Down to the Fourth Estate

POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Friday, May 26, 2006 00:45
VIEWED: 3769
PAGE 2 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
a passle of folk with deer rifles

Actually if I ever get the money I hope to get a Barrett 'Light Fifty', which is no deer rifle (unless the deer have armor plating

).

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 18, 2006 7:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?

And that my friends, is *WHY* the framers very clearly stated in The Federalist Papers that the intention was that the citizenry outgun any standing army raised.

Read that again, and if you disbelieve me, go read it in the founding fathers own words in Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

We the people, are intended to, and supposed to, outgun the army, period, end of friggin statement.

Why ?

Because the disparity of force you just mentioned makes a standing army a vessel of tyranny - the second amendment EXISTS to prevent that very thing, only nobody seemed to care until it was too far gone to do much about it.

Quote of the day
"Where do you draw the line, and take up arms ? buddy, if you're asking yourself THAT question, it's already too late."

-F

CITIZEN

Thursday, May 18, 2006 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?

And that my friends, is *WHY* the framers very clearly stated in The Federalist Papers that the intention was that the citizenry outgun any standing army raised.

Read that again, and if you disbelieve me, go read it in the founding fathers own words in Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.

We the people, are intended to, and supposed to, outgun the army, period, end of friggin statement.

Why ?

Because the disparity of force you just mentioned makes a standing army a vessel of tyranny - the second amendment EXISTS to prevent that very thing, only nobody seemed to care until it was too far gone to do much about it.

Are you arguing that american citizens should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons and operate privately owned aircraft carriers and strike aircraft?

The thing about a disorganised millita is that it's very easilly controlled by those who'd like to do so.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

STDOUBT

Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Are you arguing that american citizens should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons and operate privately owned aircraft carriers and strike aircraft?

The thing about a disorganised millita is that it's very easilly controlled by those who'd like to do so.

citizen, please.
Of course he's not arguing that. I think he's just
lamenting the fact that technology has outstripped
the vision of the Founding Fathers. It was inevitable of course, but I can tell you honestly,
as an American, that if the world didn't hate us,
and if our government was indeed Just in it's dealings with other nations, I'd be perfectly content with a low-tech army. Meaning only low-yield conventional weapons under the direct control of a "civil" civilian military.
Also, I disagree that a disorganized (de-centralized?) militia would be easy to control 'cause it's uh... disorganized!
P.S. -you seem cranky lately... what up?

EDIT: and to clarify... Yes, I believe citizens should have access to any weaponry of their army. Meaning: if it's not safe for regular people to have it then the military don't get to have it either!! What a nice world that would be, no?

CITIZEN

Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:40 AM

It's very easy to control a disorganised army because it is disorganised, if someone can sway popular opinion they can control the millitia without gain control of the government. Millitaries often have checks and balances to help prevent that sort of thing, obviously they can be circumnavigated or broken, but a disorganised millitia doesn't have them at all.

Quote:
P.S. -you seem cranky lately... what up?

Nothing, I think it's largely because a lot of my views on recent topics have found me in the minority rather than the majority, plus I've had a few confrontations with people like AURaptor and PirateJew, both of whom are incapable of anything approaching intelligent discourse.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

STDOUBT

Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It's very easy to control a disorganised army because it is disorganised, if someone can sway popular opinion they can control the millitia without gain control of the government. Millitaries often have checks and balances to help prevent that sort of thing, obviously they can be circumnavigated or broken, but a disorganised millitia doesn't have them at all.

Do I have it right that you're from Mother England? (Not sure where I got that idea but)
Don't worry about any American militia... They really are NOT anywhere near the 'neighborhood threat' they may seem on TV. I'm a vegetarian tree-hugger peacenick and I'd rather hang with militia guys than with real soldiers LOL.
American perception of "the militia" is like,
"Oh, that's dad's crazy unmarried cousin out shooting his rifle with the boys again" -kind of thing. We don't fear them. We look at them funny and wish they could spell.

Quote:
P.S. -you seem cranky lately... what up?

Quote:

Nothing, I think it's largely because a lot of my views on recent topics have found me in the minority rather than the majority, plus I've had a few confrontations with people like AURaptor and PirateJew, both of whom are incapable of anything approaching intelligent discourse.

*passes citizen some grains of salt to take with his future readings*

CITIZEN

Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDoubt:
Do I have it right that you're from Mother England? (Not sure where I got that idea but)

Yes that's right.

Quote:
Don't worry about any American militia... They really are NOT anywhere near the 'neighborhood threat' they may seem on TV. I'm a vegetarian tree-hugger peacenick and I'd rather hang with militia guys than with real soldiers LOL.
American perception of "the militia" is like,
"Oh, that's dad's crazy unmarried cousin out shooting his rifle with the boys again" -kind of thing. We don't fear them. We look at them funny and wish they could spell.

I'd be worried about a crazy man with a rifle. I remember a story some ex squaddies I work with told me. They were operating on a training mission in the states, and got talking to a guy in a bar one night who decided to show them his arsenal.

So they're all there with enough weapons to start world war three pissed up to the eyeballs. One of the squadies makes a joke about the guns being loaded, which it turns out most of them are and ready to fire.

It's the crazies and the drunks that worry me the most.

Quote:
*passes citizen some grains of salt to take with his future readings*

Thanks

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:00 PM

Quote:
>>Are you arguing that american citizens should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons and operate privately owned aircraft carriers and strike aircraft?

>>citizen, please.
Of course he's not arguing that. I think he's just
lamenting the fact that technology has outstripped
the vision of the Founding Fathers.

Actually, I *AM* arguing that.
Exactly that... ok, well, maybe not exactly... lemme explain.

Any time the army has a bigger club than you do, what is truly to stop them from becoming an arm of tyranny because they outgun you ?
Nothing.

Please don't insult me with the phrase checks and balances - this in the face of a Congress who abdicated their responsibility to declare war to the executive, in the face of signing statements and executive orders used to bypass the checks and balances system, and a stacked supreme court full of rubber stamp yes-men... it's downright insulting to hear someone proclaim that checks and balances work in a system run by folks who believe in a plenary executive theory of goverment.

What it comes down to, is force, and in any case of a disparity of force, those with the stronger generally bully those with the weaker - it's the darker part of our nature.

On the note of stuff like aircraft carriers and nuclear ICBMs... especially NOW, as we have no *significant* opponents that our own actions did not create, what the bloody hell do we need them for ?

Firstly, things like Nuclear Missle subs, Aircraft Carriers, and ICBM's are *offensive* weapons, in the hands of a force that's only Constitutional function is to defend our home turf - don't give me that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" shovel load either, between the cracked up homeboys with their Tec-9's, the Gun nuts, and the general cussedness of your typical american (no matter how liberal) when his/her own ass is threatened, if you landed an invading force on US soil, it'd be cut to ribbons before they reached the nearest Walmart - can you imagine all the homeboys piling into their war wagons cause they get to shoot people for real and might even get medals for it ?

No one's EVER gonna invade us in conventional military fashion - ain't no one on the planet that damned stupid.

So, tell me again why we need to flush resources down the toilet for long range offensive weapons ? why we need more nukes when we own enough to glass the planet pretty good already ? why we need a standing army at all, in fact ?

Think of how much of our crumbling infrastructure could be repaired for the cost of but one nuclear missle sub ?

If we invested more money into actual DEFENSE spending, instead of wasting it on offensive things we do not, and should not ever, need - we'd have secure borders, less enemies, and less to fear from the ones remaining... hell in a handbasket, one viable fast targeting HERF unit would *FRY* an incoming missles targeting/guidance and detonation circuits, and all you'd have to worry about is the impact zone.

Of all our various military forces, the two closest to our founders ideal are the national guard, and the coast guard, tasked to defend our turf - not go conquer.

No one needs agree with me, but in all honesty, the sensible thing would be to pull out, reduce our forces to what was Constitutionally intended, and dispense with any concept of weapons regulations save in the case of violent criminal history or proven, obvious mental instability - you wanna carry a bazooka down the street, hey, fine by me, great way to keep in shape, lousy way to defend yourself, but it's your life buddy - not for me to tell ya what to do with it.

And it's not like we don't desperately need to fix problems HERE, while what happened at the WTC was a tragedy, more people than that die every year due to lacking, unavailable, or pisspoor health care... but you don't see no one doin much about that, do you ?
(Speakin of which, Hillary can shove it, her last attempt on healthcare sucked, and it's not like she's never taken campaign money from big pharma before e

BROWNCOAT1

Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
Amen to that Fred, but...
Who's gonna win: a passle of folk with deer rifles,
or a few Apache attack choppers?

They still haven't beat the insurgency in Iraq. Attacking civilians in populated areas would only cause greater unrest, greater unrest fuels the revolution. The biggest problem that would face any revolutionaries here is not the technological and numerical superiority of the Army, but apathy, most people just don't care enough to stand up and fight for themselves.

You hit the nail on the head.

The military is bogged down indefinitely in Iraq & Afghanistan, and now it looks like the majority of the few Guard units left in the states will be sent to the border to help stem the tide of illegal immigration. Even though that leaves little here in the U.S. to protect the home front, don't think for a minute that the feds won't shuffle units, bring home troops in South Korea, Germany and other countries around the world. There is also local law enforcement, federal agencies such as the CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, etc that they could call on to quell any unrest at home if necessary. They have a vast technological superiority over any "revolutionaries" that can not be discounted.

Apathy is the key here though. When our Founding Fathers fought the British there was no apathy on the part of the colonists. They did not have reality tv, video games, movies, etc to dumb down the masses. Most people hardly know what is going on in Washington DC and around the country, so there is little chance they would fight for themselves, let alone a cause. As a people we have grown complacent. The federal government counts on that fact.

Quote:
If our Armed Forces get bought off at the top, then no ammendment is going to help the People turn this around.

I once read an article detailing the number of US soldiers who would kill un-armed American civilians if given the order. Can't remember the percentage, but it was damn unsettling.

While many soldiers would probably be willing to attack a small group in an isolated incident or two I don't think that the majority would have the stomach for a drawnout battle against their countrymen. All it would take would be a few soldiers turning to split and probably (hopefully) paralyze the military.

Most likely you would have high rates of desertion, martial law, field court martials, drum head trial, and summary executions for treason by firing squad. It is not a pretty picture to consider. Civil war never is.

Quote:
Could be we're good and fsck'd

Quote:
No could be about it, regardless of which party takes control we still have a club of elitist assholes who don't give a damn about the country.

We're definitely screwed. The two big parties suck and they ain't about to allow a third party to give them a run for their money.

__________________________________________

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/richmondbrowncoats/

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

HERO

Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by STDOUBT:
If our Armed Forces get bought off at the top, then
no ammendment is going to help the People turn this
around.

On the first day of deer season its estimated that more the 6 million hunters hit the woods in Pennsylvania. If they all decided to hop in their pickups and drive to DC, then we could have a new government by sundown.

H

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE