105 replies to this topic

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

-Mr_Fess-, on 13 January 2013 - 04:08 AM, said:

Those with right on their side still found a way to pull it off.

Jingoistic nonsense.

[F3SS]

Wearer of Hats, on 13 January 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

Jingoistic nonsense.

Whatever that means... Did they not pull it off? Did they not have right on their side?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

-Mr_Fess-, on 13 January 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

Whatever that means... Did they not pull it off? Did they not have right on their side?

In war, noone has right on their side. In fact, "right" exists nowhere in nature outside of the heads of people trying to justify something and sleep well at night.
They did what they felt they needed to in order to better themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Yamato]

Wearer of Hats, on 13 January 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

In war, noone has right on their side. In fact, "right" exists nowhere in nature outside of the heads of people trying to justify something and sleep well at night.
They did what they felt they needed to in order to better themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

In nature, might makes right.  As in war.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

that wouls make the Britsh right then in the War of Not liking taxes then wouldn't it?

[Yamato]

Wearer of Hats, on 13 January 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

that wouls make the Britsh right then in the War of Not liking taxes then wouldn't it?

Not with all that French gunpowder we blew the British tyrants away with, no.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Yamato, on 13 January 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

Not with all that French gunpowder we blew the British tyrants away with, no.

As I understood it, it was less about the tyranny of Britain and more the tyranny of lack of representation. If the King had said "rightio, have a few seats in Parliament, and a couple of Lords" America would still be a colony (or at least Federated a la Australia).

[aztek]

The Silver Thong, on 12 January 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

. As we see there is absalutely no opposition to a tyrant type government such as the US if the goverment wanted to cruch private gun owners they could no matter what pea shooter one has.

i would not be so sure about that. look around.
Iraq, and Afghanistan.

us army is fighting guerrilla war and can't win for 10 years now, thousands of soldiers, tanks, air force...etc. and can't win few thousands insurgents in Afghanistan that have none of that, you telling me millions of armed, determined ppl wont matter, lol.

I'm not even talking about USSR Afghan war, even without stingers soviets had very hard time, fighting tribal warriors with ww1 rifles. even kids fought soviets.






history proves you wrong.

[aztek]

ninjadude, on 12 January 2013 - 03:25 AM, said:

no, you do not have the wing nut right to shoot government employees. What a crock.

well none has a right to shoot anyone for no reason either, be it  bum from a street, or gvmt employee, nobody.
however in self defense, it doesn't matter who you shoot. i have a right to protect my self from any threat, including gvmt emploee

[F3SS]

Wearer of Hats, on 13 January 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

In war, noone has right on their side. In fact, "right" exists nowhere in nature outside of the heads of people trying to justify something and sleep well at night.
They did what they felt they needed to in order to better themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

I see your point but can't you justify the righteousness of the people who went to war in order to create the freest society the world has ever known an actually made it happen and actually created what would on to become the greatest, freest, richest, most legendary, most powerful beacon of hope the world has ever known?

aztek, on 13 January 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

i would not be so sure about that. look around.
Iraq, and Afghanistan.

us army is fighting guerrilla war and can't win for 10 years now, thousands of soldiers, tanks, air force...etc. and can't win few thousands insurgents in Afghanistan that have none of that, you telling me millions of armed, determined ppl wont matter, lol.

I'm not even talking about USSR Afghan war, even without stingers soviets had very hard time, fighting tribal warriors with ww1 rifles. even kids fought soviets.


history proves you wrong.

I wanted to make similar points about the wars in the Middle East. If those cavemen can hold us off for all these years what makes anyone so sure we couldn't? Although I do agree with the point that if the government really wanted to the military could crush us. That's something that I've never understood about the Mideast wars. We should have been able to obliterate alQueda or who ever else in a matter of probably weeks but maybe it's because we can't just carpet bomb the entire country. We have to be tactical and identify targets.
But, I do not think the government could roll over on US so easy because for one we are smarter than those bearded *******s over there and secondly our military is made up of once ordinary citizens with friends, family and love for country at home and its foolish to think that if the POTUS ordered a strike against the people that the all or any of the military would comply. In fact, I'd bet that he'd be the one of the first to get taken out when so many troops side with the people to overthrow tyranny. I don't know that a revolution would be easy but I think an overthrow could happen. The will of a couple hundred million people vs the will of a few hundred elite old men in DC... I don't see the competition.
Just think about if the Jews in Europe and the slaves in America, or anywhere else in the world because that's not just our sin, had their hands on a bunch of guns. Man would history sound different. Imagine if the revolutionaries here didn't have guns.  We'd sound like Australians by now with a British flag hanging over some castle instead of a nonexistent Whitehouse.

[questionmark]

Eonwe, on 12 January 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

And that is why in every democracy that turned totalitarian or fascist it started with the majority.

Quite wrong, ask Pinochet what he had besides the army and the CIA.

[questionmark]

Eonwe, on 13 January 2013 - 12:12 AM, said:

Majority is a loose term.

In terms of majority, I am referring to the support of a cult of personality more so than political logistics.

As in a majority of the population being misled or enabling bad policies.

Majority is not a loose term, it is 50% + 1. And to protect the minority basic laws can only be changed with at least 75%.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

You see well organized malitials should also have black hawk helo`s and tanks and Jets

My state militia does have these. And they are actively flown within the states border today. Other states have tanks or jets. It depends what your National Guard Unit designation is. I hate to tell you this but National Guard Units are suppose to be state militias.however our government has chosen to use them for duty in foreign lands instead of reinstitute a draft which would be highly unpopular to the public.

[questionmark]

Corp, on 13 January 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

Gee and here I thought the King's soldiers got defeated because France, Spain, and the Dutch got involved, because the British wasn't fully committed to the fight, and because the American clued in that random armed citizens sucked and they needed an actually trained army. Silly historical research.

There were some other factors too, if Cornwallis had refrained from attacking the Irish Scots on the other side of the Appalachians he might have won after all. But they had a few scores to settle and hardly had their own life in mind if they could take a few English with them.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Majority is not a loose term, it is 50% + 1. And to protect the minority basic laws can only be changed with at least 75%.

You must be talking about House and Senate voting because with the abuse of EO's anythings possible.