The 4th right may have ensured the other 3 200 years ago but it certainly does not today in light of what one is allowed to arm themselves with vs the Government today compared to 200 years ago. The South thought the Federal Government was becoming tyranical and left, and they were soundly defeated in 1865 by the Federal Government despite having very similar equipment and at the outset better trained personal and officers. In 2002 it is impossible for citizens to defeat the federal government if its backed by the US military. Thats the way it should be. No citizen should have the power to overthrow my and everyones elected government. There are plenty of freaks out there though who think the Federal government is evil and form these crazy militia's. But it seems that has died down in recent years though.
The American Freedom
- Thread starter Holy John
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
I'll grant that U.S. citizens would probably not last very long against the U.S. military in a conventional war - particularly if the U.S. military ever decided that it was no longer concerned about innocent bystanders - the elderly, women, and children.
(And while I grant that the South lost the U.S. Civil War, I'll also note that it did so in the arena of conventional warfare, in which thousands of men march across a field to shoot each other at near point blank range. Had they used the tactics of guerilla warfare that worked so well in the American Revolutionary War - tactics that would be successfully repeated in Vietnam and when the Soviets attacked the Afghans - well, it might have been a much different story.)
(And if We the People had guns, what's to prevent us from seizing small government armories and get bigger guns? And what's preventing us from using THOSE guns to raid even larger armories? Fact is, we would probably led by retired military men and women and avid outdoorsmen, and simply mad as hell; the suggestion that we would be UTTERLY doomed is a bit pessimistic.)
That said, I submit that, while a tyranny can be forced onto a people through military victories, it can only be maintained through a police state, a nation ruled through martial law where individuals are coerced to obey that law. And an armed American citizenry would be sheer Hell on a police state.
Basically, I see two threats: the large-scale threat of military defeat and the small-scale threat of personal coercion; the B-52 bomber and the soldier with the machine gun.
While the 2nd Amendment may no longer protect against the former (a debatable claim, to be sure), I still believe it DOES protect against the latter.
What this reduces to, I believe, is the argument that "X can prevent everything, ergo X is useless." I've seen it most recently in the debate over missle defense. Opponents say that even if it could prevent a rogue state from destroying American cities with nuclear ICBM's, it wouldn't prevent another 9/11.
To which I reply, so what? I would rather be at risk of another 9/11 than at risk for BOTH another 9/11 AND a large scale missle offensive.
Or, in another example, bullet-proof vests don't prevent gunshot wounds to the head, but it STILL prevents wounds to the chest. Do you not wear the vest because it doesn't protect your head? No, that's silly.
Should we give up our 2nd Amendment rights because it doesn't protect us from a large scale attack from our own government? No, that's also silly: it still protects us from individual coercion.
(And while I grant that the South lost the U.S. Civil War, I'll also note that it did so in the arena of conventional warfare, in which thousands of men march across a field to shoot each other at near point blank range. Had they used the tactics of guerilla warfare that worked so well in the American Revolutionary War - tactics that would be successfully repeated in Vietnam and when the Soviets attacked the Afghans - well, it might have been a much different story.)
(And if We the People had guns, what's to prevent us from seizing small government armories and get bigger guns? And what's preventing us from using THOSE guns to raid even larger armories? Fact is, we would probably led by retired military men and women and avid outdoorsmen, and simply mad as hell; the suggestion that we would be UTTERLY doomed is a bit pessimistic.)
That said, I submit that, while a tyranny can be forced onto a people through military victories, it can only be maintained through a police state, a nation ruled through martial law where individuals are coerced to obey that law. And an armed American citizenry would be sheer Hell on a police state.
Basically, I see two threats: the large-scale threat of military defeat and the small-scale threat of personal coercion; the B-52 bomber and the soldier with the machine gun.
While the 2nd Amendment may no longer protect against the former (a debatable claim, to be sure), I still believe it DOES protect against the latter.
What this reduces to, I believe, is the argument that "X can prevent everything, ergo X is useless." I've seen it most recently in the debate over missle defense. Opponents say that even if it could prevent a rogue state from destroying American cities with nuclear ICBM's, it wouldn't prevent another 9/11.
To which I reply, so what? I would rather be at risk of another 9/11 than at risk for BOTH another 9/11 AND a large scale missle offensive.
Or, in another example, bullet-proof vests don't prevent gunshot wounds to the head, but it STILL prevents wounds to the chest. Do you not wear the vest because it doesn't protect your head? No, that's silly.
Should we give up our 2nd Amendment rights because it doesn't protect us from a large scale attack from our own government? No, that's also silly: it still protects us from individual coercion.
First, the British lost the Revolutionary war because they actually did lose large scale battles like York Town and others, and the Continental army recieved lots of weapons and aid from France in addition to French troop and French Naval power that heavily disrupted British logistical support for the forces in the colonies. If it had just been guerilla tactics, the colonist would have been defeated. The French and Indians largely used guerilla tactics in the French And Indian war and they were largely defeated and all land East of the Mississippi came under British control.
In Vietnam, the US military fought a war with not just one hand tied behind its back but both and its feet as well. In battle terms the North Vietnames and Vietcong were slaughtered in battle, but were allowed to flee to the North or Laos and Cambodia to gain reinforcements and continue the attack. In addition to Billions of dollars of supplies and military aid from the Soviet Union as well as nearly 2,000 Soviet advisors in the North training their forces. The US left in 1973, and the war continued dead locked for another 2 years. It ended in the spring of 1975 when the North launched a large scale convential offensive with lots of tanks, and artillery. The South caved in from the massive attack. The first North Vietnames soldiers to enter Saigon were not guerilla's dressed in black Pjs armed with AK-47s, but tank crewman in a Soviet built T-55 tank.
In Afghanistan with the Soviets, the Soviet army never numbered more than 115,000 only enough to protect maybe four cities and launch brief raids into the country side. Afghanistan is 5 times as large as Vietnam, yet the Soviets only sent 1/5 as many troops as the USA sent to Vietnam. The Reason being, the Soviets only real objective was propping up the government in Kabul, and not hunting down all the rebels in the countryside. If it had been, the Soviet military then numbering active duty 5,000,000 troops could have sent a far larger force into the country that would have accomplished that objective. But for reasons that were political and international, they never did.
Citizens can be coarced by more than machine guns. Tanks and Amored personal carries can be used short of B-52s. They would be more than sufficient to coerce and subdue any civilian population only armed with small arms. Plus which armory are you going to assualt and take which the government would leave unguarded. Plus what would you take. Most citizens cannot operate tanks included retired military. Many tanks and equipment are so sophisticated today that a retired Tank Crewman from twenty years ago would be unable to operate one today. Plus heavy equipment in storage needs spare parts, fuel, and ammo, most of which will not be on site or at least not in quantity to last. Civilians retired or otherwise could never sieze the quantity of heavy equipment needed, with the needed logistical requirments, to challenge the US military.
The fact is, the only serious challenge to the US military would be a similarly equipped, and more importantly well supplied, organized military force.
Of course, this alone does not mean that personal firearms should be band. I'll give you another reason, 667,000 deaths from murder or accidents with firearms in the USA since December 1980! The large number of firearms in society has been a failure in the USA, while the small number of firearms available to those in the UK and Ireland has been a massive success.
Freedom often involves being secure, and most people in the UK and Ireland would feel less secure in the USA. Freedom is not just about the freedom to buy and equip oneself with things or to say or do certain things. It is also about freedom from certain conditions and environments. People in the USA do not enjoy this freedom from random firearm violence unlike people in Ireland and the UK. 667,000 deaths in 20 years from a tool that is only used to kill other people indicates that firearms need to be controlled and severely restricted. While other things may kill large numbers of people, they have other purposes and uses in society, firearms for civilians do not. The Facts demonstrate that Ireland and the UK have the best policies in regards to gun control and that the USA should adopt those because they work. 667,000 deaths in 20 years is not a success by any stretch of the imagination. I'm all for locking violent offenders up and throwing away the key. But I'm also for gun control policies similar to those in the UK and Ireland. In addition to that I would hire and train more police officers. Longterm, economic prosperity to lower the poverty rate is also curcial. Doing all four is what will reduce the 1980-2000 statistic in firearm deaths in the next 20 years.
In Vietnam, the US military fought a war with not just one hand tied behind its back but both and its feet as well. In battle terms the North Vietnames and Vietcong were slaughtered in battle, but were allowed to flee to the North or Laos and Cambodia to gain reinforcements and continue the attack. In addition to Billions of dollars of supplies and military aid from the Soviet Union as well as nearly 2,000 Soviet advisors in the North training their forces. The US left in 1973, and the war continued dead locked for another 2 years. It ended in the spring of 1975 when the North launched a large scale convential offensive with lots of tanks, and artillery. The South caved in from the massive attack. The first North Vietnames soldiers to enter Saigon were not guerilla's dressed in black Pjs armed with AK-47s, but tank crewman in a Soviet built T-55 tank.
In Afghanistan with the Soviets, the Soviet army never numbered more than 115,000 only enough to protect maybe four cities and launch brief raids into the country side. Afghanistan is 5 times as large as Vietnam, yet the Soviets only sent 1/5 as many troops as the USA sent to Vietnam. The Reason being, the Soviets only real objective was propping up the government in Kabul, and not hunting down all the rebels in the countryside. If it had been, the Soviet military then numbering active duty 5,000,000 troops could have sent a far larger force into the country that would have accomplished that objective. But for reasons that were political and international, they never did.
Citizens can be coarced by more than machine guns. Tanks and Amored personal carries can be used short of B-52s. They would be more than sufficient to coerce and subdue any civilian population only armed with small arms. Plus which armory are you going to assualt and take which the government would leave unguarded. Plus what would you take. Most citizens cannot operate tanks included retired military. Many tanks and equipment are so sophisticated today that a retired Tank Crewman from twenty years ago would be unable to operate one today. Plus heavy equipment in storage needs spare parts, fuel, and ammo, most of which will not be on site or at least not in quantity to last. Civilians retired or otherwise could never sieze the quantity of heavy equipment needed, with the needed logistical requirments, to challenge the US military.
The fact is, the only serious challenge to the US military would be a similarly equipped, and more importantly well supplied, organized military force.
Of course, this alone does not mean that personal firearms should be band. I'll give you another reason, 667,000 deaths from murder or accidents with firearms in the USA since December 1980! The large number of firearms in society has been a failure in the USA, while the small number of firearms available to those in the UK and Ireland has been a massive success.
Freedom often involves being secure, and most people in the UK and Ireland would feel less secure in the USA. Freedom is not just about the freedom to buy and equip oneself with things or to say or do certain things. It is also about freedom from certain conditions and environments. People in the USA do not enjoy this freedom from random firearm violence unlike people in Ireland and the UK. 667,000 deaths in 20 years from a tool that is only used to kill other people indicates that firearms need to be controlled and severely restricted. While other things may kill large numbers of people, they have other purposes and uses in society, firearms for civilians do not. The Facts demonstrate that Ireland and the UK have the best policies in regards to gun control and that the USA should adopt those because they work. 667,000 deaths in 20 years is not a success by any stretch of the imagination. I'm all for locking violent offenders up and throwing away the key. But I'm also for gun control policies similar to those in the UK and Ireland. In addition to that I would hire and train more police officers. Longterm, economic prosperity to lower the poverty rate is also curcial. Doing all four is what will reduce the 1980-2000 statistic in firearm deaths in the next 20 years.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
RavenStar said:
I know we disagree on religion (nothing personal, of course; in fact, you're quite well-spoken and I rather enjoy our discussions), but I must concur about the idea "freedom or security."
The idea is probably applicable to most freedoms - you can be insulated from an offensive book if free speech is restricted - but I think the idea applies best to economic freedom and self-defense.
In terms of economic freedom, you basically have to choose between the right to earn what you can and the security of some guaranteed minimum. Generally, to provide the guaranteed minimum to one group requires taxing those who earn a lot - and there goes the right to pursue happiness, in the economic sense.
In terms of self-defense, you must pretty much accept the possibility of everyone else being armed in order to arm yourself...
...which I personally accept. I believe thugs and potential despots will have guns one way or another, so I think it's actually safer if law-abiding citizens are also armed.
You are well-spoken yourself. I almost enjoy the fact that we disagree. It make the topic more interesting then just "I agree...Excatcly what I was thinking" etc. The comic was interesting. Me and my friend talked about it quite a bit.
Minimum wage certainly does not stifle anyones pursuit of happiness, rather it prevents employers from just living off the work of what could be called slaves. Its important that those on the bottom get fair pay for the work they do so they can actually particpate in the pursuit of happiness. For the most part this is a moot point because when the economy is red hot, many positions paying more than minumum wage actually go unfilled. Today minumum wage is almost 6 dollars, but adjusted for inflation, it was 7.50 in 1968. There is no reason for people working minimum wage to be making a 1.50 less than they did in 1968. Especially when average economic productivity per worker per hour is far greater than it was in 1968. Minimum wage of course cannot be to high to be obstructive to economic growth, but if its to low, it can create pockets of poverty which produce crime which if severe can dampen economic growth in certain area's.
There are plenty of thieves and Thugs and those that commit crime in the UK and Ireland. It is the gun control laws there though that prevent the high rate of death from fire arms. The idea that thugs and thieves will always have firearms is false given the facts from the UK and Ireland. Citizens are not allowed to own Tanks, Anti-tank Missiles and other explosives, and most criminals do not have these either because they are Banned. Theories and principles are fine, but its what works in practice that is most important. In the USA, policy toward firearms is a failure with 667,000 dead since 1980. In the UK and Ireland, the policies there are an obvious success. One should adopt policies that have been demonstrated to work. Arming everyone is certainly not the answer or Afghanistan and Somalia would be rather peaceful places.
There are plenty of thieves and Thugs and those that commit crime in the UK and Ireland. It is the gun control laws there though that prevent the high rate of death from fire arms. The idea that thugs and thieves will always have firearms is false given the facts from the UK and Ireland. Citizens are not allowed to own Tanks, Anti-tank Missiles and other explosives, and most criminals do not have these either because they are Banned. Theories and principles are fine, but its what works in practice that is most important. In the USA, policy toward firearms is a failure with 667,000 dead since 1980. In the UK and Ireland, the policies there are an obvious success. One should adopt policies that have been demonstrated to work. Arming everyone is certainly not the answer or Afghanistan and Somalia would be rather peaceful places.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
<sigh>
While it's true that guerilla tactics doesn't explain the whole story concerning the American Revolutionary War, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, the fact remains: THE TACTICS WERE USED SUCCESSFULLY. Even if everything you said was true, it doesn't change things.
The only reason all three of those wars came up is to counter your claim that the South "soundly" lost the American Civil War - that defeat was inevitable. That's simply not true: any detailed history of the War demonstrates that the North was QUITE close to losing on several occasions, that different tactics could have meant a vastly different outcome.
All this doesn't really matter, though. Let's say that you can reasonably assert that even the South's defeat was inevitable (again, I don't think you can). Let's then say that it follows that no group of American citizens can overthrow the government - it doesn't follow, but I'm playing along.
(I AM simply playing along.)
How does that lead to the conclusion that we Americans should lay down our arms? How does the government's vast amount of power make it a good idea to hand over MORE power?
Personally, an APC isn't that scary, but do you REALLY think the US Government's supply of tanks is "more than sufficient to coerce" us?
There are 280 million people. Let's say that only half of them decide to revolt: 140 million people. How many tanks would they face?
Actually, that's a difficult number to find (for good reason), but let's make the wild assumption that there's one tank for every ten men in the U.S. military (including the Navy and Air Force). There are about 2 million men, so let's guess 200,000 tanks.
That means, ONE TANK for every SEVEN HUNDRED fighting Americans - and that's a WILDLY liberal estimate. (If I had to make a more realistic guess, I'd say that there are actually one-tenth the number of tanks - 20,000 - meaning 1 agains 7,000 fighting Americans.)
Now, let's say these 700 Americans HAVE GUNS. How exactly does one tank coerce them again?
And again, even IF the government is powerful enough to actually coerce its people, isn't that MORE of a reason to hold on to our guns?
Thing is, this stat is quite meaningless. It includes deaths resulting from violent criminals being released from prison when they should remain behind bars (an indictment of the criminal justice system), deaths resulting from citizens being unable to legally defend themselves in many cites, AND deaths from people defending themselves from criminials - which is, in my opinion, is NOT a bad thing.
A more telling stat would be, say, accidental deaths resulting from fireams - or whether that number has INCREASED with the proliferation of guns. Well, since 1930, the U.S. population has more than doubled, the number of privately owned firearms has more than quadrupled, and the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has declined by 65%; since 1975, the number of accidental deaths for children has dropped by 75%.
But, again, I'm going to play along and assume that EVERY one of those deaths were the deaths of innocents caused by legally owned firearms. That number - 667,000 since '80 - reduces to 30, 000 deaths per year, or 0.01% of the U.S. population.
I don't know whether this sounds harsh (and, frankly, I don't care), but that sounds like an acceptable number of deaths to ensure our liberties.
Well, certainly, minimum wage doesn't result in a tax on the wealthy - but it DOES keep people from pursuing happiness. The thing that minimum wage supporters forget is this: you raise it, and suddenly each min-wage worker becomes more expensive for the employer. Supply-and-demand being what it is, he hires fewer min-wage workers.
In other words, those that still have their min-wage jobs benefit. Those who lose their jobs don't. In fact, those who see the increased wages usually do so at the expense of others in similar position.
...which is why, surprising enough, unemployment increases every time you increase the minimum wage.
All this aside, I do have one question:
Would you consider NORTHERN Ireland a success?
While it's true that guerilla tactics doesn't explain the whole story concerning the American Revolutionary War, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, the fact remains: THE TACTICS WERE USED SUCCESSFULLY. Even if everything you said was true, it doesn't change things.
The only reason all three of those wars came up is to counter your claim that the South "soundly" lost the American Civil War - that defeat was inevitable. That's simply not true: any detailed history of the War demonstrates that the North was QUITE close to losing on several occasions, that different tactics could have meant a vastly different outcome.
All this doesn't really matter, though. Let's say that you can reasonably assert that even the South's defeat was inevitable (again, I don't think you can). Let's then say that it follows that no group of American citizens can overthrow the government - it doesn't follow, but I'm playing along.
(I AM simply playing along.)
How does that lead to the conclusion that we Americans should lay down our arms? How does the government's vast amount of power make it a good idea to hand over MORE power?
STING2 said:
Personally, an APC isn't that scary, but do you REALLY think the US Government's supply of tanks is "more than sufficient to coerce" us?
There are 280 million people. Let's say that only half of them decide to revolt: 140 million people. How many tanks would they face?
Actually, that's a difficult number to find (for good reason), but let's make the wild assumption that there's one tank for every ten men in the U.S. military (including the Navy and Air Force). There are about 2 million men, so let's guess 200,000 tanks.
That means, ONE TANK for every SEVEN HUNDRED fighting Americans - and that's a WILDLY liberal estimate. (If I had to make a more realistic guess, I'd say that there are actually one-tenth the number of tanks - 20,000 - meaning 1 agains 7,000 fighting Americans.)
Now, let's say these 700 Americans HAVE GUNS. How exactly does one tank coerce them again?
And again, even IF the government is powerful enough to actually coerce its people, isn't that MORE of a reason to hold on to our guns?
STING2 said:
Thing is, this stat is quite meaningless. It includes deaths resulting from violent criminals being released from prison when they should remain behind bars (an indictment of the criminal justice system), deaths resulting from citizens being unable to legally defend themselves in many cites, AND deaths from people defending themselves from criminials - which is, in my opinion, is NOT a bad thing.
A more telling stat would be, say, accidental deaths resulting from fireams - or whether that number has INCREASED with the proliferation of guns. Well, since 1930, the U.S. population has more than doubled, the number of privately owned firearms has more than quadrupled, and the annual number of fatal firearm accidents has declined by 65%; since 1975, the number of accidental deaths for children has dropped by 75%.
But, again, I'm going to play along and assume that EVERY one of those deaths were the deaths of innocents caused by legally owned firearms. That number - 667,000 since '80 - reduces to 30, 000 deaths per year, or 0.01% of the U.S. population.
I don't know whether this sounds harsh (and, frankly, I don't care), but that sounds like an acceptable number of deaths to ensure our liberties.
Well, certainly, minimum wage doesn't result in a tax on the wealthy - but it DOES keep people from pursuing happiness. The thing that minimum wage supporters forget is this: you raise it, and suddenly each min-wage worker becomes more expensive for the employer. Supply-and-demand being what it is, he hires fewer min-wage workers.
In other words, those that still have their min-wage jobs benefit. Those who lose their jobs don't. In fact, those who see the increased wages usually do so at the expense of others in similar position.
...which is why, surprising enough, unemployment increases every time you increase the minimum wage.
All this aside, I do have one question:
Would you consider NORTHERN Ireland a success?
Having just been to Northern Ireland in January, yes I would say it is a great success. I would hate to think how many people would have been killed in the latest riots there if access to firearms were the same as it is in the USA. Most deaths in the 40 years of more recent conflict in Northern Ireland have occured from homade bombs and not firearms or handguns. If access to small arms was greater, the number of deaths in the conflict would increase in kind. Violent deaths there have decreased in large part to the peace process and great economic development. When I was there in January, I saw all the historic places in the conflict in Belfast and the walls, barbed wire, and guard towers are still there, but most were empty and I did not see any British troops. The people there are so nice and the clubs kick ass. I felt far safer walking through downtown Belfast at 3 am than I do in my hometown, one of the safer places to live in the USA as far as towns go. I have been to Derry and seen where "Sunday Blood Sunday" happened. Derry is a beautiful city despite its international reputation. With out the paintings and murals there, you would never know that such a conflict had taking place there. One is far safer today in Derry than any US city.
So given the turbulant recent political history, the poverty and discrimination that use to be so prevelant, today Northern Ireland is a massive success. Far more people would be dead in Northern Ireland today if access to firearms was the same as it was in the USA. Of course this is just addressing the political motivated acts of violence, and not firearm violence as a result of regular crime like that seen in the USA. As far as that goes, today its probably safer than most other area's of the UK except Scotland.
So given the turbulant recent political history, the poverty and discrimination that use to be so prevelant, today Northern Ireland is a massive success. Far more people would be dead in Northern Ireland today if access to firearms was the same as it was in the USA. Of course this is just addressing the political motivated acts of violence, and not firearm violence as a result of regular crime like that seen in the USA. As far as that goes, today its probably safer than most other area's of the UK except Scotland.
It is not true that unemployment increases every time you increase the minimum wage. Minimum wage increased through out the 90s but unemployment decreased to its lowest peacetime level in history! Of course the increase in minimum wage did not cause that to happen. Minimum wage increases are only harmful when unemployment is above the natural rate of 6%. Business is down in such periods and the average employer may have to lay off some workers if minimum wage is increased. This is more often seen in places that have low cost of living where minimum wage workers make up a larger portion of all workers. Even then though, the employer often cuts the workers to simply maintain his profit rather than the fact that his business will go under because of it. The price of Gas is important because it is cheap today and people structure their budgets and activities around that fact. But the price of Gas here in the USA is half of what it was in 1978 once you take inflation into account. The small business owner is living high off the hog when you account that his energy cost and employment cost are significantly less than what they were in the 70s once inflation is taken into account. But of course they have today structured their business around this relative low cost of operation, so any increase in energy price or minimum wage hurts in an uncertain or reccession era economy. When the economy is steaming forward as it was in the 90s, minimum wage increase has vitrually no effect. Especially since on average most workers are being hired at more than the minimum per hour in good economic times. Its important to have a minimum wage to prevent abuse, and when to increase it is done so based on the economic health of the country. It remains the same in bad economic times and is increased when the economy steams ahead, although this has not always happened. Minimum wage unfortunately though, has not kept up with inflation despite the fact that the country is 3 times richer than it was in 1968 adjusting for inflation.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
Thank you for the clarification about Northern Ireland, and even if you are correct about the minimum wage, I believe it a form of unnecessary price fixing based on the fellacious argument that most people earning minimum wage are trying to support a family and thus need a "living wage."
I believe that, at least beyond a reasonable level of wages and safety standards (levels I believed have already been reached), employers have the right to decide to maintain profit levels and "live high off the hog."
That said, I think the Second Amendment discussion is far more important.
Having read most of your posts in this thread, I'm lead to believe you think the following: IF the U.S. Government wanted to oppress its people, it could. Ergo, our damned American insistence to hold on to our Winchesters is, in the end, pointless.
Resistence is futile, eh?
The statements have been, I think, begging a very important question: do you think the United States government actually would ever, if given half a chance, attempt to oppress its people?
Some would say it has been trying since the days of FDR; some shudder every time they see Bush and Ashcroft. (Agree or not, I can understand both points of view.) Some think we're a stone's throw to a police state, and I actually think we're QUITE far from a point where a revolution would be necessary to ensure our freedoms. We still enjoy more freedoms than any major nation on the face of the earth.
And though I cannot forsee specific circumstances that bring us to tyranny, I do think that a free and democratic government can decay into a police state ruled by terror.
I'm simply wondering if you agree.
If you don't agree - if you think the U.S. republic CANNOT be corrupted - I have to conclude that you're simply being niave, that you're ignoring human nature and human history. Human nature reminds us that power corrupts, that it creates a desire for more power, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And human history points to the collapse of the Roman Republic into an empire ruled by Ceasar.
If you DO agree that the republic's fall is at least possible (and perhaps even inevitable), then are you not asking us gun-toting Americans to simply make the transition more likely? Aren't you asking us to simply give up?
If you are, fine; there are lots of people who value life (even a life oppressed) over everything else. But as for me, I'd rather die a free man than live as a slave.
For some of us, "Give me liberty or give me death," is not a mere slogan, nor a idealistic mantra best suited for movies like Braveheart (itself based on a historical figure in Scottish history): it IS how things will be. The government will have to pry our guns - and the rest of our freedoms - from our cold, dead hands.
You have said, "No citizen should have the power to overthrow my and everyones elected government."
I disagree. As do a few reasonably intelligent men in history:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I believe that, at least beyond a reasonable level of wages and safety standards (levels I believed have already been reached), employers have the right to decide to maintain profit levels and "live high off the hog."
That said, I think the Second Amendment discussion is far more important.
Having read most of your posts in this thread, I'm lead to believe you think the following: IF the U.S. Government wanted to oppress its people, it could. Ergo, our damned American insistence to hold on to our Winchesters is, in the end, pointless.
Resistence is futile, eh?
The statements have been, I think, begging a very important question: do you think the United States government actually would ever, if given half a chance, attempt to oppress its people?
Some would say it has been trying since the days of FDR; some shudder every time they see Bush and Ashcroft. (Agree or not, I can understand both points of view.) Some think we're a stone's throw to a police state, and I actually think we're QUITE far from a point where a revolution would be necessary to ensure our freedoms. We still enjoy more freedoms than any major nation on the face of the earth.
And though I cannot forsee specific circumstances that bring us to tyranny, I do think that a free and democratic government can decay into a police state ruled by terror.
I'm simply wondering if you agree.
If you don't agree - if you think the U.S. republic CANNOT be corrupted - I have to conclude that you're simply being niave, that you're ignoring human nature and human history. Human nature reminds us that power corrupts, that it creates a desire for more power, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And human history points to the collapse of the Roman Republic into an empire ruled by Ceasar.
If you DO agree that the republic's fall is at least possible (and perhaps even inevitable), then are you not asking us gun-toting Americans to simply make the transition more likely? Aren't you asking us to simply give up?
If you are, fine; there are lots of people who value life (even a life oppressed) over everything else. But as for me, I'd rather die a free man than live as a slave.
For some of us, "Give me liberty or give me death," is not a mere slogan, nor a idealistic mantra best suited for movies like Braveheart (itself based on a historical figure in Scottish history): it IS how things will be. The government will have to pry our guns - and the rest of our freedoms - from our cold, dead hands.
You have said, "No citizen should have the power to overthrow my and everyones elected government."
I disagree. As do a few reasonably intelligent men in history:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Guerilla war tactics were used successfully only in the sense that those tactics help to prevent those who were using them from being wiped out quicker. It is a fact that the USA never lost a major battle in the Vietnam War. It is a fact that the USA military if it had been allowed to bomb and invade North Vietnam with sufficient military force that the North would have been soundly defeated within a year. Just like the Japanese were eventually soundly defeated in every convential military engagement in the Pacific. OkiNawa was a forcast of what would have happened to Japan if it was invaded by US forces. This was not done due to concern about Chinese entry into the war, and worry about being bogged down in South East Asia, with the possibility of a massive Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. These factors heavily retrained US military activity in South East Asia.
Guerilla tactics were often used by small Confederate forces and it allowed them to inflict losses and temporarily survive. But in order to win the war or any war for that matter against a fully determined enemy utilizing all its resources and options, one has to achieve a level of mass and firepower in order to take and hold cities and territory and destory similarly large and well armed forces. Guerilla tactics accomplish neither. Guerilla tactics allow a weaker smaller force to temporarily survive and still inflict losses on who their fighting. Thats why the French and Indians lost the "French and Indian War", Vietnames were unable to defeat the USA in battle and when they left mounted a massive conventional military attack that eventually succeeded in taken Saigon in 1975.
While its true that the victory of the North was not enevitable in the Civil War, it was because the South was able to raise a large army that was well trained and led. The biggest threat to the North was Lee's massive invasion of the North which was the closes the South ever came to defeating the North. If Lee's particular tactics at Gettysburg had been different, it could have changed the war. But Guerilla tactics would not have been able to dislodge Union forces from any of their positions or taken any Northern Cities just like North Vietnames guerilla tactics failed to do the same, although it did temporarily allow them to inflict losses and survive. The absense of US forces and the use of conventional military tactics with a large army allowed the North Vietnames to defeat the South in the Spring of 1975.
The reason Americans should lay down their arms is because they use them to kill each other in disputes and through crime. They are often unable to properly care and use such weapons which leads to accidents. Such weapons are rarely a deterent to crime and are usually inefective in saving ones life if a firefight occurs given the fact that the criminal has surprise on their side.
As regards to the government, it is a democracy with checks and balances, it is the peoples government. The US military would never turn on its own people and an unpopular government is simply voted out of office. But lets say that the US government does become tyranical, the small arms that citizens have are powerless, useless against the US military. Giving up these weapons does not, there for, give the government any more power than it already has because the citizens small arms do not give it any relevant power against the government to begin with.
So you don't think an APC is that scary. Tell that to a battalion of Iraqi Republican Guard tanks that engaged a battalion of M2 Bradley APC's during the gulf war. The M2 Bradley has a crew of 9. 6 firing ports for M-16s, a 25 mm auto-cannon that fires explosive shells rapidly, a twin Tow launcher with more missiles stored inside. Armor protection thick enough to stop any small arms that citizens have. Plus the option to attach re-active armor plates that can stop infrantry fired anti-tank weapons and some vehicle mounted anti-tank missiles. Although not as powerful as the M1 Tank it is a formidable weapons system and one that citizens would be unable to defeat with small arms. Although the Bradley is used to support the M1 Abrams in combat, in this battle that happened in the Gulf War, the M2 Bradely battalion was ambushed by a battalion of Iraqi Republican guard T-72s. In most circumstances, the Bradley's would have lost, but they succeeded in destroying all the T-72s at the cost of only 3 M2 Bradley's. I have personally seen the M1 and M2 Bradley operate together and let me tell you, you do not want to be on the recieving end.
To answer your question about how many Tanks the US military has, as of June 1997 it had 8,436 tanks. Most of them in the US Army and the rest with the US Marine Corp. All of them except 192 of them being M1 tanks.
The M1 tanks operate in close cooperation with the M2 bradley as well as the M-109 self propelled mobile armored howitzer, the Multiple Launch Rocket System, and Apache Attack Helicopters and Ground Attack aircraft from the Air Force like the A-10 and other high performance fighters that have both air to air and ground attack ability. No number of citizens armed with small arms could defeat the above force because the citizens are not armed with weapons that could destroy any of the weapons platforms they face. In addition, the average citizen lacks protection from chemical and biological attack that the Military could use to kill citizens without destroying property as Saddam Hussain has done. But these weapons would not be necessary given the inability of citizens to challenge any major military weapons platform whether it be a Tank, APC or Attack Helicopter.
You state that "if a government does technically have the power to coerce it citizens, is not more of a reason to hold on to small arms"? I would say no, because such weapons would be ineffective if the government had the full support of the military. Small arms only threaten other civilians, 667,000 of them gunned down since 1980.
The statistic is signficant because if such small arms were largely absent in society, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive as seen in Ireland and the UK. Privately owned firearms don't insure anyones liberty, rather they more often rob other peoples lives and security, and our ,there for, a threat to freedom! The US military and local police insures my liberty, not someone in my neighborhood owning a firearm. People in Ireland and the UK have not lossed their liberties because most people do not have any type of firearms. Rather I'd say they enjoy an environment and freedom that many in the USA do not because of firearms. The band members of U2 can live anywhere they want on the planet. Could one reason that they choose to continue to live in Dublin be because it is a safer environment in which to raise their childern because of the freedom from mass firearm violence that is prevlant in the USA. My best friends cousin who is Irish plans to move back to Dublin when he gets married. One reason is the safer environment in Ireland and the freedom from this type of violence relative to the USA.
Guerilla tactics were often used by small Confederate forces and it allowed them to inflict losses and temporarily survive. But in order to win the war or any war for that matter against a fully determined enemy utilizing all its resources and options, one has to achieve a level of mass and firepower in order to take and hold cities and territory and destory similarly large and well armed forces. Guerilla tactics accomplish neither. Guerilla tactics allow a weaker smaller force to temporarily survive and still inflict losses on who their fighting. Thats why the French and Indians lost the "French and Indian War", Vietnames were unable to defeat the USA in battle and when they left mounted a massive conventional military attack that eventually succeeded in taken Saigon in 1975.
While its true that the victory of the North was not enevitable in the Civil War, it was because the South was able to raise a large army that was well trained and led. The biggest threat to the North was Lee's massive invasion of the North which was the closes the South ever came to defeating the North. If Lee's particular tactics at Gettysburg had been different, it could have changed the war. But Guerilla tactics would not have been able to dislodge Union forces from any of their positions or taken any Northern Cities just like North Vietnames guerilla tactics failed to do the same, although it did temporarily allow them to inflict losses and survive. The absense of US forces and the use of conventional military tactics with a large army allowed the North Vietnames to defeat the South in the Spring of 1975.
The reason Americans should lay down their arms is because they use them to kill each other in disputes and through crime. They are often unable to properly care and use such weapons which leads to accidents. Such weapons are rarely a deterent to crime and are usually inefective in saving ones life if a firefight occurs given the fact that the criminal has surprise on their side.
As regards to the government, it is a democracy with checks and balances, it is the peoples government. The US military would never turn on its own people and an unpopular government is simply voted out of office. But lets say that the US government does become tyranical, the small arms that citizens have are powerless, useless against the US military. Giving up these weapons does not, there for, give the government any more power than it already has because the citizens small arms do not give it any relevant power against the government to begin with.
So you don't think an APC is that scary. Tell that to a battalion of Iraqi Republican Guard tanks that engaged a battalion of M2 Bradley APC's during the gulf war. The M2 Bradley has a crew of 9. 6 firing ports for M-16s, a 25 mm auto-cannon that fires explosive shells rapidly, a twin Tow launcher with more missiles stored inside. Armor protection thick enough to stop any small arms that citizens have. Plus the option to attach re-active armor plates that can stop infrantry fired anti-tank weapons and some vehicle mounted anti-tank missiles. Although not as powerful as the M1 Tank it is a formidable weapons system and one that citizens would be unable to defeat with small arms. Although the Bradley is used to support the M1 Abrams in combat, in this battle that happened in the Gulf War, the M2 Bradely battalion was ambushed by a battalion of Iraqi Republican guard T-72s. In most circumstances, the Bradley's would have lost, but they succeeded in destroying all the T-72s at the cost of only 3 M2 Bradley's. I have personally seen the M1 and M2 Bradley operate together and let me tell you, you do not want to be on the recieving end.
To answer your question about how many Tanks the US military has, as of June 1997 it had 8,436 tanks. Most of them in the US Army and the rest with the US Marine Corp. All of them except 192 of them being M1 tanks.
The M1 tanks operate in close cooperation with the M2 bradley as well as the M-109 self propelled mobile armored howitzer, the Multiple Launch Rocket System, and Apache Attack Helicopters and Ground Attack aircraft from the Air Force like the A-10 and other high performance fighters that have both air to air and ground attack ability. No number of citizens armed with small arms could defeat the above force because the citizens are not armed with weapons that could destroy any of the weapons platforms they face. In addition, the average citizen lacks protection from chemical and biological attack that the Military could use to kill citizens without destroying property as Saddam Hussain has done. But these weapons would not be necessary given the inability of citizens to challenge any major military weapons platform whether it be a Tank, APC or Attack Helicopter.
You state that "if a government does technically have the power to coerce it citizens, is not more of a reason to hold on to small arms"? I would say no, because such weapons would be ineffective if the government had the full support of the military. Small arms only threaten other civilians, 667,000 of them gunned down since 1980.
The statistic is signficant because if such small arms were largely absent in society, hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive as seen in Ireland and the UK. Privately owned firearms don't insure anyones liberty, rather they more often rob other peoples lives and security, and our ,there for, a threat to freedom! The US military and local police insures my liberty, not someone in my neighborhood owning a firearm. People in Ireland and the UK have not lossed their liberties because most people do not have any type of firearms. Rather I'd say they enjoy an environment and freedom that many in the USA do not because of firearms. The band members of U2 can live anywhere they want on the planet. Could one reason that they choose to continue to live in Dublin be because it is a safer environment in which to raise their childern because of the freedom from mass firearm violence that is prevlant in the USA. My best friends cousin who is Irish plans to move back to Dublin when he gets married. One reason is the safer environment in Ireland and the freedom from this type of violence relative to the USA.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
STING2 said:
Which means - assuming only half of the U.S. population fights, 17,000 combatants per tank. Assuming armed combatants, I like those odds.
But please, let us focus on my last question: do you think the United States government actually would ever, if given half a chance, attempt to oppress its people?
It seems to me your answer is no (emphasis mine):
As regards to the government, it is a democracy with checks and balances, it is the peoples government. The US military would never turn on its own people and an unpopular government is simply voted out of office.
Didn't the Roman republic - with its elected Senate - become an empire when its military leader (Julius Ceasar) turned against it? If it happened then and there, what has significantly changed to prevent it from occuring in the here and now?
Last edited:
I can't predict the future but I seriously doubt that the US government will at any time in the future become tyranical and impose a Police state barring a natural disaster of immense proporations or limited Nuclear war. I'm well aware of history and human nature, but those things are not always applicable in every situation. The world we live in in 2002 is vastly different from what the world was like at the time of Christ. There is no democracy, culture or economy that even remotely resembles the United States today. We live in the world of Capitalism and individual power is most likely to reside in the private sector and involves making money and expanding ones business rather than controlling a certain group of people by working in government . While 2000 years or even 100 years ago or still today in the third world, many seek personal power through the government, today that rarely if ever happens in the USA simply because government is a poor and ineffective path to personal power.
Going into Government today means service to the country. It a very noble thing. You''ll never come close to making the amount of money in Government that you could in the private sector. If you are lucky enough to be elected President, impeachment is possible and you can only serve a maximum of 8 years, providing your able to win a second election. Your income when President is fixed and a person in the Private sector in a similar position would be making 15 or 20 million a year while the President only makes a few hundred thousand. Certainly large sums of money are raised for the Political parties which is why I believe in Campaign finance reform, but its important to mention that this money, good or bad, does not come from the government but from the Private sector! If tyranny exist, it exist here with wealthy companies and lobbiest including the NRA attempting to influence and rob the average person influence in their government.
History has never had a military as professional and ethical as the one that we have today. Nor has there ever been situation where it was combined with a government where people join to serve the people, not because its a way to make lots of money and therefore gain personal power.
The whole Evil tyranical government is a relic of the past in the western devoloped industrial world that is, because the nature of what it means to be powerful and how to achieve that personal power in a Capitalistic interdependent global Economy, is far different from what it used to be even in the recent past. What personal power is and the path to it has changed and it does not involve government. The US government has to many checks and balances and is not this machine of robots walking in unison to the beat of a drum. Government is not the monster, the monopolistic poluting corperation might be though or private wealthy private citizen using their money to break the law and there by threatening freedom and Capitalism. Bad apples are everywhere, but I fear more from private citizens and corperations than from people taking a pay cut and serving in the US government. Politicians have done corrupt things in the USA, but nothing that could have remotely threatened are democracy. The President can only serve for 8 years and really only has true unchecked authority in regards to certain foreign policy situations. Members of the house face election every two years, the Senate 6 years. People have the POWER to vote them out or keep them there. Rather than being powerful, politicians are at the mercy of their constituents who are composed of all citizens of adult age 18 and up, rather than just the white wealthy minority of men who owned land as democracy was temporarily defined 220 years ago. Of course wealthy businesses and privately funded institutions try to circumvent this fact with their large undemocratic donations to the political parties robbing the average person of influence in their government.
So again, the fear is not of a tyranical government but of the tyrany that exist in the private sector where personal power and greed exist. Rather than being a threat to US citizens, the US government acts as a guard against wealthy citizens who think their above the law, or corporations engaged in monopolistic or enviromental practices that threaten Capitalism, democracy, and the health and freedom of US citizens.
Today it makes more sense to ask whether a corporation through its money and power could weaken the influence and checks of government there by achieving a level of monopilistic power that threatens Capitalism, true democracy and freedom, and the environment and health of all citizens. I doubt this could happen, but that is where the threat comes from when looking inside the USA, not the government. Greed and human nature where the threat comes from are most alive in the private sector, not government. The private sector is good though as long as it is properly regulated by the federal government to prevent monopoly and create the highest degree of competition possible.
Going into Government today means service to the country. It a very noble thing. You''ll never come close to making the amount of money in Government that you could in the private sector. If you are lucky enough to be elected President, impeachment is possible and you can only serve a maximum of 8 years, providing your able to win a second election. Your income when President is fixed and a person in the Private sector in a similar position would be making 15 or 20 million a year while the President only makes a few hundred thousand. Certainly large sums of money are raised for the Political parties which is why I believe in Campaign finance reform, but its important to mention that this money, good or bad, does not come from the government but from the Private sector! If tyranny exist, it exist here with wealthy companies and lobbiest including the NRA attempting to influence and rob the average person influence in their government.
History has never had a military as professional and ethical as the one that we have today. Nor has there ever been situation where it was combined with a government where people join to serve the people, not because its a way to make lots of money and therefore gain personal power.
The whole Evil tyranical government is a relic of the past in the western devoloped industrial world that is, because the nature of what it means to be powerful and how to achieve that personal power in a Capitalistic interdependent global Economy, is far different from what it used to be even in the recent past. What personal power is and the path to it has changed and it does not involve government. The US government has to many checks and balances and is not this machine of robots walking in unison to the beat of a drum. Government is not the monster, the monopolistic poluting corperation might be though or private wealthy private citizen using their money to break the law and there by threatening freedom and Capitalism. Bad apples are everywhere, but I fear more from private citizens and corperations than from people taking a pay cut and serving in the US government. Politicians have done corrupt things in the USA, but nothing that could have remotely threatened are democracy. The President can only serve for 8 years and really only has true unchecked authority in regards to certain foreign policy situations. Members of the house face election every two years, the Senate 6 years. People have the POWER to vote them out or keep them there. Rather than being powerful, politicians are at the mercy of their constituents who are composed of all citizens of adult age 18 and up, rather than just the white wealthy minority of men who owned land as democracy was temporarily defined 220 years ago. Of course wealthy businesses and privately funded institutions try to circumvent this fact with their large undemocratic donations to the political parties robbing the average person of influence in their government.
So again, the fear is not of a tyranical government but of the tyrany that exist in the private sector where personal power and greed exist. Rather than being a threat to US citizens, the US government acts as a guard against wealthy citizens who think their above the law, or corporations engaged in monopolistic or enviromental practices that threaten Capitalism, democracy, and the health and freedom of US citizens.
Today it makes more sense to ask whether a corporation through its money and power could weaken the influence and checks of government there by achieving a level of monopilistic power that threatens Capitalism, true democracy and freedom, and the environment and health of all citizens. I doubt this could happen, but that is where the threat comes from when looking inside the USA, not the government. Greed and human nature where the threat comes from are most alive in the private sector, not government. The private sector is good though as long as it is properly regulated by the federal government to prevent monopoly and create the highest degree of competition possible.
17,000 citizens armed with weapons that are useless against one tank, or one APC. I like my odds in a tank or APC.
Another fact you ignore is that most citizens have no understanding military tactics and I would argue most do not properly know how to use a firearm. They do not have any organization, little or no information on where and how the military would deploy its forces and with small arms, lack any means of combating armored vehicles.
Spanish explorers faced similar odds against the Aztecs and Inca's but because of superior technology and organization easily defeated these societies.
The fact is, while 100 years ago, citizens could overthrow the government because most weapons were small arms, advanced weapons technology and the advent of large standing professional military has made this impossible.
Another fact you ignore is that most citizens have no understanding military tactics and I would argue most do not properly know how to use a firearm. They do not have any organization, little or no information on where and how the military would deploy its forces and with small arms, lack any means of combating armored vehicles.
Spanish explorers faced similar odds against the Aztecs and Inca's but because of superior technology and organization easily defeated these societies.
The fact is, while 100 years ago, citizens could overthrow the government because most weapons were small arms, advanced weapons technology and the advent of large standing professional military has made this impossible.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Achtung Bubba said:
In the UK minimum wage was introduced in 1997 and we currently have the lowest employment since WW2.
If I'm incorrect in assuming this then I apologise, but I doubt your objection to the minimum wage is really based on a belief that it causes unemployment and so hurts working people. The usual right-wing argument is that it prevents business from making as large a profit as possible by requiring them to pay people a decent wage. According to this argument, the only people who are prevented from pursuing happiness (ie increased profit) by the minimum wage are business owners, not working people.
Why does it infringe on a business rights' if they are required to pay workers enough money to live on? The only right it infringes on is their right to make as much profit as possible by whatever means available to them - ie it prevents them from maximising their profit by exploiting their workers even more.
The right of a business to increase it's profit by paying extremely low wages vs. the right of it's employees to buy food for themselves or provide healthcare for themselves or to put a roof over their heads. I know which I consider most important.
Well, the problems in the North of Ireland aren't caused by strict gun-control...obviously the situation is far too complex to explain briefly, but I'd recommend this website: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/index.html if you want to read more about thos issues. (Bubba, I don't intend this to sound condescending if you already know a lot about the situation, I'm just posting this link for you or anyone else who's interested).
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
FizzingWhizzbees said:
I wouldn't say that my argument (or the conservative argument in general) is concerned with the business owner solely. But I did say, in a later post, I believe that, at least beyond a reasonable level of wages and safety standards (levels I believed have already been reached), employers have the right to decide to maintain profit levels and "live high off the hog."
First, minimum wage laws, I believe, are little more than another government intrusion to set prices. It often sets a price cap, keeping a price artificially low. Here, it is keeping the price of labor artificially high. Generally speaking, such government intrusions do much more harm than good.
And the idea of a company making a higher profit is not contrary to the idea that its workers earn a higher wage. With the higher profits, the company will usually re-invest in itself (or in other companies; same difference), which means that the company can get newer, more efficient equipment, and its productivity increases. And when the productivity of the individual employee increases, so do his wages - naturally, and without damage to the capitalist machine.
Moving on...
STING2 said:
Y'know, in World War II, small platoons had to occasionally face tanks on their own, and they occasionally won. Granted they were better trained, but I think you are letting your faith in the invincibility of the US government get ahead of all logic. One tank for every 17,000 or so armed combatants - trained or not - is NOT good odds for the tank.
There IS a solution to the citizen's apparent inabilty to fight back, you know. Let American citizens own enough weapons to become a legitimate threat.
In all seriousness, if you are to remind me of all the help the underdog found in the American Revolution, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, why not allow it in this case? It would be advantageous to an enemy of the U.S. government (say, China) to prolong an insurrection for as long as possible - to further arm American citizens. What would stop them?
Last edited:
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
In my opinion, the above arguments pale in comparison to the question of whether the U.S. can ever collapse into tyranny.
If I may say so, Sting, you're being incredibly - UNBELIEVABLY - naive.
Human nature doesn't always apply? Riiiiight.
Let's move on to the crux of your argument.
The NRA is a bigger threat to American freedom than Congress? HOW? Because it can influence the government. That still implies that the government is powerful enough to threaten American freedom (which I believe and you apparently don't). That means that the government would become an ACOMPLICE to such an act.
The entire argument is, frankly, absurd.
Your argument is, running for a government office is a noble thing, incorruptible, because its officers are paid such meager salaries.
First, if that was true, campaign finance reform would be completely unnecessary. The fear that spurred CFR is that special interest groups can buy votes. That not only means that that the private sector gives money politicians, but that ALSO that the money given AFFECTS HOW THEY VOTE. That's not acting in the public interest, as far as I can tell.
Second, it's very easy to gain financially through becoming a politician. Sure, you take a pay cut, but many politicians (in both parties) are quite wealthy already and make money through very specific industries. Once they're in office, they can change the law to help the companies they are tied to, increasing the value of their own stocks. In a real-world example, let's say a Congressman owns a LOT of stock in a TV network; the network is looking to buy another network, but regulations prevent it. The politician can push for a bill that deregulates the TV broadcasting industry, which allows the one network to buy the other, and increases the value of his portfolio.
Third, money is nothing more than a way to buy power - power to get other people to do what you want. So what if you take a paycut in money to more direct power? Are you telling me that the schmucks in Congress are in there out of the goodness of their hearts? Absurd.
I don't know what's worse: your assumption that government is good, or your assumption that the individual is bad.
(If I may divert myself to a Limbaugh-esque rant here, but this is typical liberalism: Government good, business bad, individual bad.)
You say that corruption is a relic of the past. That would require a FUNDAMENTAL change in the way the world works, something that says that we can now ignore world history because the circumstances are so radically different that they have EVER been. I frankly don't see it, nor do I see ANYTHING that could have lead to such a change.
You say that government really doesn't have that much power, but I don't say how that is so - given that it taxes some 20% of the nation's economy, overregulates nearly every industry, and controls things like interest rates.
Look: in '93-'94, Hillary Clinton's health care plan was designed to take control of ONE-SEVENTH of the U.S. economy, adding layers of regulations and creating a handful of new crimes. That IS power.
(That's also an instance of unaccountable power: Hillary was not elected by the people nor confirmed by the Senate, and the secret meetings from which these plans emerged followed no protocols of our government.)
Your main point here seems to be that there are all sorts of checks and balances to protect the little guy. That seems contradictory: if government attracts only benevolent politicians, why have a system of checks and balances? Either way, you're correct about the system of checks and balances, to a point, and yet...
Despite these checks and balances, the IRS - run by people who are UNELECTED - can accuse an individual of fraud, and the burden of proof lies with the individual: guilty until proven innocent, a violation of our Fifth Amendment right to due process.
Despite these checks and balances, the EPA - another unelected body - can seize "wetland" properties held by individuals or devalue that land by declaring it "out-of-bounds," all on a whim, and without proper compensation - resulting in violations of our Fourth Amendment rights.
And despite these checks and balances, the judiciary (specifically, the Supreme Court) has been essentially making its own laws. The Supreme Court - unelected and unfettered by term limits - has been making decisions, NOT on whether a law is Constitutional, but whether it personally agrees with laws passed by Congress and signed by the President - a violation of the supposed checks and balances ensured in Article III of the Constitution.
Hell, speaking of CFR, the McCain-Feingold bill itself was a probable violation of the First Amendment - and yet Congress passed it, and yet the President signed it.
While I agree that the government should ensure that capitalistic competition exists whereever it can, I am at a loss at what makes you think the government is impervious to corruption.
That sort of worldview is, I think, niave and dangerous.
If I may say so, Sting, you're being incredibly - UNBELIEVABLY - naive.
STING2 said:
Human nature doesn't always apply? Riiiiight.
Let's move on to the crux of your argument.
The NRA is a bigger threat to American freedom than Congress? HOW? Because it can influence the government. That still implies that the government is powerful enough to threaten American freedom (which I believe and you apparently don't). That means that the government would become an ACOMPLICE to such an act.
The entire argument is, frankly, absurd.
Your argument is, running for a government office is a noble thing, incorruptible, because its officers are paid such meager salaries.
First, if that was true, campaign finance reform would be completely unnecessary. The fear that spurred CFR is that special interest groups can buy votes. That not only means that that the private sector gives money politicians, but that ALSO that the money given AFFECTS HOW THEY VOTE. That's not acting in the public interest, as far as I can tell.
Second, it's very easy to gain financially through becoming a politician. Sure, you take a pay cut, but many politicians (in both parties) are quite wealthy already and make money through very specific industries. Once they're in office, they can change the law to help the companies they are tied to, increasing the value of their own stocks. In a real-world example, let's say a Congressman owns a LOT of stock in a TV network; the network is looking to buy another network, but regulations prevent it. The politician can push for a bill that deregulates the TV broadcasting industry, which allows the one network to buy the other, and increases the value of his portfolio.
Third, money is nothing more than a way to buy power - power to get other people to do what you want. So what if you take a paycut in money to more direct power? Are you telling me that the schmucks in Congress are in there out of the goodness of their hearts? Absurd.
I don't know what's worse: your assumption that government is good, or your assumption that the individual is bad.
(If I may divert myself to a Limbaugh-esque rant here, but this is typical liberalism: Government good, business bad, individual bad.)
You say that corruption is a relic of the past. That would require a FUNDAMENTAL change in the way the world works, something that says that we can now ignore world history because the circumstances are so radically different that they have EVER been. I frankly don't see it, nor do I see ANYTHING that could have lead to such a change.
You say that government really doesn't have that much power, but I don't say how that is so - given that it taxes some 20% of the nation's economy, overregulates nearly every industry, and controls things like interest rates.
Look: in '93-'94, Hillary Clinton's health care plan was designed to take control of ONE-SEVENTH of the U.S. economy, adding layers of regulations and creating a handful of new crimes. That IS power.
(That's also an instance of unaccountable power: Hillary was not elected by the people nor confirmed by the Senate, and the secret meetings from which these plans emerged followed no protocols of our government.)
Your main point here seems to be that there are all sorts of checks and balances to protect the little guy. That seems contradictory: if government attracts only benevolent politicians, why have a system of checks and balances? Either way, you're correct about the system of checks and balances, to a point, and yet...
Despite these checks and balances, the IRS - run by people who are UNELECTED - can accuse an individual of fraud, and the burden of proof lies with the individual: guilty until proven innocent, a violation of our Fifth Amendment right to due process.
Despite these checks and balances, the EPA - another unelected body - can seize "wetland" properties held by individuals or devalue that land by declaring it "out-of-bounds," all on a whim, and without proper compensation - resulting in violations of our Fourth Amendment rights.
And despite these checks and balances, the judiciary (specifically, the Supreme Court) has been essentially making its own laws. The Supreme Court - unelected and unfettered by term limits - has been making decisions, NOT on whether a law is Constitutional, but whether it personally agrees with laws passed by Congress and signed by the President - a violation of the supposed checks and balances ensured in Article III of the Constitution.
Hell, speaking of CFR, the McCain-Feingold bill itself was a probable violation of the First Amendment - and yet Congress passed it, and yet the President signed it.
While I agree that the government should ensure that capitalistic competition exists whereever it can, I am at a loss at what makes you think the government is impervious to corruption.
That sort of worldview is, I think, niave and dangerous.
Last edited:
Yes small platoons were able to take on some tanks because they had weapons OTHER THAN SMALL ARMS! In general in World War II, it took a tank to kill another tank! If you can't kill it, it does not matter how many people you have! Think about it!
China and Russia today nor any other country have the power projection capabilities to supply and equip a large conventional force 4,000 miles away. Only the US Federal Government has that power. That is a fact.
Citizens should not have weapons that enable them to overthrow the government. This threatens other peoples freedoms and security. As I said before, what gives you the right to overthrow my or anyone elses elected official. You don't like em, you vote them out of office! Welcome to the 21st century.
CFR is neccessary because companies are lining the pockets of politicians for their political compaigns which are an expensive race which involves buying more promotional outlets than your opponent. But notice the money that causes the problem comes from Corperations and interest groups NOT THE GOVERNMENT! It is the private sector that corrupts individuals in government NOT the other way around! The Fact is the individual has more freedom to do what they want and earn a level of income in the private sector than in government. The checks and balances and oversight that exist in government do not exist in the private sector!
Are you telling me that the average Congressman individually has a lot of power?!?! What can one Congressman on his own in the Federal government accomplish?!?! Things are accomplished through compromise and consenses with others under the watchful eye of the constituants ready to vote them out if need be!
Again, the money of businesses corrupts the political process which is why CFR is neccessary. The government is not the source of the corruption, the private sector IS! The way the system is designed, politicians have to raise large amounts of money for their campaigns making many dependent on money from corperations. This has to be cut out. Political compaigns should be severely limited in scope and opponents recieve equal funding by the government, since private funding leads to corruption. The amount of money used in the election process needs to be cut back to the levels in the UK. Once campaigns are only funded on an equal basis by the government rather than by businesses or private institutions like the NRA, you will have cut off the private sector's money which currently corrupts the process and government will become even more representitive of the average person than it is today.
The average Rep. who only serves a two year term is not massivly rich especially when starting out. Again, the private sector has far more lucrative opportunities for individuals than the government does. Plus well over 99% of the 2 trillion dollars in taxes taken by politicians is spent on citizens in the military and businesses and other things in the private sector. Rather than taking money it is simply a redistribution of wealth for reasons of security, prosperity, health, law and order.
A person that runs their own business is not subject to a vote of any kind or really any type of oversight on the level that exist in government. THAT IS POWER! In addition the volume of money that can be made is multiple times that of anything a person can make in politics or government.
Politicians can currently be corrupted by the NRA and other businesses but government itself is working to shut that off, giving greater representation to the average voter who is not apart of the NRA.
I DID NOT SAY CORRUPTION IS A RELIC OF THE PAST! I SAID TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WEST ARE A RELIC OF THE PAST! You yourself are incredibly miss informed if you do not see how radically different western civilization has changed over the past 2,000 years! You fail to see where power is located now, and instead assume it is still located where it was in the deep past. You don't see the rise of Multi-National Corporations. Most Multi-National Corporations are more POWERFUL than most third world countries! That is the fundamental differences between now and as early as 100 years ago. So WHAT IF the US GOVERNMENT passes laws that supposedly infringe on my businesses operations, easy enough to pick up ones operations and move to a third world country where the labor is cheaper and the environmental laws are lax, and taxes are lax and there is no oversight at all. GLOBALIZATION AND TECHNOLOGY have changed everything! Real personal power is found in the private sector, not in the government! Government is all the average citizen has to protect them from the unrestrained greed of the private sector that without government contraints leads to Monopoly which is the absence of competition and basically Soviet style Communism, ownership of property and means of productions by a small group of people.
I never said that government was impervious to corruption but that individuals serving in government are more noble because they work hard for less money than they would make in the private sector. CFR is combating the corruption that does exist because of the private sector supplying funds to people for its own ends! The corrupters are in the private sector not in the government! There are some in government that are corrupted but they are not the source of the corruption!
Also look at the individuals that serve are nations military! You better believe I respect and trust the members of our military more than private citizens! These people risk their lives everyday so that we can enjoy are freedom and the fruits of capitalism! I also have more trust in Police Officers and Fireman than private citizens who don't work for the government in anyway.
Think about this, of the 10,000 US citizens that were murdered last year, how many were murdered by people working for the government, how many were murdered by people that are private citizens?
I also notice that those that promote the view in our society on a wide scale that government is evil and corrupted are most likely to be wealthy private citizens themselves engaged in some form of corruption through their political donations i.e. the NRA and large Corporations or private media outlets like Rush. Again the source of the devil is in the corrupter not in the corrupted!
We need to ban these private donations of money to political campaigns that rob the average american of his/her due influence in government. The government needs to continue to regulate the economy to prevent monopoly and other anti-competitive practices that threaten capitalism from the private sector. The government also needs to step in to prevent private companies from ruining the environment which threatens the life and liberty of all citizens. We also need to devolop gun control policies similar to those in the UK and Ireland so US citizens can enjoy the freedoms that it produces for their citizens.
China and Russia today nor any other country have the power projection capabilities to supply and equip a large conventional force 4,000 miles away. Only the US Federal Government has that power. That is a fact.
Citizens should not have weapons that enable them to overthrow the government. This threatens other peoples freedoms and security. As I said before, what gives you the right to overthrow my or anyone elses elected official. You don't like em, you vote them out of office! Welcome to the 21st century.
CFR is neccessary because companies are lining the pockets of politicians for their political compaigns which are an expensive race which involves buying more promotional outlets than your opponent. But notice the money that causes the problem comes from Corperations and interest groups NOT THE GOVERNMENT! It is the private sector that corrupts individuals in government NOT the other way around! The Fact is the individual has more freedom to do what they want and earn a level of income in the private sector than in government. The checks and balances and oversight that exist in government do not exist in the private sector!
Are you telling me that the average Congressman individually has a lot of power?!?! What can one Congressman on his own in the Federal government accomplish?!?! Things are accomplished through compromise and consenses with others under the watchful eye of the constituants ready to vote them out if need be!
Again, the money of businesses corrupts the political process which is why CFR is neccessary. The government is not the source of the corruption, the private sector IS! The way the system is designed, politicians have to raise large amounts of money for their campaigns making many dependent on money from corperations. This has to be cut out. Political compaigns should be severely limited in scope and opponents recieve equal funding by the government, since private funding leads to corruption. The amount of money used in the election process needs to be cut back to the levels in the UK. Once campaigns are only funded on an equal basis by the government rather than by businesses or private institutions like the NRA, you will have cut off the private sector's money which currently corrupts the process and government will become even more representitive of the average person than it is today.
The average Rep. who only serves a two year term is not massivly rich especially when starting out. Again, the private sector has far more lucrative opportunities for individuals than the government does. Plus well over 99% of the 2 trillion dollars in taxes taken by politicians is spent on citizens in the military and businesses and other things in the private sector. Rather than taking money it is simply a redistribution of wealth for reasons of security, prosperity, health, law and order.
A person that runs their own business is not subject to a vote of any kind or really any type of oversight on the level that exist in government. THAT IS POWER! In addition the volume of money that can be made is multiple times that of anything a person can make in politics or government.
Politicians can currently be corrupted by the NRA and other businesses but government itself is working to shut that off, giving greater representation to the average voter who is not apart of the NRA.
I DID NOT SAY CORRUPTION IS A RELIC OF THE PAST! I SAID TYRANICAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WEST ARE A RELIC OF THE PAST! You yourself are incredibly miss informed if you do not see how radically different western civilization has changed over the past 2,000 years! You fail to see where power is located now, and instead assume it is still located where it was in the deep past. You don't see the rise of Multi-National Corporations. Most Multi-National Corporations are more POWERFUL than most third world countries! That is the fundamental differences between now and as early as 100 years ago. So WHAT IF the US GOVERNMENT passes laws that supposedly infringe on my businesses operations, easy enough to pick up ones operations and move to a third world country where the labor is cheaper and the environmental laws are lax, and taxes are lax and there is no oversight at all. GLOBALIZATION AND TECHNOLOGY have changed everything! Real personal power is found in the private sector, not in the government! Government is all the average citizen has to protect them from the unrestrained greed of the private sector that without government contraints leads to Monopoly which is the absence of competition and basically Soviet style Communism, ownership of property and means of productions by a small group of people.
I never said that government was impervious to corruption but that individuals serving in government are more noble because they work hard for less money than they would make in the private sector. CFR is combating the corruption that does exist because of the private sector supplying funds to people for its own ends! The corrupters are in the private sector not in the government! There are some in government that are corrupted but they are not the source of the corruption!
Also look at the individuals that serve are nations military! You better believe I respect and trust the members of our military more than private citizens! These people risk their lives everyday so that we can enjoy are freedom and the fruits of capitalism! I also have more trust in Police Officers and Fireman than private citizens who don't work for the government in anyway.
Think about this, of the 10,000 US citizens that were murdered last year, how many were murdered by people working for the government, how many were murdered by people that are private citizens?
I also notice that those that promote the view in our society on a wide scale that government is evil and corrupted are most likely to be wealthy private citizens themselves engaged in some form of corruption through their political donations i.e. the NRA and large Corporations or private media outlets like Rush. Again the source of the devil is in the corrupter not in the corrupted!
We need to ban these private donations of money to political campaigns that rob the average american of his/her due influence in government. The government needs to continue to regulate the economy to prevent monopoly and other anti-competitive practices that threaten capitalism from the private sector. The government also needs to step in to prevent private companies from ruining the environment which threatens the life and liberty of all citizens. We also need to devolop gun control policies similar to those in the UK and Ireland so US citizens can enjoy the freedoms that it produces for their citizens.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
STING2 said:
I have thought about it - pardon me, "thought about it!" - and, well, your observations of contradictory. Small platoons CAN take on tanks, and yet, it took a tank to kill another tank.
How odd.
(And again: 17,000 armed individuals against a tank. SEVENTEEN THOUSAND. The tank LOSES.)
...a fact you back with no evidence whatsoever.
What gives me the right to overthrow a government?
GOD ALMIGHTY, if you must know the answer. The Declaration of Independence (I know, a shitty piece of paper signed by a bunch of greed, white, male landowners) explains with far more eloquence than I (emphasis mine):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Twenty-first Century has changed nothing. In the LAST century, the western world has given us Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro. Given the violent start of this century, I don't see where your optimism has any basis in reality.
So fucking what? The fact is, the GOVERNMENT can be corrupted, and it IS corrupt.
What power does one Congressman have? Not much; it does take a group of people to pass laws, but - again - so what? Let's say that the group institutes a tyranny. How is that ANY better than one man instituting a tyranny?
First, it doesn't take that many: 51 votes in the Senate, 218 in the House, one Presidential signature, and five Supreme Court Justices. 275 people.
A NATION OF 280 MILLION PEOPLE CAN BE OPPRESSED THROUGH THE ACTIONS OF 275 PEOPLE.
Again, consider McCain-Feingold: most people believe it IS an unconstitutional law, yet the Congress passed it and the President signed into law. The law is only FIVE justices away from becoming the law of the land.
The system of checks and balances - while the best we have - is a safeguard against tyranny, not an absolute guarantee.
So... EVERY wacko and lunatic who runs for the White House should recieve the same amount of money from the government? Enough to run a full campaign? That's not likely.
If you only give the amount to the GOP and DNC candidates, you prevent the possibility of an independent successfully running against them. That doesn't sound fair.
If you give everyone the same small amount, they become dependent on the media. So political power will have been taken from the competing special interest groups and given to the fairly monolithic mainstream press. THAT will make the government more "representative," I'm sure.
Oh! You could FORCE the press to give equal time to the candidates. Wait, no. That tramples the First Amendment - not that you've shown the Bill of Rights any respect thus far.
Beyond all that, who do you THINK the NRA and labor unions represent? Corporations? NOPE. They represent individuals, bound together by common political goals. Divesting their power makes the process LESS representative.
You apparently understand that large amounts of money is dangerous because you can use that money to gain power.
So why is straight political power itself so benign?
Or, to put it another way, a congressman has a hand in determing how a TWO TRILLION DOLLAR BUDGET is allocated. That's not raw, corrupting power?
And the fact that "well over 99%" is "simply a redistribution of wealth" doesn't makes things any better. It explains why groups - from the AARP to the NEA - so strongly pursue politicians: they want a BIGGER piece of a two-trillion dollar pie.
Damn it all, you admit CONGRESS SPENDS TWO TRILLION FUCKING DOLLARS A YEAR. That is power, and it begs the question: who cares what their salary is?
First, the NRA is not a business. Second, it's an organization of otherwise perfectly normal people who believe that the Second Amendment should be protected - and they have the right to organize and petition the government as a group.
Shut that off, and you don't make government more responsive.
Uh-huh.
And what precisely makes you think that again? The large armies, or the budgets in excess of one-fifth of the gross national product?
I see the differences, but not any RADICAL differences. Government still has the power to tax, the power to incarcerate, and the power to coerce. None of that has changed.
And if "Multi-National Corporations" (Why The Capitalization?) are more powerful than most third world countries, does that mean that those tyrannical governments are NOT threats to their own people?
Does that mean that the US government has so little power that it cannot oppress its people?
I think not.
In fact, last time I checked, McDonald's didn't have a single tank, battleship, submarine, bomber, or ICBM.
So, CAPITALIST BUSINESSES will lead to COMMUNISM. Uh-huh.
And our only protection is the great, noble, and impeccible government?
WHO PROTECTS US FROM THE GOVERNMENT?
Yeah, when I think of nobility, I think of Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Clinton: a man so noble, a man so in awe of the office he held, that he had no problem getting a twenty-year-old intern to go down on him IN THE OFFICE ITSELF - a man so selflessly serving that he took everything out the White House he could carry.
I'm in shock that you may actually believe the crap you're spewing.
DOESN'T MATTER. It doesn't matter HOW the government is corrupted, only that it CAN be corrupted. If it can be, we should protect our rights - gun rights especially - wth all we can.
I too have great respect for those who serve (military men, police, firemen) - as opposed to those who seek power TO BE SERVED. The fact remains, I think you have far too little respect for the average individual - the private American citizen whose hard work has helped make this country as great as it is.
And while we should respect the men who serve, we should keep an eye on those who wish to command them - and we should NEVER hand over our rights to them.
Um, what the hell is your point? Are you trying to somehow demonstrate that the private citizen is evil?
That's fucking obscene.
And those that suggest the government isn't evil are the same who think we should give up all our rights because government knows best.
Amusing how all the corrupting influences are conservative - the NRA and Rush - those who seek LESS government. Very amusing. Also amusing that you think Rush is a "private media outlet" and not part of, oh, I don't know, the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE PRESS.
Does that mean we should protect the government from being criticized BY THE PRESS?
Hellooooooo? First Amendment mean ANYTHING to you?
While I'm at it, most NRA members aren't millionaires. Their middle class law-abiding citizens. Amazing, isn't it?
And these corrupting influences aren't the first to call government evil:
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. - Thomas Paine, another dead white male landowner
I have a great idea: if you like England so damn much, do what the multi-national corporations do: move to a country whose laws you like - and leave us gun-toters to our rights.
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Achtung Bubba said:
So any criticism of the US' lack of gun-control is unwelcome and means that the person offering the criticism should just leave the country? So much for the free speech you claim to value so highly.
Besides, we live in a world where MNCs might be free to move to whatever country they choose but ordinary people aren't afforded such freedoms - Western countries have strict controls on immigration - the UK stricter than many, in fact.
Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
Does anyone know of any figures on shootings of people who break and enter, in either America or other place with similar gun laws? I'm with the opinion there is no place in the home for weapons, but I got to thinking and even though I still cant validate it with any reasons pro gun folks offer, perhaps statistics on how many intruders are shot during B&E's would be interesting.
Gun or no gun, I honestly still believe that self defense is not a valid argument for most people. I know personally, that if I encountered an intruder in my house especially one with a weapon, I would not argue over a $300 vcr. I could also not shoot someone over it. I have insurance, and while burglary is awful, I would get over that a lot quicker than I would shooting someone. If I had a gun, I doubt I could use it. I guess thats hard to say, I just hope I never have to find out.
But honestly, how will having a gun in your possession help in the average break in? Someone breaks in, they have a gun. Stats I read somewhere once said that it is not common for the average robber to use their firearms. Now facing this situation, you are not likely to care. Surely yours and your family's safety are paramount? You are not concerned about possessions. Only lives. Now what if you are also in possession of a gun? You produce your gun. Your intruder is now threatened. His advantage over you is not as powerful. Without you having a gun, he has no need to actually contemplate using it, its is enough of a threat by the sheer presence of it. A gun waved in a man's face will make him very pliant. You show yours, and it becomes a standoff. Produces anger. The intruder will not likely walk meekly out. Who shoots who first? Isn't that what this becomes? Shot or be shot? I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind over this, I cant. Guns dont help. They create more trouble. Get a dog. Get 2 dogs. Put deadlocks on every entry point to your home. An intruder only wants your tv and vcr. Not your life.
Gun or no gun, I honestly still believe that self defense is not a valid argument for most people. I know personally, that if I encountered an intruder in my house especially one with a weapon, I would not argue over a $300 vcr. I could also not shoot someone over it. I have insurance, and while burglary is awful, I would get over that a lot quicker than I would shooting someone. If I had a gun, I doubt I could use it. I guess thats hard to say, I just hope I never have to find out.
But honestly, how will having a gun in your possession help in the average break in? Someone breaks in, they have a gun. Stats I read somewhere once said that it is not common for the average robber to use their firearms. Now facing this situation, you are not likely to care. Surely yours and your family's safety are paramount? You are not concerned about possessions. Only lives. Now what if you are also in possession of a gun? You produce your gun. Your intruder is now threatened. His advantage over you is not as powerful. Without you having a gun, he has no need to actually contemplate using it, its is enough of a threat by the sheer presence of it. A gun waved in a man's face will make him very pliant. You show yours, and it becomes a standoff. Produces anger. The intruder will not likely walk meekly out. Who shoots who first? Isn't that what this becomes? Shot or be shot? I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind over this, I cant. Guns dont help. They create more trouble. Get a dog. Get 2 dogs. Put deadlocks on every entry point to your home. An intruder only wants your tv and vcr. Not your life.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
FizzingWhizzbees said:
So much for the free speech? What about my free speech to suggest that Sting move to another country if the U.S. in its current state is so messed up?
Besides, I wasn't telling him to "shut up or leave," and HIS level of criticism isn't exactly just "any criticism." It strikes me as a basic, fundamental misunderstanding of how things work, including - but not limited to - the basic American tenet of individual liberty and the American mistrust of a powerful, centralized government.
It seems to me his ENTIRE argument has revolved around one basic point of view: that the individual is evil and untrustworthy; that the government is not; that the individual should forfeit his rights to the government in order to be made safe from other threats; and that the people have no right to abolish that government even if it goes too far.
That attitude is in DIRECT contradiction to the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
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.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
God knows that I would be burned at the stake for daring to call anyone or any opinion "un-American," but the fact remains: Sting's comments are very often in direct conflict with the documents on which this nation was founded - and their FIRST principles of individual liberty.
I said IN GENERAL(that does not mean every time) in World War II, it took a tank to kill another tank. What that means is that in most situations tanks were needed to stop other tanks. Small platoons with anti-tank weapons, were SOMETIMES able to defeat tanks by hitting them in the rear. But Anti-tank weapons were needed, small arms were useless. There is no contradiction. Sorry that I did not make that clear.
Again, take any number of people that you want, if none of them have a weapon that can defeat a tank, their going to lose. Which gets back to one of my main points that the right to have small arms does nothing in the 21st century to protect citizens from a tyranical government. Only if citizens were allowed to buy the full range of military hardware available to the military, plus somehow getting the extensive training to use it, would you even begin to start to have the ability to take on the federal government. One of those radical militia's in Idaho I think, suggested that they be allowed to buy tanks, fighters and other large modern weapons platforms.
I stated before that in 2002, Russia and China or any other country, do not have the power projection capabilities to either support or launch a large scale conventional military attack on the USA mainland. If you really want me to prove this to you I CAN! Those countries can of course launch large conventional attacks or threaten US interest overseas, but not the Continental USA. In fact China lacks the power projection capabilities to successfully take and hold Tawain currently! Just in short, any overseas power projection capability of a large conventional military force requires exstensive naval power and extensive sea lift capability. Both Russia and China lack both and no other single country has it either. Remember, simply the ability to launch a strike is not the ability land and supply a large conventional military force across thousands of miles of ocean. If you want me to provide you the military numbers and a report on three possible ways China could attempt to take Tawain, and why all would fail, plus an analyses of the current state of the Russian military, I would love to, but in a seperate post. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, while having the ability to take Western Europe, the Middle East, and northern China, did not have the ability to invade and take the continental USA. Sorry but the movie Red Dawn is more hollywood fantasy than reality.
Back to the main debate, while its true technically that 75% of the elected Federal government(not 51%) could do everything they want including amending the constitution, they would only be able to succeed with the full support of the USA military which they would never get. This is the ultimate check on federal government. As I have stated before, there are bad apples in every organization including the military. But your least likely to find them in the USA military. The training to include code's of conduct and ethics and the understanding of democracy and its relationship to the miltary prevent the USA military from being used in such a fasion against its own people. Such training is now being given to the military's of the former Warsaw Pact Countries that are now becoming members in NATO. Sorry but this type and level of training did not exist in the military's of the recent past. Plus while there are obvious ways of corrupting politicians, there is no obvious way of corrupting someone in the military who is prepared to die to defend his countries security, freedom, both economic and political.
I agree that we do have safeguards against tyranny of which the US military is the most powerful one. The government is powerless to be tyranical without the US military. Even if the US Military did support the tyranical government, small arms of civilians would not safeguard anything in that respect.
The NRA and labor unions DO NOT Represent me or many of my friends! Yes thats right, there are many people in the USA who feel the idea's of the NRA and labor unions threaten their security and economic prosperity. The NRA's opposition to gun control and the labor unions opposition to free trade.
While there is no perfect political process, the governments in Europe are not nearly tainted by the amount of money that is involved in the US process. I favor a process in which there a multiple parties, and the length of the entire process begining to end to elect a candidiate is less than 2 months. The fact is, in Europe, people run for political office at the fraction of the cost it takes here.
Its not fair if one candidate can buy more advertising time for his "free speech". The process then becomes not about democracy, but who has the most money to buy enough advertising time to trample their oponent. The guy with no money may have better idea's for solving problems, but since he has little or no money, he can't be heard. What happens is the political process resembles more of a business process. The Republicans vs. the Democrats looks more like COKE vs. PEPSI than democracy.
In the debates, equal time is given to both candidates. Why is the principle of equal time so anti-democratic? The only thing that gives someone more time to get their point across is their MONEY! Whats democratic about that? The fact is, for the process to become more democratic, the money factor has to be eliminated. No more campaign contributions from special interest. The guy working at the HOT DOG stand should have just as much influence on the political process as Bill Gates does. Most of the corruption that is in the government today is because of special interest like labor unions and the NRA. Yes, although they may be few, there are rich people and famous people to in the NRA. Hell, the NRA have Moses speaking for them. Bottom line, give the process back to individuals instead of corporations and special interest.
I have stated that things are radically different today in that power is vested in the private sector and not the government as has always been in the past. The government or the miltiary may have Idea's for weapons and other things, but its the private sector that builds them! McDonalds may not have ICBMs, or tanks, or any weapons at all, but their influence on society in peace time is far greater than the governments military. People are not overweight and obese, and as a result dying early because of the government. Nor is McDonalds really at fault either, of course its personal behavior. But McDonalds is definitely a greater contributer to the problem than government is. Without government intervention you would not know how many calories and saturated fat your consuming in the food McDonalds sales! The Government intervened because of its concern about the general health of the public! McDonalds only cares about its level of profit, which is obviously hurt by the fact that consuming large quantities of its food can cause various health problems and even death due to heart disease caused by obesity.
Yes I know Two Trillion dollars is a lot of money, but its not the same as a lump sum of money in the hands of a business man. No oversite or checks and balances there. While in the case of the government, its not their personal income and no individual in the government has the power to decide where to spend a single penny of it, unlike the private sector. I like that there is that freedom in the private sector, but it does mean there is more potential for corruption and abuse.
The only way the money can be spent is through a policical process and voting. One has to form a consenses among their representives and this often involves compromises of every individuals idea's in order to reach a consenses on where to spend the money. Far more democratic than the way the private sector works, but thats what this government is. This makes it for more inefficient and slower than any business, but makes it more fair and democratic than the way businesses operate.
Plus, even with Two Trillion dollars in tax revenue that the Government simply redistributes to the private sector, the private sector keeps 80% of the money! 4 times of what the government has! Did the people in Roman times have 4 times as much wealth as the government in ROME? Did the Roman government redistribute the money to a private sector back then? Again, the fundamental difference today than in the past is that power resides in the private sector with the people. Think about this, as well, the people in the private sector, which is most of the population have the power to throw out every single politician making the decisions on where 20% of their money is redistributed. How really powerful is a politician if they can be thrown out by their constituants in as little as two years and never get elected again, or be impeached before serving the full length of their term. The only corruption to this process is the corporations and special interest that can essentially bribe a politician by supporting his reelection campaign. Again this comes from the private sector and private institutions, not the government.
Well the end goal of any business is monopoly. Monopoly is Soviet Style Communism. Ownership of all the means of productions and property by a small group of people and NO COMPETITION. There is nothing else besides Government that prevents this process from happening. Who or what else besides government can break up a monopolistic business? Government insures that monopoly will not happen, and the highest level of competition will remain. If you disagree with that please explain.
The checks and balances that exist in government protect the citizen from abuses and corruption from it. Besides, we the people are the government since we elect people to positions who are at first private citizens and others that go to work in government are or were private citizens as well. Then of course there is the military, without which the government is unable to coerce or threaten its people. I've already explained why todays US military would not do that because of the teaching and training that is recieved, plus the fact that it is an all volunteer military, with people that are already motivated to serve and protect freedom and are the organization least likely to be effected by corruption or bad apples in our society. The few that are bad apples, are vastly outnumbered by the rest that are not. Even if the fantasy of a tyranical government fully supported by the military came true, citizens small arms would be useless to stop it.
I said people in general tend to be more noble when they serve in government because they give up the greater profits in the private sector and subject themselves to a greater level of scrutiny. But I said in general which does not mean everyone again! The only thing wrong with what Clinton did is that he lied about it, and yes that is an impeachable offense and I supported the impeachment process. Also conducting sexual activity while working on serious problems is also wrong. By the way it was 24 year old intern. His behavior in this arena though is rated G compared to what the business leaders often engage in. Again although it happens, its far easier to engage in this activity in the private sector than it is in public office. My main point here is that I never said there were not any bad apples in government, just less than there are in the private sector.
My point about the murders being committed by more people in the private sector than in government is a simple fact that demonstrates the greater degree of good will by people in government than in the private sector. How is that obscene? Its a fact.
As far as Rush, NRA, and other conservitive or liberal instutition that often get their idea's views implemented by giving money to political campaigns of politicians that support their views, thats not democratic at all. It is a suppression of my personal influence in government for the simple reason that I do not have the level of money that they do. How is that democratic?
By the way, the only right I have really questioned is the right to bear arms. That is light years away from this suggestion of yours that I want to take away all the rights of all citizens. I fully support are democratic government and believe in Capitalism and fear monopoly and Communism as I have stated before. I believe in law and order and the freedom that comes from having that which I feel is infringed by the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens.
You know there was this guy named Timothy Mcvey(spelling) who believed that the government had become tyranical. He would of course would say that God and the Declaration of Independence gave him the right to pursue a course of action to fight the "tyranical government" by blowing up one of the "Tyranical governments" buildings in Oklahoma City killing hundreds of "Tyranical federal workers" and their childern in a daycare center on site. Do you think the Declaration Of Independence gave him the right to do this?
I actually might move to Europe for a while or more because of certain types of work, and a huge interest in the region and people, but not because I don't like the USA. I love the USA, but feel that we can do better as a society by adopting certain measures like the UKs gun control policy that have been proven to work, where as are's is a failure. I'm for the greater security and freedom that this gun control would bring to the USA!
Globalization is happening at a very rapid pace. As I write this my sister is working for a British company in Dublin Ireland. An American, working for the British, providing services to Irish Busineses in Dublin. Thats the 21st century.
You might be interested in taking a vacation to Somalia. There is no government at all, and people can arm themselves with what ever weapons they can get their hands on. I'm sure because of this that their very rich, have unparalled freedom, and personal safety and security is not an issue. Of course I'm joking, but I think you get my point.
Again, take any number of people that you want, if none of them have a weapon that can defeat a tank, their going to lose. Which gets back to one of my main points that the right to have small arms does nothing in the 21st century to protect citizens from a tyranical government. Only if citizens were allowed to buy the full range of military hardware available to the military, plus somehow getting the extensive training to use it, would you even begin to start to have the ability to take on the federal government. One of those radical militia's in Idaho I think, suggested that they be allowed to buy tanks, fighters and other large modern weapons platforms.
I stated before that in 2002, Russia and China or any other country, do not have the power projection capabilities to either support or launch a large scale conventional military attack on the USA mainland. If you really want me to prove this to you I CAN! Those countries can of course launch large conventional attacks or threaten US interest overseas, but not the Continental USA. In fact China lacks the power projection capabilities to successfully take and hold Tawain currently! Just in short, any overseas power projection capability of a large conventional military force requires exstensive naval power and extensive sea lift capability. Both Russia and China lack both and no other single country has it either. Remember, simply the ability to launch a strike is not the ability land and supply a large conventional military force across thousands of miles of ocean. If you want me to provide you the military numbers and a report on three possible ways China could attempt to take Tawain, and why all would fail, plus an analyses of the current state of the Russian military, I would love to, but in a seperate post. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union, while having the ability to take Western Europe, the Middle East, and northern China, did not have the ability to invade and take the continental USA. Sorry but the movie Red Dawn is more hollywood fantasy than reality.
Back to the main debate, while its true technically that 75% of the elected Federal government(not 51%) could do everything they want including amending the constitution, they would only be able to succeed with the full support of the USA military which they would never get. This is the ultimate check on federal government. As I have stated before, there are bad apples in every organization including the military. But your least likely to find them in the USA military. The training to include code's of conduct and ethics and the understanding of democracy and its relationship to the miltary prevent the USA military from being used in such a fasion against its own people. Such training is now being given to the military's of the former Warsaw Pact Countries that are now becoming members in NATO. Sorry but this type and level of training did not exist in the military's of the recent past. Plus while there are obvious ways of corrupting politicians, there is no obvious way of corrupting someone in the military who is prepared to die to defend his countries security, freedom, both economic and political.
I agree that we do have safeguards against tyranny of which the US military is the most powerful one. The government is powerless to be tyranical without the US military. Even if the US Military did support the tyranical government, small arms of civilians would not safeguard anything in that respect.
The NRA and labor unions DO NOT Represent me or many of my friends! Yes thats right, there are many people in the USA who feel the idea's of the NRA and labor unions threaten their security and economic prosperity. The NRA's opposition to gun control and the labor unions opposition to free trade.
While there is no perfect political process, the governments in Europe are not nearly tainted by the amount of money that is involved in the US process. I favor a process in which there a multiple parties, and the length of the entire process begining to end to elect a candidiate is less than 2 months. The fact is, in Europe, people run for political office at the fraction of the cost it takes here.
Its not fair if one candidate can buy more advertising time for his "free speech". The process then becomes not about democracy, but who has the most money to buy enough advertising time to trample their oponent. The guy with no money may have better idea's for solving problems, but since he has little or no money, he can't be heard. What happens is the political process resembles more of a business process. The Republicans vs. the Democrats looks more like COKE vs. PEPSI than democracy.
In the debates, equal time is given to both candidates. Why is the principle of equal time so anti-democratic? The only thing that gives someone more time to get their point across is their MONEY! Whats democratic about that? The fact is, for the process to become more democratic, the money factor has to be eliminated. No more campaign contributions from special interest. The guy working at the HOT DOG stand should have just as much influence on the political process as Bill Gates does. Most of the corruption that is in the government today is because of special interest like labor unions and the NRA. Yes, although they may be few, there are rich people and famous people to in the NRA. Hell, the NRA have Moses speaking for them. Bottom line, give the process back to individuals instead of corporations and special interest.
I have stated that things are radically different today in that power is vested in the private sector and not the government as has always been in the past. The government or the miltiary may have Idea's for weapons and other things, but its the private sector that builds them! McDonalds may not have ICBMs, or tanks, or any weapons at all, but their influence on society in peace time is far greater than the governments military. People are not overweight and obese, and as a result dying early because of the government. Nor is McDonalds really at fault either, of course its personal behavior. But McDonalds is definitely a greater contributer to the problem than government is. Without government intervention you would not know how many calories and saturated fat your consuming in the food McDonalds sales! The Government intervened because of its concern about the general health of the public! McDonalds only cares about its level of profit, which is obviously hurt by the fact that consuming large quantities of its food can cause various health problems and even death due to heart disease caused by obesity.
Yes I know Two Trillion dollars is a lot of money, but its not the same as a lump sum of money in the hands of a business man. No oversite or checks and balances there. While in the case of the government, its not their personal income and no individual in the government has the power to decide where to spend a single penny of it, unlike the private sector. I like that there is that freedom in the private sector, but it does mean there is more potential for corruption and abuse.
The only way the money can be spent is through a policical process and voting. One has to form a consenses among their representives and this often involves compromises of every individuals idea's in order to reach a consenses on where to spend the money. Far more democratic than the way the private sector works, but thats what this government is. This makes it for more inefficient and slower than any business, but makes it more fair and democratic than the way businesses operate.
Plus, even with Two Trillion dollars in tax revenue that the Government simply redistributes to the private sector, the private sector keeps 80% of the money! 4 times of what the government has! Did the people in Roman times have 4 times as much wealth as the government in ROME? Did the Roman government redistribute the money to a private sector back then? Again, the fundamental difference today than in the past is that power resides in the private sector with the people. Think about this, as well, the people in the private sector, which is most of the population have the power to throw out every single politician making the decisions on where 20% of their money is redistributed. How really powerful is a politician if they can be thrown out by their constituants in as little as two years and never get elected again, or be impeached before serving the full length of their term. The only corruption to this process is the corporations and special interest that can essentially bribe a politician by supporting his reelection campaign. Again this comes from the private sector and private institutions, not the government.
Well the end goal of any business is monopoly. Monopoly is Soviet Style Communism. Ownership of all the means of productions and property by a small group of people and NO COMPETITION. There is nothing else besides Government that prevents this process from happening. Who or what else besides government can break up a monopolistic business? Government insures that monopoly will not happen, and the highest level of competition will remain. If you disagree with that please explain.
The checks and balances that exist in government protect the citizen from abuses and corruption from it. Besides, we the people are the government since we elect people to positions who are at first private citizens and others that go to work in government are or were private citizens as well. Then of course there is the military, without which the government is unable to coerce or threaten its people. I've already explained why todays US military would not do that because of the teaching and training that is recieved, plus the fact that it is an all volunteer military, with people that are already motivated to serve and protect freedom and are the organization least likely to be effected by corruption or bad apples in our society. The few that are bad apples, are vastly outnumbered by the rest that are not. Even if the fantasy of a tyranical government fully supported by the military came true, citizens small arms would be useless to stop it.
I said people in general tend to be more noble when they serve in government because they give up the greater profits in the private sector and subject themselves to a greater level of scrutiny. But I said in general which does not mean everyone again! The only thing wrong with what Clinton did is that he lied about it, and yes that is an impeachable offense and I supported the impeachment process. Also conducting sexual activity while working on serious problems is also wrong. By the way it was 24 year old intern. His behavior in this arena though is rated G compared to what the business leaders often engage in. Again although it happens, its far easier to engage in this activity in the private sector than it is in public office. My main point here is that I never said there were not any bad apples in government, just less than there are in the private sector.
My point about the murders being committed by more people in the private sector than in government is a simple fact that demonstrates the greater degree of good will by people in government than in the private sector. How is that obscene? Its a fact.
As far as Rush, NRA, and other conservitive or liberal instutition that often get their idea's views implemented by giving money to political campaigns of politicians that support their views, thats not democratic at all. It is a suppression of my personal influence in government for the simple reason that I do not have the level of money that they do. How is that democratic?
By the way, the only right I have really questioned is the right to bear arms. That is light years away from this suggestion of yours that I want to take away all the rights of all citizens. I fully support are democratic government and believe in Capitalism and fear monopoly and Communism as I have stated before. I believe in law and order and the freedom that comes from having that which I feel is infringed by the right to keep and bear arms by private citizens.
You know there was this guy named Timothy Mcvey(spelling) who believed that the government had become tyranical. He would of course would say that God and the Declaration of Independence gave him the right to pursue a course of action to fight the "tyranical government" by blowing up one of the "Tyranical governments" buildings in Oklahoma City killing hundreds of "Tyranical federal workers" and their childern in a daycare center on site. Do you think the Declaration Of Independence gave him the right to do this?
I actually might move to Europe for a while or more because of certain types of work, and a huge interest in the region and people, but not because I don't like the USA. I love the USA, but feel that we can do better as a society by adopting certain measures like the UKs gun control policy that have been proven to work, where as are's is a failure. I'm for the greater security and freedom that this gun control would bring to the USA!
Globalization is happening at a very rapid pace. As I write this my sister is working for a British company in Dublin Ireland. An American, working for the British, providing services to Irish Busineses in Dublin. Thats the 21st century.
You might be interested in taking a vacation to Somalia. There is no government at all, and people can arm themselves with what ever weapons they can get their hands on. I'm sure because of this that their very rich, have unparalled freedom, and personal safety and security is not an issue. Of course I'm joking, but I think you get my point.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
STING2 said:
Funny, I recall in Saving Private Ryan that a group of infantry took on a tank with little more than improvised explosives. Silly me. But I agree: back to the main debate.
Where in the depths of your ignorance do you get this information?
75 percent? When is a supermajority of THAT size needed to pass a law? Specifically, each house of Congress passes a law with a SIMPLE majority - 50% + 1 - and overrides a Presidential veto with a two-thirds majority (67%).
Even Constitutional amendments can be proposed with only a two-thirds majority. The other way that an amendment can be proposed is through the work of two-thirds of the states' legislatures. From there, a Convention is called, and an Amendment is only RATIFIED when three-fourths of the states' legislatures (or conventions, as determined by the national convention) approve the amendment.
(See Article V of the U.S. Constitution.)
I have no idea why you believe it takes 75% of the government to do anything. Nor do I know why you think the national government changes the Constitution when the STATES ratify new amendments. Your complete ignorance of how our political system works is galling.
And while I admit that officially change the Consitution is (and should be) a difficult process, IGNORING it has appeared to be relatively easy. Again, McCain-Feingold is, I believe, CLEARLY unconstitutional; it's so bad that some CONGRESSMEN admit that that fact, and hope the Supreme Court cuts out the unconsitutional parts. But the Court DOESN'T have to. Congress passed it - when only a simple majority was needed to do so - and the President signed it. If the Supreme Court upholds it, an unconstitutional bill has just been passed into law.
Again, nine men and women in black robes stand between an unconstitutional bill and us. And it takes only FIVE of them to let it through.
Again, let's return to McCain-Feingold. Let's assume the Supreme Court lets the UNCONSTITUTIONAL bill through; given its recent tendency to follow its own whims rather than interpret the Constitution, that does seem to be a very real possibility.
How does the U.S. military save us from that?
Just curious.
And while I'm here, let me say this: while the trials following WWII made it particularly clear that soldiers were bound to disobey immoral commands, it's not clear that teaching that fact has become the main goal of Western military training. It seems to me that the militaries of the West are still being trained to follow orders first - and that those who are the BEST at following orders are the ones with the most military power. IF, God forbid, some tyrant tried to ascend to Hitler-esque powers in the United States, it's not AT ALL clear that:
A) the military would notice.
B) the military would decide that it's a bad thing.
C) the military rebel against its leaders to protect the American people.
Admittedly, it's also not clear whether the PEOPLE themselves would notice and rebel, but I would much rather NOT have just the military as a single, last-ditch defense.
(To make it clear: I agree with the NRA and will probably join the organization before I turn 30. I also strongly disagree with the actions of most labor unions, and have declined joining one at a summer job at a supermarket.)
There are organizations specifically designed to COUNTER the efforts of the NRA and trade unions. The First Amendment allows you to join THOSE organizations. And when you limit the access ALL these organizations have, you limit the political power of the individual members. Divde and conquer.
It also seems to me that these untainted governments are more thoroughly influenced by academic elites than by the interests of the common man. But what does THAT matter when the cost for running for office is so low?
Your solution is that every nutcase who wants to run for President be given equal time with party candidates. Even if that's more "fair," it's also absurd: it will cloud the debate with meaningless discussion about Area 51.
I don't see why it's not fair: those who raise more funds are the ones who appeal to a larger number of people.
And I don't think you understand what "free speech" means. It means you have the right to say what you want. It does NOT mean that you have the right to be heard, to be broadcast. You get that opportunity if what you say appeals to the mainstream press - OR appeals to special interests groups and their members, those who give you money to pay for advertising.
Eliminate the second process, and you turn over political power to the mainstream press - and you make the process that much LESS unrelated to the individual and the groups to which he belongs.
Equal time for "both" candidates isn't undemocratic, but there are DOZENS of presidential candidates - independents like Perot and Nader, those who get just enough forms signed to get on the ballots, and those begging for write-in votes. By eliminating the possibility of campaign ads, you eliminate their chance to be heard.
Many people - myself included - believe that campaign contributions qualify as free speech itself, as a way for people to demonstrate their support in a way that gets their candidate heard - analogous to passing out fliers and putting up signs.
Eliminate money altogether, and it IS true that Gates and the hot dog vendor have an equal say about what their government does: but a very SMALL say, reduced to one vote and the opportunity to write letters.
The decision about whom will be heard is placed in the hands of the mainstream press.
And I wonder, what the HELL does it matter if Heston is the NRA president? Does his career choice - acting - render his voice deaf?
Would it make you feel better if the government owned the means of production?
("Government owns the means of production." That phrase sounds so familiar...)
You know, you could save time by just repeating, "Private sector bad, government good."
"Private sector bad, government good."
Also, recall that the government not only spends one-fifth of the US GDP, but also passes laws that control EVERY aspect of the economy. What corporation has that kind of power?
A simple redistribution is STILL a redistribution - taking from one group and giving to another - and that is a VERY powerful act indeed.
And I'm not going to thank the federal government for only stealing 20% of what we earn - on TOP of what the state and local governments take. GOD HIMSELF only asks for 10%.
You ever heard of the Supreme Court? Did you know that they aren't elected and that they serve life terms?
Again: the EPA and the IRS, those guilty of perhaps the worst violations of the Constitution aren't elected either.
Moving on...
So if we eliminate the corruption from outside, the government itself will become pure and interested only in what's in our best interests? Hardly: I honestly think politicians CRAVE POWER.
(Or does the dictum that "power corrupts" no longer apply in the magical 21st Century?)
Given that, they will STILL make an effort to TAX US MORE, SPEND MORE, and REGULATE MORE - private interests, generally, only influence how government expands its power, not whether it expands.
First, I agree that the government SHOULD ensure competition among businesses - though I would submit it already goes to far in trying to regulate prices, among other things.
I disagree with the statement that "Monopoly is Soviet Style Communism. Ownership of all the means of productions and property by a small group of people and NO COMPETITION." Soviet Communism (all Communism, actually) is where the GOVERNMENT owns the means of production.
To suggest that the government protects us from private-sector Communism is absurd.
Again, how is the military stopping the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold bill?
AND again, even if private arms can't stop tyranny, that doesn't justify giving up our rights to that same potential tyrant - and your case that tyranny is impossible... well, it's crap.
"Private sector bad, government good."
As I explained above, individuals exert real influence by joining groups of like-minded people.
And continuing to bring up Rush in this example, is absurd. He's a member of the free press, not a political organization. He's an "O'Reilly" or "Maher," not an NRA or NEA.
Actually, I believe that taking personal and organizational campaign contributions is a violation of the First Amendment.
And again, monopoly does not equate to Communism.
No, but there were these other guys, named Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Henry, and a few others whose views represented what many believe to be 40-60% of the colonies they lived in. They believed that England was oppressing them through unjust taxation. After years of petitioning the government, those militiamen declared the colonies independent and fought battles using both conventional and guerilla-style tactics. They wrote the Declaration of Independence asserting their God-given rights to do this.
Do you think they were wrong?
(Pssst. Generally speaking, freedom and security are two different things. The right to make as much money as you want usually means you give up the security of a welfare state.)
No, I don't.
Unlike some people in this thread, I defend the basic documents of this nation, and I UNDERSTAND those documents.
Perhaps my comment was a bit of line, but - frankly - many of your opinions are infuriating.
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
It's clear this discussion is getting nowhere.
If you want to agree to disagree, fine.
Bubba
If you want to agree to disagree, fine.
Bubba
FizzingWhizzbees
ONE love, blood, life
Achtung Bubba said:
Does that mean we won't be seeing any more of your 1000+ word polemics?
I don't know how either of your have the patience to have carried on the discussion this far, to be honest. (and that isn't said as a criticism, simply an observation)
Achtung Bubba
Refugee
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Yup. I believe I'm done, at least in this thread.
Clearly, I concede nothing; I'm just admitting that the current discussion is futile.
U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
AMAZING. I disagree with TWO Republicans at the same time (Achtung Bubba and Sting2).
Let me start with this:
Achtung Bubba:
You seem to miss the "well regulated" concept here in Ol' Number 2. You seem to be of the opinion that Joe Citizen should be AS armed or BETTER armed than his local law enforcement agencies AND the military, so that, in the event the government does something he thinks is unconstitutional and he can't rally up enough like-minded civilians to agree with him and vote the government OUT, he can just go and start knocking them off.
As civilians, we do not need machine guns, tanks, surface-to-air missile launchers, etc. I do think it is our right to keep and bear arms, within the confines of "well regulated," but I do not think that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to set up an "opposition" military to strike whenever you disagree with the government.
And why are people (and the NRA) so opposed to background checks and strengthening the process for gun show purchases? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?????
Granted: abuses by the Federal government DO occur (Waco and Ruby Ridge were NOT abuses, but the pictute below WAS an abuse, and hopefully it will be the worst we ever see).
But can you imagine the bloodshed that would have occurred if Elian's relatives were also armed and decided to resist in the above pictured situation?
Sting2:
You miss out on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" portion.
Please do not take this offensively, but you are a bit naive to think that common criminals will not take advantage of the fact that they retain guns (illegally) while everyone else has turned theirs in. Within the past century, there have been far more firearms in the United States than in Britain, both legally amd illegally. Are you proposing to take away, by force, handguns that are (currently) legally owned by famale rape victims? The reasons and situations for the intent of the 2nd Amendment may have changed, but nonetheless, I think a significant need exists. Granted, we should ban private ownership of machine guns, assault rifles, and other rapid-fire weaponry. They are no good for hunting or self defense. At the same time, we should STRICTLY enforce existing gun laws and add some more.
~U2Alabama
Let me start with this:
Achtung Bubba:
You seem to miss the "well regulated" concept here in Ol' Number 2. You seem to be of the opinion that Joe Citizen should be AS armed or BETTER armed than his local law enforcement agencies AND the military, so that, in the event the government does something he thinks is unconstitutional and he can't rally up enough like-minded civilians to agree with him and vote the government OUT, he can just go and start knocking them off.
As civilians, we do not need machine guns, tanks, surface-to-air missile launchers, etc. I do think it is our right to keep and bear arms, within the confines of "well regulated," but I do not think that the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to set up an "opposition" military to strike whenever you disagree with the government.
And why are people (and the NRA) so opposed to background checks and strengthening the process for gun show purchases? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE?????
Granted: abuses by the Federal government DO occur (Waco and Ruby Ridge were NOT abuses, but the pictute below WAS an abuse, and hopefully it will be the worst we ever see).
But can you imagine the bloodshed that would have occurred if Elian's relatives were also armed and decided to resist in the above pictured situation?
Sting2:
You miss out on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" portion.
Please do not take this offensively, but you are a bit naive to think that common criminals will not take advantage of the fact that they retain guns (illegally) while everyone else has turned theirs in. Within the past century, there have been far more firearms in the United States than in Britain, both legally amd illegally. Are you proposing to take away, by force, handguns that are (currently) legally owned by famale rape victims? The reasons and situations for the intent of the 2nd Amendment may have changed, but nonetheless, I think a significant need exists. Granted, we should ban private ownership of machine guns, assault rifles, and other rapid-fire weaponry. They are no good for hunting or self defense. At the same time, we should STRICTLY enforce existing gun laws and add some more.
~U2Alabama
Last edited:
z edge
I serve MacPhisto
I just want to say that my idiotic soon-to-be-ex neighbors that I so fondly refer to as the "gun club"are proof that we need stricter gun laws. After firing off an entire clip from his .45 pistol at 3 am one fine saturday morning not 20 feet outside my bedroom window, the drunken gun-club neighbor hid in his house while the block was surrounded for 2 hours by the police.
I didn't answer the door, but the cops did pull out this guy's neighbor on the other side and had him on the ground with a shotgun in his face while demanding to know who had the guns.
I have warned these fools that next time I see or even smell their guns I will turn them in for this and all of the other crap I am aware of that goes on around these mansions we live in.
As a person who has fired a couple of pistols, rifles, machine guns, I like and respect guns. However, SOME of the idiots who use them make me believe we need way tougher laws on them and I tend to agree with Bama here.
I didn't answer the door, but the cops did pull out this guy's neighbor on the other side and had him on the ground with a shotgun in his face while demanding to know who had the guns.
I have warned these fools that next time I see or even smell their guns I will turn them in for this and all of the other crap I am aware of that goes on around these mansions we live in.
As a person who has fired a couple of pistols, rifles, machine guns, I like and respect guns. However, SOME of the idiots who use them make me believe we need way tougher laws on them and I tend to agree with Bama here.
Last edited:
