Down to the Fourth Estate
POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Friday, May 26, 2006 00:45
VIEWED: 3769
PAGE 3 of 4
Not if they nuke Pennsylvania while the hunters are loading the kegs in the pickup.
The US millitary can slaughter people in their millions if they put their minds to it. The only reason they have trouble in Iraq is that they are trying to avoid killing the innocent. I can think of nothing scarier than the US military gone rogue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I can think of nothing scarier than the US military gone rogue.
How about the U.S. military under the command of a sociopathic retard with delusions of grandeur? *coughbushcough*
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And at the same time you have problems like tyranny of the majority.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, I *AM* arguing that.
Cool, you mean if I vote you into office you will let me buy nukes? Fremdfirma for President!!!
Quote:
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 ?
Simple, all the countries that are not threats yet. Consider that in the next couple of decades China will probably become a military power to rival us, granted they are not likely to attack because our economies are interdependant (though they depend less on us than we do on them), but better safe than sorry.
Quote:
Firstly, things like Nuclear Missle subs, Aircraft Carriers, and ICBM's are *offensive* weapons
That oddly enough were quite successful at defending the country. Seriously, nuclear detterent works, that's why we haven't invaded North Korea yet...yet.
Quote:
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 ?
Yes
I just hope they wait till I get my .50 cal Quote:
No one's EVER gonna invade us in conventional military fashion - ain't no one on the planet that damned stupid.
Because of the nukes that would turn their country into a plate of glass. However, if someone develops an effective ABM system...
Quote:
So, tell me again why we need to flush resources down the toilet for long range offensive weapons ?
Because technology marchs on, other countries are not going to stand still and if we don't keep ahead of them they won't be nearly as afraid of us.
Quote:
why we need more nukes when we own enough to glass the planet pretty good already ?
Honestly? We don't know if the old ones will still work. We signed an agreement to not test nukes, and the last thing we need is to find out they don't work too late.
Quote:
why we need a standing army at all, in fact ?
It's nice to talk about a band of pissed off patriots fighting off an invasion, but the reality is that training and equipment make a huge difference. If each of their soldiers has body armor and an assault rifle and is trained in its use, and each of our guys has a .22, 12 guage, or 9mm pistol, I think I know who will win. Most likely if we were invaded and our military lost, it would turn into an Iraq, where they would spend years fighting off insurgents (only we would call then "freedom fighters").
Quote:
Think of how much of our crumbling infrastructure could be repaired for the cost of but one nuclear missle sub ?
More than I care to think about.
Quote:
If we invested more money into actual DEFENSE spending,
Like what? A Maginot line? In this world the best defense is a mobile, highly trained, multi-layered, flexible military, similar to what we have now. Anyone who invades will probably have to fight their way past the Navy, then land under attack from the Air Force and Marines, Then fight across the country under attack from the Army, Air Force, Marines and guerillas. That is the best defense I can think of.
Quote:
No one needs agree with me
Good
Quote:
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...
Once again, training and equipment. Most people would not buy heavy firepower so if we were invaded they would be unable to even dent a LAV. Additionally most people would not be willing to put the time in to actually master their weapons. If a band of citizens tried to fight an invasion they would be defeated by superior firepower, protection and training.
Quote:
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 healthNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These took some digging folks, but it's well worth it.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
-Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
The word 'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the saber, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.
-English v State, Texas 473, 476 (1871-2).
That means, yes, the 2nd Amendment means durn well that if you wanna mount a 105mm in your front yard, by all means, be our guest.
Still think our Gov gives a damn about that document?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So you can have a musket, but a 9mm auto loader is right out. That's good to know, only 18th century weapons are constitutionally protected, everything else can be taken away.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So you can have a musket, but a 9mm auto loader is right out. That's good to know, only 18th century weapons are constitutionally protected, everything else can be taken away.
Read the rest, it includes carbines and "holster" pistols. Not exactly sure what a holster pistol is but I'm pretty sure that it could be extended to modern pistols. Also, carbines covers just about any short rifle in use today, so I think we're good.
'Scuse me, I've gotta load that surplus 203mm howitzer I got sitting out front.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's referring to flint-lock pistols, things that are a little different to modern self-loading 9mms.
A carbine is a smaller less powerful version of rifles or muskets, since muskets have just been mentioned it’s pretty obvious that the carbines mentioned are muskets.
Furthermore those are acceptable weapons for cavalrymen so you need a horse to have a carbine musket or a flintlock pistol, and no since it clearly says cavalry, not mechanised cavalry your car doesn't count.
As I read it your main reason for posting was to prove your interpretation was the more correct, that people were changing the original intent of the text.
Well you’re doing the exact same thing to support your own position, so really you’re just playing favourites with which camp is allowed to interpret the texts.
Oh and since modern artillery includes tactical nuclear shells (and arguably warheads of the missile variety) really if you want to start reinterpreting the literal interpretation of muskets and flintlocks to M16's and Glock 9mm then you have to do the same for artillery pieces.
Otherwise you’re playing favourites with what weapons you want to protect, which means your deciding what is and what is not protected, not letting the constitution do it.
And if you really think letting individuals own Nuclear weapons is a good idea...
EDIT: Sorry just noticed it wasn't originally your post. It's all your fault for having screen names that start with the same letter, obviously. 
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
"I had a rose named after me and I was very flattered. But I was not pleased to read the description in the catalog: 'No good in a bed, but fine against a wall'." -- Eleanor Roosevelt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On a new tack, the military doesn't have to go rogue. All that needs to happen is the government controls the news, spies on its citizens, abrogates constitutional protections, and rigs elections. And there goes democracy with nary a weapon.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
Actually, it would take a president who uses a national disaster (hurricane/war/terrorist attack) of some sort to convince congress to give him/her (okay, who am I kidding. HIM) emergency powers through a ridiculously vaguely worded act (probably given a good name like PRIDE, or FREEDOM, or PATRIOT), and voila! Democracy is gone.
But, of course, that is a laughably unlikely scenario.
You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME