[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
3. I suspect that much of the military has a very strong civic duty to the government, but once the government “turned” on its people (in our very fantastical example), I do believe their would be a breakdown in discipline and loyalty, at least enough to cause serious logistical problems that the military relies on. Then, of course, Team Citizen gets legions of trained soldiers joining up.
So then in your assessment wouldn’t this render the 2nd Amendment pointless? If the military remains loyal to the citizenry, thus nullifying the government’s ultimate will, does that then mean I have no need to arm myself to protect myself against my government? Having served in the military I cannot see a soldier or marine attacking their own.[/quote]
Marine is capitalized. It is a title.
The second amendment remains a necessity because you cannot necessarily put all your hopes in the idea that the military would not attack their own people. I don’t think most would, but I am SURE that some would. What do you say to those folks that are under siege by them? Besides, what if we are both wrong and the military does decided to side with the gov’t over the people? We cannot just trust that they won’t. Trusting the government is a fool’s gamble and one I wouldn’t want a part of.
So then in your assessment wouldn’t this render the 2nd Amendment pointless? [/quote]
No, for a number of reasons.
First, no textual command in the Bill of Rights is never rendered “pointless” until we amend the Constitution. It is there, so it is there. The right hasn’t gone away just because of some hypothetical that the army might not support the government.
Second, citizens would (and should) never rely on such an event. Citizens retain their own right of self-defense, regardless of what the armed forces decided to do. If the armed forces abandoned or didn’t, that changes nothing in terms of the personal right and responsibility of self-defense.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
3. I suspect that much of the military has a very strong civic duty to the government, but once the government “turned” on its people (in our very fantastical example), I do believe their would be a breakdown in discipline and loyalty, at least enough to cause serious logistical problems that the military relies on. Then, of course, Team Citizen gets legions of trained soldiers joining up.
So then in your assessment wouldn’t this render the 2nd Amendment pointless? If the military remains loyal to the citizenry, thus nullifying the government’s ultimate will, does that then mean I have no need to arm myself to protect myself against my government? Having served in the military I cannot see a soldier or marine attacking their own.[/quote]
The second amendment is also to protect citizens from thugs.
Let us not forget (in our hypothetical discussion of whether or not the military would side with the government if the government ever started tyrannizing the populace) that the government has many tentacles beside the military.
Just as the Wehrmacht was not used so much for brutalizing Jews and other minorities during the Holocaust (that was the job of the Gestapo, Schutzstaffel and Einsatzgruppen), our government would likely employ the paramilitary arm of the FBI, or perhaps FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Let us not forget (in our hypothetical discussion of whether or not the military would side with the government if the government ever started tyrannizing the populace) that the government has many tentacles beside the military.
Just as the Wehrmacht was not used so much for brutalizing Jews and other minorities during the Holocaust (that was the job of the Gestapo, Schutzstaffel and Einsatzgruppen), our government would likely employ the paramilitary arm of the FBI, or perhaps FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security.
[/quote]
Precisely. These are the groups that have and will be used against the people. Don’t forget about the BATF.
Precisely. These are the groups that have and will be used against the people. Don’t forget about the BATF.[/quote]
Yup. Anybody who has watched ‘Waco: Rules of Engagement’ should know that any government, including the US government, should never be wholly trusted to carry out the benign will of the people.
Creeps, especially creeps with power, have agendas and the power to enforce them, and the only person who is really covering you and your family’s ass is you, the common citizen. And anybody who wants to trade “security” for that absolutely deserves what they get.
Somehow guns in everyone’s hands make people safe but nukes in everyone’s hands do not.[/quote]
I’ve said this before this thread a civil, well-regulated nuclear Iran doesn’t scare me. An ‘erase them from the pages of history’, covertly nuclear Iran does. Much the same way a man with a gun doesn’t scare me, but a man waving a gun saying he’s going to kill someone does.
France threatening to use nuclear weapons against any terrorist state scares me more than Israel’s maybe/maybe not nuclear situation that they’ve never threatened to use.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Do you realize your “redneck” comment is every bit as biggoted and intolerant as Imus’ “ho” comment? Do you believe only “rednecks” own guns? Because in your elitist liberal mind the Constitution is “old fashioned” you think it should be abolished? Your ignorance and intolerance is staggering.
That’s becasue I am a bigot in certain regards. Everyone is. Though I am still tolerant of people I find ignorant. Redneck is a “slang term, usually for a rural white southerner who is politically conservative, racist, and a religious fundamentalist”. Having lived most of my life around them I have a certain disdain for them. Why would anyone want to be a redneck?
The constitution will never be abolished by the US government. Do not mistake me wanting it amended for being abolished. Though, I couldn’t care less if it were.[/quote]
That is an extremely broad definition. I will tell you this, rednecks are everywhere. It’s not a southern thing…it’s not even an American thing.
“Though I am still tolerant of people I find ignorant.”
You must be the most tolerant person in the world. Based on your previous posts, you seem to find everyone you disagree with to be ignorant (and there are LOTS of people who disagree with you).
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I’ve said this before this thread a civil, well-regulated nuclear Iran doesn’t scare me. An ‘erase them from the pages of history’, covertly nuclear Iran does. [/quote]
I’ve also said before that just because the speech has been translated as such in the media doesn’t mean it’s what Ahmadinejad implied. Plus, if you knew the least bit about the political system in Iran, you’d understand that the president has virtually no power when it comes to foreign affairs.
I’m yet to see any mainstream US news outlet publish the conciliatory comment of the Ayatollah following Mahmoud’s speech. Not sensational enough I reckon.
A couple of points are in order here;
France threatening to use force is nohing short of terrorism. It’s an undefendable position but, come to think of it, how’s Bush’s “all options are on the table” any different?
Nuclear ambiguity of Israel is no more. Olmert seemingly admitted it. Plus, can you claim to know better than Robert Gates who said that Tehran is “surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf”? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6170845.stm
Between a state that threatens to use violence which gets innocent civilians killed and one who “walks the walk”, I’ll pick the former any time.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mike: whatever happened with your wife and her pistol at school? Does she carry despite the regs?[/quote]
Yeah. I have poured over the legal code and it is without a doubt not illegal in the state of Idaho to be carrying on campus. Everywhere the word school and firearm are together, school is specifically defined as a elementary and secondary schools.
What they are doing at the school is illegal, and we’re still in the process of challenging it on legal bounds, but the wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly.
The problem really is the fact that the administration knows that it is illegal, but they really don’t care. So long as they aren’t forced to change it, they won’t.
Put bluntly, many in academia feel themselves as uniquely special and above the law, treating their schools as their own little fiefdom. Following V. Tech, things got a little ugly in the discourse between myself and the school president Tim White when I called him out for being insincere in his open letter to the students in the wake of the shootings.
The funny part is that in his response he told me that he was sorry that I found his words “insecure” instead of insincere. Freudian slip?
In any case, what they are doing is very illegal and they know it. I’m quite confident we will win this one. It is just going to take a little while.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Let us not forget (in our hypothetical discussion of whether or not the military would side with the government if the government ever started tyrannizing the populace) that the government has many tentacles beside the military.
Just as the Wehrmacht was not used so much for brutalizing Jews and other minorities during the Holocaust (that was the job of the Gestapo, Schutzstaffel and Einsatzgruppen), our government would likely employ the paramilitary arm of the FBI, or perhaps FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Let us not forget (in our hypothetical discussion of whether or not the military would side with the government if the government ever started tyrannizing the populace) that the government has many tentacles beside the military.
Just as the Wehrmacht was not used so much for brutalizing Jews and other minorities during the Holocaust (that was the job of the Gestapo, Schutzstaffel and Einsatzgruppen), our government would likely employ the paramilitary arm of the FBI, or perhaps FEMA or the Department of Homeland Security.
Precisely. These are the groups that have and will be used against the people. Don’t forget about the BATF.[/quote]
[quote]PGJ wrote:
That is an extremely broad definition. I will tell you this, rednecks are everywhere. It’s not a southern thing…it’s not even an American thing.
“Though I am still tolerant of people I find ignorant.”
You must be the most tolerant person in the world. Based on your previous posts, you seem to find everyone you disagree with to be ignorant (and there are LOTS of people who disagree with you).
[/quote]
Actually, I don’t really think anyone that I have had a meaningful exchange with to be ignorant–you included.
You seem to be coherent; you can complete a sentence; you communicate with a good degree of competence and make yourself understood. I have no other measure to judge you by(or anyone else by for that matter). We just don’t agree on many issues.
The fact of the matter is I am very ignorant of many issues. I am not ashamed to admit it. I do not understand politics, sociology, or economics and the like. I understand how I think it should be but according to many of our friends here–I AM wrong.
That is why I like discussions here. People help me have a better understanding–a different perspective. There is nothing wrong with trying to look at a problem with a different perspective. This is how the big problems get solved.
I don’t necessarily think people have to agree with each other to get along–that is the benchmark to which tolerance is measured (you know, live and let live). I realize I am a bit ‘off’ in regard to mainstream thinking–at least with a vast majority of our forum poster friends.
Yes, I have met rednecks everywhere I have gone and do not typically stereotype the south in just that regard. Though I feel a bit more able to do it having lived there most my life.
I guarantee you, in person you wouldn’t have the slightest idea how “whacked” my thinking is because I generally keep my mouth shut. This is why I love this place. I don’t need to be careful of losing my credibility because I have none here to lose. We are all equal in that regard.
[/quote]
No it isn’t. It is only capitalized when you are submitting official letterhead to thru the chain-of-command so Mr. Big-Shot-Staff-Sergeant-Admin-Chief doesn’t hemorrhage. In the real world it is not capitalized–neither is soldier.
I didn’t invent the definition of redneck. I just call it how I see it. I guarantee you are bigoted in some way. That is what perspective does to us. There is no such think as objectivity. Though I am fair.
Somehow guns in everyone’s hands make people safe but nukes in everyone’s hands do not.
I’ve said this before this thread a civil, well-regulated nuclear Iran doesn’t scare me. An ‘erase them from the pages of history’, covertly nuclear Iran does. Much the same way a man with a gun doesn’t scare me, but a man waving a gun saying he’s going to kill someone does.
[/quote]
If Iran had nukes knowing everyone else also had them would they be stupid enough to use them? Would we be stupid enough to use them again?
Isn’t this the same argument as the second amendment? Everyone carries then they are on the same playing field.
I do not see a distinction. One line of thinking is correct the other is flawed. We either agree to all be armed to the teeth or we all agree to abstain. There is only one logical path. The US and its allies doesn’t get to decide the fate of other countries. Might does not make right, though it sure provides the allusion we are.
No it isn’t. It is only capitalized when you are submitting official letterhead to thru the chain-of-command so Mr. Big-Shot-Staff-Sergeant-Admin-Chief doesn’t hemorrhage. In the real world it is not capitalized–neither is soldier.
[/quote]
Come on, Lift. As a former Marine you should know that the word “Marine” is ALWAYS capitalized. It may not be the “Little Brown Book” textbook way of doing it, but Marines always capitalize “Marine”. The words “sailor”, “soldier” and “airman” are never capitalized.