Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate

320 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Babe Ruth

Pro-gun advocates angry... ----> When are these people not ever angry?

Great point in the quote!

The Second Amendment if understood to be that a group of guys with guns can match their government on the battle field made sense in the 1700s when everyone had muskets but today there are drones, jets, missiles, and all kinds of things the average citizen would not be able to obtain.

One soution is allow citizens to have all these awesome weapons to insure if the government steps out of bounds they can be checked but that is not going to happen.

At the heart of your argument is the question : "to what degree will US soldiers and pilots fire on american citizens?"

If they follow orders, then you're right--assault rifles are no match for tanks and gunships.

If they do not follow orders, recognizing the orders to be invalid, then assault weapons and other small arms might be very effective.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

I think US soldiers would fire on Americans most of the time. If a situation arose where they wouldn't, the government falls, regardless of what weapons the people have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I suppose it's a bit dangerous for someone like myself to get into a discussion on a board mostly of Americans about democracy, but I would suggest that what you are taught all your lives is really a myth, that your society is no freer than others and your democracy actually doesn't function very well. Most of you seem to see this when it comes to specific things -- wasted tax money, all sorts of injustices, but don't see it in general.

The role of the United States in history has been and continues to be important, but I think it is in decline. The structures created to govern thirteen colonies clustered along the Atlantic seacoast don't work for a global power, and up until recently the powers that rule have seen this, but now there seems to be a reversion to an ideology of the Founders that is really plainly silly.

First as mentioned above the united states is not a democracy, it is a republic. Second your right it isn't very goo, but it is the best on the planet. The USA is the only country on the planet that gets its rights from god. All others get theirs from government.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I think US soldiers would fire on Americans most of the time. If a situation arose where they wouldn't, the government falls, regardless of what weapons the people have.

The us military is sworn to protect the constitution not the government. Although at the moment and in the sixties they didn't do their very well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

There have been plenty of riots and standoffs and things like that where police or soldiers or guardsmen have fired on US citizens. Get real. Kent State comes to mind right off the bat.

An armed civilian mob or even an organized group stands no chance unless the military refuses orders. That would not happen with a group of protesters who turned violent. This whole notion of individual citizens overturning the authorities strikes me as utter fantasy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

There have been plenty of riots and standoffs and things like that where police or soldiers or guardsmen have fired on US citizens. Get real. Kent State comes to mind right off the bat.

An armed civilian mob or even an organized group stands no chance unless the military refuses orders. That would not happen with a group of protesters who turned violent. This whole notion of individual citizens overturning the authorities strikes me as utter fantasy.

Even if that's all true it's not what the American spirit is all about. The thought process there is don't fight it, just let it happen. Well, not many Americans think like that. Being cautious and weary of government is our way and letting them know who's boss is our way. We are in charge, not them and if we have to act a little crazy sometimes, if only in words, to remind them of that then that too bad for them if they don't like it. I know the second part of your view is to just vote but if we had such a passive attitude about a fist fight with them then what's to stop them from doing literally whatever they want? Integrity? Ha! Respect for US? Ha! They need to be held in check and the constitution is a perfectly relevant guideline for governing for 13 or 50 states.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarakore

First as mentioned above the united states is not a democracy, it is a republic. Second your right it isn't very goo, but it is the best on the planet. The USA is the only country on the planet that gets its rights from god. All others get theirs from government.

The idea held by a few, in a country with rising rates of secularism, that the US gets their rights from God is part of the problem. Believing your country has a divine right or mandate while also believing all the other countries do not allows one to hold on to the view that no matter what America does, if a so called "Christian" in charge of it decides an action, that it has to be right.

Blurring politics with religion is what we are moving away from. Many are turning away from those ideas even Christians like myself who see that other so called "Christians" do not speak for everyone else much less all of Christianity. Even Obama is a Chrisitan. Some of us hold the notion of religious pluralism and that there is room for all religious expression in America. That is even why Wiccan services are now held within our armed services. I have seen the generic listings for them alongside Christian services in the local military base's newspaper.

That belief that God gives America rights to us but to no other country also leads to notions that our country and society is better than all others on a general level regardless of their long histories, or how they developed democracy first, or how they turned away from slavery first while some here lamely kept on using passages in the Bible to keep other humans in bondage, but just generally a belief that we are really better and always will be.

Economics go up and down to, America will not always be the economic superpower, we are increasingly moving toward a multipolar world, other countries will match us or pass us in strength, so to think that God is behind our success will lead into what then? Ideas that God no longer favors us but China so we should adopt their religion? Obviously the answer is "no" to that last question. There was even a time when Islam was the light of the world while Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages. During the Crusades many Christians would die of disease while on campaign simply because they did not bathe while the Muslims did. That had nothing to do with who God favored but basic understanding of hygeine. Talk about being backward.

That idea that God gives rights to America but no one else also leads to foolish comments such as those made by the dense Tea Party favorite Bachmann who claimed that 9/11 and Benghazi were God's divine judgment on us. What a dense view and one that robs the ability to see 9/11 had more to do with blowback to our own foreign policy. To believe that idea Bachmann presents leaves one option: to try and stop another 9/11 by becoming more religious while ignoring the need to craft a better foreign policy.

"Our nation has seen judgment not once but twice on September 11 and that’s why we’re going to have ‘9-11 Pray’ on that day," she said at an event called “Washington: A Man of Prayer,” according to Right Wing Watch. "Is there anything better that we can do on that day rather than to humble ourselves and to pray to an almighty God?"

The 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans died, took place on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Earlier, Bachmann had claimed that the nation was experiencing difficulties that could be improved by turning to God."It’s no secret that our nation may very well be experiencing the hand of judgment. It is no secret that we all are concerned that our nation may be in a time of decline. If that is in fact so, what is the answer?" Bachmann asked. "The answer is what we are doing here today: humbling ourselves before an almighty God, crying out to an almighty God, saying not of ourselves but you, would you save us oh God? We repent of our sins, we turn away from them, we seek you, we seek your ways."

Michele Bachmann: 9/11, Benghazi Were God's 'Judgment,' So We Must Hold Day Of Prayer On Sept. 11

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Before I can even finish reading the above what on earth makes you think we believe other countries do not have certain inalienable rights? Yes, it's a fact they don't. But your implication is that we believe they shouldn't. And that's wrong.

We believe we are better because we actually enact those rights. But to imply we believe they should apply exclusively to US is just an incitement.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

The Jeffersonian idea, as I get it, is that we have certain rights just because we were born human beings, and that these rights are inalienable -- they cannot be sold or taken or even given away. Of course Jefferson owned slaves.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Of course, slavery is a great wrench to throw at the head of this argument but there is no denying the wisdom of those rights. Those basic rights are the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Should that not apply to all human beings?

The progressive mantra is the guarantee of these things. America gives you the right to pursue these things but never guaranteed you'll keep them. We all start off with an initial guarantee of life and liberty. It's up to you to maintain those things. The government can't guarantee those things as they go hand in hand with personal responsibility. Happiness can always come and go but no one can ever tell you you're not allowed to be.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Yea I thought about my unfairness in mentioning it, but I didn't see how I could avoid doing so. We have to remember that people are creatures of their place in history and so can be blind to such hypocrisies, or at least have found ways to rationalize them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Slavery is one of those things that is more about a dark part of human history rather than a US thing. To be blunt, that's just how it was back then. Keeping that out of the argument, the otherwise great wisdom of the forefathers is, to me, hard to argue with.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Drayno

Corprate America controls government so there is no left or right aka dems or repub`s in politics anymore. The White House is but a stage that actors perform.

Amen!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

They were all classically educated men of the landed gentry of English or Irish ancestry, use to considerable wealth and political position. Other than all that, they were an extremely diverse group representing completely contrary points of view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

They were diverse. Some big government, others not. Some slave owners, others not. I'm sure they were wealthy too. I remember hearing about George Washington being so incredibly rich that in scale of today's money he'd probably have a couple hundred billion dollars.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

The Jeffersonian idea, as I get it, is that we have certain rights just because we were born human beings, and that these rights are inalienable -- they cannot be sold or taken or even given away. Of course Jefferson owned slaves.

He. Also freed them when he died. Maybe a little late on the freedom part.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

They were all classically educated men of the landed gentry of English or Irish ancestry, use to considerable wealth and political position. Other than all that, they were an extremely diverse group representing completely contrary points of view.

And they were the ones who set up our supposedly free education. Not so free today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

They were diverse. Some big government, others not. Some slave owners, others not. I'm sure they were wealthy too. I remember hearing about George Washington being so incredibly rich that in scale of today's money he'd probably have a couple hundred billion dollars.

It was his land that wahington dc was built on. Land he donated for the city.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Slavery is one of those things that is more about a dark part of human history rather than a US thing. To be blunt, that's just how it was back then. Keeping that out of the argument, the otherwise great wisdom of the forefathers is, to me, hard to argue with.

There were two types of slavery. During and before rome the slaves were war captives or convects. During the european erea is the bad type. But, we also had indentured servents. This more closely reflects the bible's idea of slavery.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

The united states, started as thirteen equal states(countries) working as one. They found they needed a strong centrol government. But the states are not supposed to be subservent to the federal government or it to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kowalski

He. Also freed them when he died. Maybe a little late on the freedom part.

From http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Thomas Jefferson and Slavery

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.

At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.

Although Jefferson continued to advocate for abolition, the reality was that slavery was only becoming more entrenched. The slave population in Virginia skyrocketed from 292,627 in 1790 to 469,757 in 1830. Jefferson had assumed that the abolition of the slave trade would weaken slavery and hasten its end. Instead, slavery only became more widespread and profitable. To try to erode Virginians’ support for slavery, he discouraged the cultivation of crops heavily dependent on slave labor—tobacco—and encouraged the introduction of crops that needed little or no slave labor—wheat, sugar maples, short-grained rice, olive trees, and wine grapes. But by the 1800s, Virginia’s most valuable commodity and export was neither crops nor land, but slaves.

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of ending slavery never changed. From the mid-1770s until his death, he advocated the same plan of gradual emancipation. First, the transatlantic slave trade would be abolished. Second, slaveowners would “improve” slavery’s most violent features, by bettering (Jefferson used the term “ameliorating”) living conditions and moderating physical punishment. Third, all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free, followed by total abolition. Like others of his day, he supported the removal of newly freed slaves from the United States. The unintended effect of Jefferson’s plan was that his goal of “improving” slavery as a step towards ending it was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jefferson’s death argued that if slavery could be “improved,” abolition was unnecessary.

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. Influenced by the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential consequence of emancipation.

Jefferson wrote that slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.” He thought that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, would be destroyed by slavery. To emancipate slaves on American soil, Jefferson thought, would result in a large-scale race war that would be as brutal and deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. But he also believed that to keep slaves in bondage, with part of America in favor of abolition and part of America in favor of perpetuating slavery, could only result in a civil war that would destroy the union. Jefferson’s latter prediction was correct: in 1861, the contest over slavery sparked a bloody civil war and the creation of two nations—Union and Confederacy—in the place of one.

Also:

1774 July. (A Summary View of the Rights of British America). "The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the infranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty negative: thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay the single interposition of an interested individual against a law was scarcely ever known to fail of success, tho' in the opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed would call for some legal restrictions."[2]

1776 before June 13. (Draft of Virginia Constitution). "No person hereafter coming into this country shall be held within the same in slavery under any pretext whatever."[3]

1776 June. (Draft of Declaration of Independence). "He [George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piractical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against lives of another.

Taken from http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-slavery-and-emancipation

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarakore

Whether some want to rationalize slavery or the founders, those good points in and of themselves stand alone and we won't argue them.

They do not take away from the fact that some used their religious beliefs and scriptures to condone slavery...

...while others who do believe in scripture can see the folly of that so we will continue to advocate the detangling of government and religion.

Give to Cesar what is his and give to God what is his. No need to combine, ever.

Edited by Leave Britney alone!
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Slavery is one of those things that is more about a dark part of human history rather than a US thing. To be blunt, that's just how it was back then. Keeping that out of the argument, the otherwise great wisdom of the forefathers is, to me, hard to argue with.

In the end the US Constitution is a political document. A very good one. Not a perfect one, ESPECIALLY because it is a political document. Politics demands compromise, and the biggest one was the slavery issue, IMO.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

No need to combine, ever.

I like that! :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glorfindel

I don't share your pessimism Daniel. My vote counts. In fact I am at my polling station now about to vote.

Are you sure it counted during the 2000 election?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.