Arming Civilian Army With Recent Purchases

[Stellar]

No, I'm saying what you just said. You always want explanation after explanation. Some just get it and some don't. Why'd you dodge my question?

Because my laptop keyboard broke. The on-screen keyboard is a pain

[F3SS]

Then you have to get back to me. I won't forget.

[Stellar]

The thing you always tell people is to stop acting like they can do something about it, whatever it is. Even if that were the case why do insist on telling everyone to sit down, shut up and take it? I know why we don't. It's called integrity.

I have never once told anyone that they can not do anything about "it", nor do I tell people to "take it". I am a strong believer in shaping your own future... in taking action for what is right, rather than living life on the sidelines. What I want, though, is for people to understand what they are doing. I find people these days want to feel oppressed. Why? Because it gives them someone to blame other than themselves for their own misery. That's why, no matter what is done, people cry out "tyranny". They scream out "tyranny" at absolutely everything now, whether it actually is tyranny or not.

Edit to add:

I think that one of the reasons that people seem to portray the world as progressing deeper and deeper into a dystopia is because it's human nature. Dystopian societies induce "excitement" and the "emotion", while utopia is mundane. That's why dystopian novels and stories are much more popular than utopian ones. That's why I think so many people have a dystopic outlook on society. That's my perspective, at least.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Stellar

[+OverSword]

Stellar, will you please respond to this from yesterday;

Stellar, on 26 March 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

So the only thing that prevents a person from being used to force tyranny against their fellow American is an oath?

Then I asked;

Answer that by telling me how you feel about your oath and the people who break it.

Believe it or not Stellar, I respect and understand your opinions on these matters and get where you come from, though I may not agree.

Edited March 27, 2013 by OverSword

[Stellar]

Answer that by telling me how you feel about your oath and the people who break it.

My Oath? What do you know of any oath I took?

My feeling about "oaths" are that they're symbolic and nothing more. I don't feel any different towards a man that broke his oath and did something wrong and a man that did something wrong without having taken an oath.

Not taking an oath is not a scapegoat. It doesn't give you permission to behave differently. A man will either follow the principles laid out in an oath or they will not. The act of taking the oath truly has no meaning other than as some romanticized symbolism of principles.

[+OverSword]

My Oath? What do you know of any oath I took?

Since you have alluded to your training soldiers I assumed you took some type of loyalty oath. People that take pride in what they do and have taken oaths concerning it generally take thier oaths and words of honor seriously.

edit to add that for myself, when I give my word I follow it through. Maybe my sense of honor is why I'm outraged by some of the implied hostile actions taken by my government which is supposedly for the people and by the people. Maybe it's your sense of honor which makes it that you're not outraged.

Edited March 27, 2013 by OverSword

[Stellar]

Since you have alluded to your training soldiers I assumed you took some type of loyalty oath. People that take pride in what they do and have taken oaths concerning it generally take thier oaths and words of honor seriously.

edit to add that for myself, when I give my word I follow it through. Maybe my sense of honor is why I'm outraged by some of the implied hostile actions taken by my government which is supposedly for the people and by the people. Maybe it's your sense of honor which makes it that you're not outraged.

Perhaps unlike yours, my sense of honor extends far past mere spoken words.

[godnodog]

I usually don´t take oaths, first because I usually don´t know or possibly understand all facts involved.

Take for example the oath i HAD (not given a choice, or better the alternative was not exacly a choice) to TAKE to uphold the constitution of my country. If the constitution was changed, in my case Portugal´s contitution, by the Parlament and without a referendum, am I still bound to that oath? And what if the change was unethical and possibly even criminal in my view, am I still bound to it?

Take another example, young people (remember the nazis) take their oaths in countries that do not comply with basic human rights, not upholding that oath when you grow older and become more experinced and wiser, does that turn these people into people without integrity?

Oaths are words, situations and personal perspectives in a given moment matter most.

Take another example, US Government vs Bradley Manning, how does the oath stuff works here? Is the oath 1 way only, a oath is to be followed by most people except a few. (I am not defending or accusing Mr. Bradley).

Have a nice day.

Edited March 27, 2013 by godnodog

[+OverSword]

Perhaps unlike yours, my sense of honor extends far past mere spoken words.

Or perhaps my honor extends to my words.

And how can anyone believe you have honor at all since to quote you:

The act of taking the oath truly has no meaning other than as some romanticized symbolism of principles.

I take that statement to mean your word means little to you as long as you can justify your actions. Nothing wrong with that I suppose if you can live with it.

Edited March 27, 2013 by OverSword

[Stellar]

And how can anyone believe you have honor at all since to quote you:

The act of taking the oath truly has no meaning other than as some romanticized symbolism of principles.

Because actions are stronger than words. If you think that you need to state something in an oath in order to have principles, then you have a very shallow sense of honor as it is.

[Bama13]

Because actions are stronger than words. If you think that you need to state something in an oath in order to have principles, then you have a very shallow sense of honor as it is.

I think what he is saying is that a part of having honor is to stand behind your words. If you say you are going to do something (words) then you should do it (action).

[+OverSword]

Because actions are stronger than words. If you think that you need to state something in an oath in order to have principles, then you have a very shallow sense of honor as it is.

But don't you think that if you have honor then your word means alot to you? I do.

I agree, actions do speak louder than words, and simply taking others at thier word is a mistake, as I have pointed out when speaking about politicians, I never listen to what they say I watch what they do.

[Stellar]

I think what he is saying is that a part of having honor is to stand behind your words. If you say you are going to do something (words) then you should do it (action).

And my point is that you should do the right thing regardless of words. My broader point is that a man will not behave unethically simply because he did not give an oath to do otherwise.

[Stellar]

But don't you think that if you have honor then your word means alot to you? I do.

I agree, actions do speak louder than words, and simply taking others at thier word is a mistake, as I have pointed out when speaking about politicians, I never listen to what they say I watch what they do.

Words have meaning, but a person will act honorably whether they are held to do so by an oath or not. Those that are dishonorable will also act dishonorably regardless of any oath they have taken.

[RavenHawk]

So youre saying that an oath is the only thing keeping someone ethical?

An ethical man will be ethical regardless of an oath. An unethical man will also remain unethical regardless of oath.

Tell that to the Brownshirts! Don't you think they were being ethical? There were very patriotic. You had a community organizer spreading his charisma making the people believe that he was the savior. And all he was doing was positioning chess pieces so that he could take total control. That is what is going on right now. I'm not saying that Obama has a "Final Solution" but his intent is clear and we don't have to look too far into history for the lesson. The Sturmabteilung (SA) became stronger than the weakened military, then in order for the military to be a part of its nation's history (to be relevant), in one fell swoop the military took a new oath to Hitler. And then the SA became obsolete. DHS could be used in the same way. And those in it right now would feel that they are being ethical. However, I am a part of DHS by being employed by the DOE. The DOE is full of vets and as far as I am aware of, the oath I took never expired when I mustered out. I don't think the ranks are so enamored with the current POTUS. But there could be a purging of the ranks if you don't tote the party line. That actually started in 2009 and this sequester could be a tool in accomplishing the end goal.

[Babe Ruth]

And my point is that you should do the right thing regardless of words. My broader point is that a man will not behave unethically simply because he did not give an oath to do otherwise.

That is true, but sometimes an oath will make the taker more aware of certain principles, and actually CAUSE him to behave more ethically than he might have without that awareness.

[Babe Ruth]

My question is this: Why do people believe that the government forming and arming the DHS is a sign that the government is about to enslave the people? I mean, if the government wanted to enslave the people, why would they have to arm the DHS to do it when they already have a fully equipped military that is capable of doing the same job?

For me, the question you pose is the $64,000 question.

And part of the answer, like it or not, is that this nation did very well for 200+ years WITHOUT the DHS, and that DHS came directly from the staged events of 11 September. DHS was brought to us by deception, just like the GWOT.

Not pleasant to contemplate, but sometimes the truth is that way.

[Allterspace]

For those that mock preppers, I put it to you, DHS is the biggest prepper in the nation.

Ask yourself, with all the tens of thousands of tanks and billions of rounds of ammo, just who are they prepping for?

Write your senators and congressmen. Demand that DHS turn all of thier equipment over to the DOD, the entity which is supposed to defend us. Demand that they Disband the SS errr Imean DHS.

Dont forget they also bought targets of pregnant women, children, and old people. And admitted to using them to train agents to become emotionless killing machines.

[Drayno]

Civilian National Security Force = SS

[AsteroidX]

Civilian National Security Force = SS

Quoted for EMPHASIS !!