? :rofl :rofl :rofl The 2nd amendment guarantees their right to be armed. If the US Marshalls and FBI had followed their own ROE this wouldnt have happened. If the Feds had attempted to arrest Weaver away from his home this wouldnt have happened. If the Feds had identified themselves as such this wouldnt have happened.
So explain how Weaver having guns protected him? looks like to me it cost him his wife and son and dog.
Failure to follow sop on the part of the Feds cost Mr. Weaver his wife, son and dog.
It all started with the Feds entrapping Randy Weaver. The Feds were in the wrong the whole way through this mess. The sad part is no one has ever apologized to Randy Weaver and family.
*edit* forgot to add this:
So the son shot at someone that killed his dog? Thats pretty rough retaliation.
First, read the article and you would see that he didnt just *shoot at someone who shot his dog*. He shot at a masked man in camoflage that shot his dog. The masked man in camoflage was a US Marshall that failed to identify himself as such. I see absolutely no reason for federal agents to wear masks and camoflage. In this situation I would most likely fear for my life and shoot back also. Btw the courts determined that Kevin Harris and the Weavers were acting in (legal) self defense.
-
Originally posted by bustr
If you have ever read the full story about Ruby ridge his son was a trained and competent marksmen and hunter because part of the families survival was hunting. They lived in the boonies and his son had also neede to deal with four legged predators. Children who live in rural areas very often are thaught to handlel firearms and hunt at an early age. I've known children who killed and dressed their first dear at 6.
The constitution does not make the government our masters, nor give them the right to act in the manner they did. Last I checked the document said We the People. The governments power is vested by us to them as a privlage. The second amendment recognises each individuals right as the Right of the People. You act as though "living at any cost" for 1 second longer is worth more than standing your ground for your life and freedom and risking your life. Peace is easy. Just don't resist no matter what. You can have peace in handcuffs, a jail cell, flat of your back with a hole in your chest, harrased by BATF and the IRS. But peace is not freedom, it has always cost lives.
The transition of Germany from a democracy to a totalitarian dictatorship happened in the blink of an eye through a legal system of elections. The population wanted to beleive in the imagery in Hitlers promises of the future. Much of the german intelligensia beleived as you do about resisting the government or that the government could ever become detrimental to the citizens of Germany. All the guns were registered then confiscated. The jews took gas baths. And in the end what a great flight simm the whole ugly episode has enabled us to play in.
Just to make sure I got this right... The agent shot the dog, the kid shot at the agent, the agent killed the kid, then harris killed the agent. Is that the right sequence of events (as they are best known)? You can not shoot someone for killing your dog. That is what I mean by kids having guns is a disaster waiting to happen.
good flight sim though
-
Originally posted by Elfie
*edit* forgot to add this:
First, read the article and you would see that he didnt just *shoot at someone who shot his dog*. He shot at a masked man in camoflage that shot his dog. The masked man in camoflage was a US Marshall that failed to identify himself as such. I see absolutely no reason for federal agents to wear masks and camoflage. In this situation I would most likely fear for my life and shoot back also. Btw the courts determined that Kevin Harris and the Weavers were acting in (legal) self defense.
I would have ran and got my dad.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I would have ran and got my dad.
In the case of Ruby Ridge you would have stood a very real chance of being shot in the back as you ran screaming for your dad.
Just to make sure I got this right... The agent shot the dog, the kid shot at the agent, the agent killed the kid, then harris killed the agent. Is that the right sequence of events (as they are best known)? You can not shoot someone for killing your dog. That is what I mean by kids having guns is a disaster waiting to happen.
Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris would not have needed to shoot if the agents had simply identified themselves. You are correct in the sequence of events as they are best known.
You really cant blame Kevin Harris and Sammy Weaver imo. They followed the dog thinking it might be chasing a deer, then suddenly there is gunfire that kills the dog. Sammy and Kevin thought they were going after dinner and instead were met with gunfire from an unknown person who was masked and wearing camoflage. Their actions in self defense were perfectly justified. The trial brought this out.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I would have ran and got my dad.
My dad taught me to never "run"..............
-
Originally posted by bustr
My dad taught me to never "run"..............
when you are 6? from gunfire? Man thats hilarious. mine said if someone starts shooting get the **** out of there. lol
-
Originally posted by Raider179
when you are 6? from gunfire? Man thats hilarious. mine said if someone starts shooting get the **** out of there. lol
How bad is the gang violence in Atlanta? Just wondering is all :)
-
I've survived, I've never run, nor have any of the good O'l boys in my fathers family from Tennesse to Alabama since the 1700's. Many of them are buried around the world and on U.S. soil. All of them learned to hunt as soon as they could follow the hounds into the woods. If a child doesnt run at 6, he won't run as a man.
The motto "These Colors Don't Run" had a meaning once. It took teaching children not to run so as men they could stand and die for those colors if thats what it cost. You can make more children. You only get one shot at his experiment called Liberty and the United States. And I believe that's an absolutely meaningless and a very uncomfortable concept to many posters on this board..................none of my family can recall ever meeting an atheist in a foxhole.
-
Why would anyone argue with a Finnidiot about the US Constitution?
dago
-
Originally posted by bustr
I've survived, I've never run, nor have any of the good O'l boys in my fathers family from Tennesse to Alabama since the 1700's. Many of them are buried around the world and on U.S. soil. All of them learned to hunt as soon as they could follow the hounds into the woods. If a child doesnt run at 6, he won't run as a man.
The motto "These Colors Don't Run" had a meaning once. It took teaching children not to run so as men they could stand and die for those colors if thats what it cost. You can make more children. You only get one shot at his experiment called Liberty and the United States. And I believe that's an absolutely meaningless and a very uncomfortable concept to many posters on this board..................none of my family can recall ever meeting an atheist in a foxhole.
1) The south lost.
2) Yeah I guess getting shot in the back is defending liberty. What is this "you can make more children" that seems very callous. Its not like America is going to just be gone anytime soon. That kid died for no reason. Absolutely none. He died because of a mistake.
3)Yeah takes a real man of religion to kill other people. sheesh
4)How many firefights did you say you were in again? I didnt see you post it so I am gonna guess none.
5)We are talking about a 6 year old confronting 2 men with guns. Tell my kid to run, Damn right. That's not cowardice which is what you are inferring. You sacrificing children to somehow save liberty is disgraceful.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
How bad is the gang violence in Atlanta? Just wondering is all :)
Put it this way the news is no fun to watch here. Used to live in the city, would hear gunshots on a pretty regular basis(nightly, couple times a week). Moved to the outskirts now and its a lot calmer.
-
X files? nope, never watched em but... I do watch history. england and australia had to regester guns and guess what the government did with those lists.
There are many reasons to own firearms and it is really no ones business but your own until you do something illegal with them.
Ruby ridge and Waco were huge blunders for the government... they took unsympathetic people and turned them into martys and.... they were tied up for weeks in each event... two events each in 20 or 30 states would have had the government tied up completely... they would have had to act even more heavy handedly and caused even more incidents.... they most likely would have lost support from their own forces in that case.
Ruby ridge footage is interesting... the people outside the area where the government forces were gathereing were more than openly hostile toward the government forces.
These incidents were against people who had commited crimes and the sympathy went toward the victims. Imagine if the excuse the government had for dozens of these actions was.... conrfiscation.
Ruby ridge and Waco caused less trust for government not more. More people felt that the government shouldn't be the only ones armed not less.
Randy Weaver was given 3.1 million dollars by our government for the wrongful deaths caused by our benevolent government.
lazs
-
and raider.... it is governments who do the most killing of citizens.. History shows us that they massacre their own people at a rate that is far beyond any incidental killing of citizen by citizen.
You certainly have more to fear from your government than from your neighbor based on history. Yet.... you would give the government even more power by making it's citizens even more vulnerable.
You would trust the government with lists with your name on it and trust that they would never abuse that knowledge? Perhaps our government is "special"? Not like that england and australlia unfortunateness.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and raider.... it is governments who do the most killing of citizens.. History shows us that they massacre their own people at a rate that is far beyond any incidental killing of citizen by citizen.
You certainly have more to fear from your government than from your neighbor based on history. Yet.... you would give the government even more power by making it's citizens even more vulnerable.
You would trust the government with lists with your name on it and trust that they would never abuse that knowledge? Perhaps our government is "special"? Not like that england and australlia unfortunateness.
lazs
you need to go look at the homicide rate in America. But I see what you are saying.
-
These incidents were against people who had commited crimes
The only crime commited by Randy Weaver was modifiying 2 shotguns. It was later determined that undercover agents *entrapped* Weaver. Even later the US Congress declared the modified shotguns were in fact legal.
Sammy and Vicki commited no crimes, yet they are dead because of an overly zealous government.
-
raider.... you need to look at the history of this and every other country to see how many people governments have killed. People who were citizens.
lazs