rocketsjudoka - You seem hung up on the suppression of rebellin issue that the Founders faced, and seem to think that it is the only reason they wanted a militia established. There were several reasons that they explicitly discussed, the two main ones being to assist in repelling a foreign invasion and the other to keep the central government in check. Put yourself back in their shoes, they had just finished fighting their own war against a tyrannical centralized government, and they didn't want to simply set the same thing up they had before. They intended to have an overall weak federal system, whereby the bulk of the powers would reside with the states, and the federal government would have a defined, limited role. They all agreed on that general approach, the main disputes were over just how much the federal government should have. Many of them didn't want to have a standing army at all, and have only state militias. As you of course know our system is built with an overabundance of often redundant checks and balances - for a reason. Having an armed citizenry was just one of those checks. As relates to rebellions, they understood that such things would arise, and frankly because of the slow LOCs only a state militia could effectively deal with something like that. As a practical matter. But don't get hung up on suppression of rebellions; as I said they understood that every government would have to deal with such events. But that is not why they created a militia or insisted upon an armed citizenry. Er, no, that is not what it literally says. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/i[] There are two operative parts to it. The first, and the one anti-gun people love to focus upon, talks about a "well regulated" militia being necessary for a free state. Sounds like it sets us up for hardcore regulation until you understand that A) back then "well-regulated" meant well-trained in their usage, and B) with the passage of the Militia Acts and the actual establishment of the militia they made clear that by "militia" they effectively meant everyone who could fight (of course excluding blacks and females, gotta adjust for the times). The second operative part of the equation is very straightforward: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It does not say "the right of militia members", or "the right of military members" or anything like that, it says "the right of the people". They fully intended for all able-bodied American men to not only have firearms but military grade firearms (as mandated in the Militia Acts). They viewed the citizenry and the militia as the same body. I spent time in Iraq, so forgive me if I get testy about it, because few people who were not there understand what actually happened there. We did not kill "100,000s of thousands" of people there. The large majority of Iraqis were killed by other Iraqis, and given Saddam's average yearly body count (roughly 50,000 per year on average) it was quite an improvement. But that's neither here nor there. You are correct that we fought the war with considerable restraint. Modern warfare is a very tricky thing, especially COIN (counterinsurgency). COIN dictates that you cannot win such a war without getting the populace on your side, and it's really hard to do that when you end up blowing up their s*it and killing their families. We have the ability to rain down death and destruction on scales never seen before in history, but we CANNOT use those capabilities in modern warfare - especially in populated areas. Do you think a hypothetical war in the US wouldn't be a COIN campaign to the core? It would be the ULTIMATE COIN war, and likely the most difficult war ever fought by any military in history. The potential battlefield has changed. Urban sprawl and asymmetric tactics, along with the most heavily armed citizenry in the history of the world, would make it virtually impossible for the US military to pacify a national insurrection. Sure they can put out local fires easy enough, but the US military is tiny compared to what it used to be, and as I said COIN is extremely manpower-intensive. The check on the government is in the background. The government is pretty much free to act however it wants nowadays on a small scale. It frankly doesn't much care about following the laws anymore. But if it tries to go big... the threat is there. There are no absolute rights spelled out in the Constitution. All rights are subject to moderation and regulation (which is why some Founders didn't want them written down in the first place, but that is another discussion). You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. You similarly can't own a nuclear weapon. And personal defense was mentioned by some of the Founders, but it was of secondary importance in its reasoning when writing the Bill of Rights. Oh man, there are alot of good ones out there. Have a look at some of these: http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/guns.html http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#constitution Which reminds me, I didn't even mention Madison's No. 46... Some excerpts: To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. Some good Madison quotes: http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/63859.James_Madison Some Thomas Jefferson quotes: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html More fun quotes: http://catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html You could spend all day reading this stuff. You should, actually. You will not come away with it thinking that they did not intend for the citizenry - not just state militias or a standing army - to be armed. No, but it gave us a run for our money, and it was a close thing. Iraq is ony where it is today (and still on shaky ground BTW) because of the confluence of three events: The Surge, the Sunni Awakening, and dealmaking with the Shiites (Sadr). A bunch of yahoos with nothing but AKs, some RPGs, and some clever leaders gave the most advanced military fits for nearly a decada and nearly drove us out. Look at Afghanistan. We win every battle, but we are going to lose the war. Why? Because we can't eradicate the enemy, and we can't get the people on our side. To win we'd have to invade Pakistan, and that isn't happening, so we will lose, and Afghanistan's
long record of driving out sophisticated armies with primitive weapons will continue. Well for starters, most of the military is not riding around in armor. They can't guard all of their bases, they have to come out of their offices some time, they have to come out of their vehicles some time, they have to take their body armor off some time... Most people who have never done it have no idea how the military actually runs. It's people, they are not robots, they are not supermen. Most of them aren't even in a combat role and haven't had any actual decent combat training, except in their own specialized role. Infantry comprise a small portion of the actual numbers. They would be hopelessly outnumbered. And the other side would be able to strike at a time and place of their choosing, just as the Iraqis did. Consider that most of the damage done to the US military was done through two ways. 1. IED's that were primarily either rigged up munitions from heavy arms (artillery shells, missile warheads and etc.) or were supplied by outside forces such as Iran. 2. The ability of insurgents to hide among locals and use locals as human shields. This country is full of people who know how to build IEDs. A LOT of people who would take up arms in such a situation are former military... And they'd still be able to hide among the locals. They ARE the locals. No need for human shields. And if you ever want to see the day that the government / military loses ALL legitimacy in the eyes of the people, the day that they start lobbing heavy artillery or calling in air strikes on American citizens is it. And you can't win a COIN without the people on your side. Of course. If the government effectively declared war on you then you'd have little choice. But as I said, none of this is happening. I do firmly believe that in any situation that crossed a line to the extent that it would prompt an insurgency - and a national gun confiscation is the only realistic scenario I can come up with - the military is NOT going to take up arms en mass against the people. Units WILL refuse orders, probably most of them. It would almost certainly result in the Executive losing power in a coup. Not happening, but it's all a fun thought experiment.
**** them! Without Texas, the US would lose a good deal of their millitary, a large chunk of GDP, and easy trade with a booming economy (we'd be the 8th largest in the world, if independent, I believe, just ahead of Iran). Without New York, all we'd lose are a bunch of snobby pricks, bankers, lawyers, and the UN. Make a joke of that, Lewis Black!
Without NY the U.S. would also lose a good deal of it's history, basically the stock market as we know it as well.
Nobody here is interested in you either and we don't need the money you would spend at Guy Fieris restaurant. There are plenty of slackjawed sh-theels from Arkansas willing to pick up your spot. Stay the hell away. I forbid you from spending your pitiful wages here at Bubba Gump and on t shirts and double decker bus tours.
Yes, this is exactly the sort of attitude that turns the rest of the country off. Look me up next time you're in Texas, fuchtard.
Actually its the reverse psychology of it - the wish to cross that velvet rope - hat keeps packing all of you clowns in - from the most snobtastic Parisian douchebag to the fanny packing Paris, Texan that you fall closer to on the spectrum - they keep on coming and dumping their cash on dirty water hot dogs junkie pedicab scammers, and the rest of it. Take solace though. Ballin here ain't easy even if you could.But you can't, and shouldn't, ergo mootness. As for TX I'm here once a year more or less to visit the folks. Hanging with an inter webs clown with an inflated ego and low expectations and limited means ranks low on the to do list brah.
Wow, your arrogance is astounding. I mean, really, it's pretty mindblowing. You don't know me from dick, but you're damned sure you've got me pegged, eh? This is why I dislike liberals. They don't know what they don't know, but they think they know everything. I know exactly how you guys operate, I was once a libtard myself, until I grew up. Took me years to undo all of the damage a liberal arts education did to my psyche, but I made it. Maybe you can grow up someday too, and we can be friends?
Sorry, this was too good to leave be. (My emphasis added in case someone painting himself with his own broad brush wasn't clear enough.) SMDH. Not sure why I ventured back here. I think it's because of an argument I had about the Zimmerman trial with some liberal friends who wanted to protest. But lesson learned. See y'all in Rockets land.
Eh, what can I say, I've been on both sides of the fence. I get their biases and I get how they think. It's pretty unlikely any of them have been on my (current) side of the fence. It rarely bounces back the other way. All I know is that since I ventured back into D&D I have begun to remember why I left in the first place. Soo many people who seem sane in GARM turn out to be insane douchebags here. Which I am sure some think of me. Whatever. I cleared it out after coming back from my hiatus, but my ignore list is again growing at a rapid pace. If some douchebag like SamFisher has nothing constructive to debate or add then I see no reason why his post should take up more than one line on my screen.
I have you pegged brother. Its a multi colored peg with floppy shoes and a bright orange noise. Last time I saw it was a decade ago when you vowed to leave the BBS forever. Something tells me this wasn't your first time back here but I digress. Was giving you a golden opp by playing along but then you just went and ruined it didn't you? Big fat tool move dog. Enjoy the horrifying tl Dr fest with dupes like Sishy C ... just know that I know that you aren't man enough to dance in the apple...and you never will be.
treeman, don't let them get under your skin so much. You are killing them with reason, logic, and truth. You have the truth on your side and they can't take that away no matter how hard they try. Unfortunately, they happen to outnumber us 10 to 1 around here, fortunately in real life we are the silent majority, especially in Texas.:grin:
Really, they can say what they want, but I don't have time to deal with that crap. I am not a kid anymore. I am a father, husband, work, I don't have time to sit here and have petty personal arguments on the internet with people like this. I have already been spending way too much time here recently, think the wife is starting to get pissed at me. I have no problem debating, I'll even admit when I am wrong. I can even do it politely, too. But if they've got nothing to say to me outside of petty personal insults then they aren't worth my time and will end up on my ignore list. At this rate I will turn this into a conservative board, man. At least on my screen. :grin:
I have never used the ignore feature here but you may have a point. Some of them engage in serious debate others just post insults. I have spent a lot less time in this part of the forum lately due to this. I probably should just put insulters on ignore.
It does save you time. For example, I know SamFisher just posted something but I am quite sure it was another childish personal insult of some sort, and likely wasn't worth the time to read or respond to. Some other lib may swoop in and quote his post just to tweak me but that is easily ignored, too. It really does save time.
You left because your little wet dream of a war in Iraq blew up in your face and you refused to admit how utterly and completely wrong you were so you ran off like a rat scurrying through a dark kitchen. That you consider your paranoia and delusions worthy of constructive debate is probably more appropriate for a tea party or militia meeting. You can clean your gun, have a prayer circle, and decry Hussein Obama and the rise of liberal fascism.
Yet if Lewis Black is ever diagnosed with a rare cancer, he's going to want treatment at MD Anderson.
oh sure, and some would probably still want some of you to own slaves too. I'm sure they also anticipated the rise of the web, and national militaries. To reduce the incidental risk of people carrying around guns if they don't need them. I think you mentioned one instance in your life where a gun has come in handy---a rabid dog (???). The chances of you needing specifically an AR-15 to headshot a robber are much lower than the danger that AR-15 poses to yourself and the community around you. http://www.newscientist.com/article...-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.Uepl7I1OSrc http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/05/15/guns-in-your-home-a-statistical-accident-waiting-to-happen/ I don't gamble because the odds are against me. With a gun, the odds are against you as well. I don't and will never carry a gun, just the same as I will never play a lottery ticket. I wish I could encourage that thinking among other people, and the best way to go about doing that is a higher tax rather than a ban. Pay for your need for an AR-15, and the increased chance of death and accidents it brings on you, if you really need it. In any case, you were hollering about the Supreme Court, so I thought you might like to know the judicial opinions surrounding how a ban on certain weapons would be upheld, even if I didn't particularly like it. I hope that information was useful!
