275 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

Wearer of Hats, on 30 January 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

I thought the "there'd be a gun behind every blade of grass" was a myth, they didn't invade the mainland because they thought they wouldn't need to.

It is. And I tend to doubt that a uncoordinated armed bunch (like people getting their guns out of the garage would be) is actually a military threat.

But thinking that makes some people feel good.

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

It is. And I tend to doubt that a uncoordinated armed bunch (like people getting their guns out of the garage would be) is actually a military threat.

But thinking that makes some people feel good.

But what about the bearded cave dwellers in the ME we can't seem to control? Surely if they can we could muster up a hell of a resistance. Sloppy at first but unless nuked or carpet bombed to oblivion we would get better over time.

[questionmark]

-Mr_Fess-, on 30 January 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

But what about the bearded cave dwellers in the ME we can't seem to control? Surely if they can we could muster up a hell of a resistance. Sloppy at first but unless nuked or carpet bombed to oblivion we would get better over time.

They are not uncoordinated and despite what we think of them camel drivers, they are thoroughly trained. Something we cannot say about the average gun owner.

Edit: and if we just take the religious subset: they are not afraid of croaking either, that makes them twice as dangerous.

Edited by questionmark, 30 January 2013 - 09:58 PM.

[F3SS]

I agree that they see war as a way of life. Unlike us they train and practice and live it all the time.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

questionmark, on 30 January 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

they are thoroughly trained.

The original members of the group in question were trained by the CIA after all, trained to fight exactly the sort of war they're fighting against the US and their allies now.

[questionmark]

Wearer of Hats, on 30 January 2013 - 10:23 PM, said:

The original members of the group in question were trained by the CIA after all, trained to fight exactly the sort of war they're fighting against the US and their allies now.

If you talk about Afghanistan, they did not need any CIA, except to learn how to operate Stingers. War and stealing cattle is, has been, and will be a way of life there.

[ninjadude]

Uncle Sam, on 30 January 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

If you are not willing to understand what I said, you are here for only one thing, to troll me and others.

You're right, I missed that part where you were bettering the founding fathers. Ok then. Let me give that a shot too. "A well regulated military by civilian authority is necessary to the security of a free state, it shall not be used against citizens except to put down rebellion"

[ninjadude]

Uncle Sam, on 30 January 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Go ahead.. scratch up my constant defending the constitution to paranoia. I will not back down, I will not be swayed. The constitution is absolute law of my land, regardless if you like it or not.

except when we change it. It is not absolute. not written in stone.

[Yamato]

aztek, on 30 January 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

you right, but it doesn't matter much, ussc clearly (for me at least), states that militia detail is no longer relavant. that is why argument that only militia is allowed to bear arms holds no water. imo

That's right, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the militia (the military) having the right to bear arms.  It's the right of the people to bear them, precisely because of the military's existence in the first place.  It's already been interpreted by the USSC, and in that, you are right, these debasing arguments as if it hasn't are both obsolete and ignorant.  

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with national defense, hunting, or skeet shooting.  It has everything to do with keeping our nation's right to stay armed opposite its government.

[AsteroidX]

I got an idea lets keep the Constitution and keep our grubby hands off it since were not responsible enough to treat with any respect. For the sake of future generations.

Man were gonna be remembered as the generation that f'd up this country.

[MedicTJ]

There's no need to get rid of the Constitution.

There IS however, a need to prevent a president from abusing it.

That is the ONLY amendment that needs to be made.  The system is supposed to be all about checks and balances....and it's far from that.

The president should have absolutely no unilateral power unless it's in an extreme emergency and the country's well-being is in immediate danger.  The president has more power now than ever and it needs to be stopped.  We elect 537 people for a reason.

[Yamato]

MedicTJ, on 31 January 2013 - 01:59 AM, said:

There's no need to get rid of the Constitution.

There IS however, a need to prevent a president from abusing it.

That is the ONLY amendment that needs to be made.  The system is supposed to be all about checks and balances....and it's far from that.

The president should have absolutely no unilateral power unless it's in an extreme emergency and the country's well-being is in immediate danger.  The president has more power now than ever and it needs to be stopped.  We elect 537 people for a reason.

You're absolutely right but the problem is worse than just a President abusing it when we've got 530 ignoramuses ignoring Article 1.    Last year we had Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich still in the government.  As of this month, they're both gone.  I don't know who we've got left.  People, just like you and me.   It's time for We the People to pick up our rule of law and stand up for it, despite the stereotypical insults that Statists won't stop throwing.

[Uncle Sam]

ninjadude, on 31 January 2013 - 01:09 AM, said:

except when we change it. It is not absolute. not written in stone.

It is absolute, we can't change it. It is not meant to change, only added too. Changing or taking away is infringing upon the rights of the citizens.

[Realm]

Depends on who's in charge.

Republicans write a new constitution you get:

War in the middle east, anti abortion, no drugs, guns, etc..

Democratswrite it you get:

Peace in the middle east, abortions, medical marijuana, no guns etc..

Just sayin..

[questionmark]

Realm, on 31 January 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Depends on who's in charge.

Republicans write a new constitution you get:

War in the middle east, anti abortion, no drugs, guns, etc..

Democratswrite it you get:

Peace in the middle east, abortions, medical marijuana, no guns etc..

Just sayin..

That is a little too easy, both Republicans and Democrats cannot change the reality on the ground.