Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean the ninja forces from DHS? Whooo hooo!! The "gubmint" won't try and overtly go stomping around trying to kick in doors. At least, not for a while. Obama and company, or, maybe the next Democrat prez, need to get some kind of "global initiative" , regarding personal arms, ratified first. My bets are on Obama to try to do it though. He wants the credit for it in his list of "accomplishments". The UN and the Obama administration are a match made in the Hubs of Hell. Given enough breathing space, they would have an orgy with our Constitution.
It is impressive though, the trust and faith Dems have in their Imperious Leader. However it is, that liberty ends up dieing, it will be Bushs' fault. Lmao.
The the statist liberals often see government as a velvet glove, not understanding inside the glove is a fist...
Why not, cons had and still have so much faith in Bush that they wish him would be president again.
Nahhh. Bush had his shot. All he did was open up the toy chest for guys like Obama. Little things like, oh...the Patriot Act, laying right on top just begging to be played with. And playing he is. With an option to blame Bush, and have his minions buy it, for leaving his toys laying around.
Anyone who trusts ANY politician, regardless of ideology, is a fool. Don't mistake my statement for a defense of Bush. It ain't. Not hardly. Regardless of my right leaning views, I don't trust the Republicans any more than the Democrats. The agenda for the country is the same for both parties. Power power and more power for the Federal system. Globalization is in there to.
Disarming the citizens is as desirable to either party. Issues like tbat are just used to get votes to see who gets to play first.
Nahhh. Bush had his shot. All he did was open up the toy chest for guys like Obama. Little things like, oh...the Patriot Act, laying right on top just begging to be played with. And playing he is. With an option to blame Bush, and have his minions buy it, for leaving his toys laying around.
Anyone who trusts ANY politician, regardless of ideology, is a fool. Don't mistake my statement for a defense of Bush. It ain't. Not hardly. Regardless of my right leaning views, I don't trust the Republicans any more than the Democrats. The agenda for the country is the same for both parties. Power power and more power for the Federal system. Globalization is in there to.
Disarming the citizens is as desirable to either party. Issues like tbat are just used to get votes to see who gets to play first.
Soldiers aren't paid or trained to think outside their orders. Anyway, we have a civil war in our history that pitted family member against family member that says you are wrong.
Oh and don't forget the kent state massacre.
And geez how many civilians do just the regular cops kill, beat, assault a year?
Most military personel realize that such an order would be an illegal order and to follow it would leave them liable under the UCMJ for criminal action.. Most would not follow an order to fire on US civilians. As with any large group there would be exceptions.
From a non paranoid non hun lover point of view, no.
Apparently from a non-literate point of view too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamBarrow
It seems that your average person thinks that this system we have here is the default state of humanity. It's quite insane actually.
The natural form of government is some form of despotism or tyranny. That is why events like the signing of the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence are so significant. They signified some of the first instances were it was recognized that might does not equal right and those achievements had to be fought for. Literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 314guy
Again. How are small arms going to help anyone against an air strike?
You can still target bases or the guys ordering the strikes.
Plus, a government using all the heavy weapons at its disposal would probably make any rebellion worse. I always hear, "Pfft. The government has tanks, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, and nuclear missiles. You cannot beat those." If the government carpet bombed or nuked one of its own cities, not only would it probably make any civilian resistance far worse, it would probably result in much of the military joining the rebellion, and it would end up destroying much of the country to hold onto power.
The problems with using tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, and other heavy weapons to fight guerrillas in America is the same problems with using tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, and other heavy weapons to fight guerrillas in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It kills too many civilians, it destroys too much property, and although it often does kill quite a few of the enemy, it rarely takes out their main infrastructure and costs a lot of money to carry out.
Also, any rebellion that is small enough to be put down with a handful of airstrikes is small enough to not to require them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Soldiers aren't paid or trained to think outside their orders. Anyway, we have a civil war in our history that pitted family member against family member that says you are wrong.
Oh and don't forget the kent state massacre.
And geez how many civilians do just the regular cops kill, beat, assault a year?
Soldiers aren't Terminators. They can (and sometimes do) refuse orders. An American soldier's oath is to the Constitution and they are sent to kill Americans who are resisting that the President just declared himself President-For-Life; I think you would see more than a few join the resistance.
You do have a point on the Civil War. Both sides were willing to commit atrocities against each other (and even against residents in their own state in the case of several Southern states).
I would disagree on Kent State. That was less the government slaughtering protestors in the style of Tiananmen Square and more a bunch of jumpy National Guardsmen overreacting when a few protestors turned violent. A tragedy, but not the NKVD liquidating Kulaks.
You have a point on the cops, but cops are not soldiers. Also, cops around the world do that sort of thing. The police force in one sizable city in the Canadian Prairies (about 200K people and I am not naming it because nothing has ever been proven in court) has a reputation of picking up drifters and the homeless, driving them out to the city limits, and beating them to a bloody pulp and leaving them on the side of the road. A few people have died of hypothermia in the winter when they were too badly injured to get to somewhere warm. I have also seen footage of a German police office kneeing a handcuffed woman several times in the face after he propped her up against his police cruiser.
To be fair, violent cops aren't just an American thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trlhiker
Why not, cons had and still have so much faith in Bush that they wish him would be president again.
With the exceptions of Republican partisans, the neo-cons, and caveman conservatives, Bush is pretty unpopular.
The point is not about Republicans or Democrats. The point is that there needs to be a balance of power between the people and the government and an armed citizenry is one of the best ways to achieve that. Would an armed citizenry defeat a tyrannical government in a civil war? Maybe. Maybe not. Actually, it is almost irrelevant. What is most important is that oppressing and terrorizing the populace is too risky and that even if the tyrants win; they rule ruins.
Also, I am talking about hypothetical scenarios here. I am not talking about things that I think are just around the corner and I hope that they never happen. I am merely pointing out that a government becoming tyrannical is not some far out possibility if you look at history and fighting a tyrannical government is neither absurd nor morally reprehensible.
Why not, cons had and still have so much faith in Bush that they wish him would be president again.
A great example of a thought morphing into a postable pseudo fact. I don't know a single conservative that doesn't feel betrayed by GW Bush. How's the weather in your own special world?
Most military personel realize that such an order would be an illegal order and to follow it would leave them liable under the UCMJ for criminal action.. Most would not follow an order to fire on US civilians. As with any large group there would be exceptions.
Yes, and it's important to notice that they pledge to uphold the constitution, but not to support the government or it's leaders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
