If we were armed with handguns, we couldn't stop it if the army we're facing has bombs, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.
anyone that thinks the US would bomb its own cities has to be nuts. a rifle and handgun can match the military without problem. a handfull of insurgents keep our military at bay in iraq. we have 175 million gun owners. we've got the military out numbered at the start.
anyone that thinks the US would bomb its own cities has to be nuts. a rifle and handgun can match the military without problem. a handfull of insurgents keep our military at bay in iraq. we have 175 million gun owners. we've got the military out numbered at the start.
...
Worked out well for the Branch Davidians, didn't it?
...
what?...
...
Oh... really?
...
nevermind.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It's not about that. The 2nd amendment was about protection from militaries and armies.
Put it in that perspective, yes I agree. Once could also argue that gun registration is a control feature to let govt know where areas of potential resistance may be encountered and/or are concentrated.
Let's face it, no criminal is going to register anything... especially an illegal firearm.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Obviously this topic is seriously complex. But some of the arguments used here aren't the best. Just because guns exist in our country is not an excuse to keep them legal. Arguing that some arbitrary bad guys with guns will take over if law abididng citizens turn over their weapons is based on speculation. Also it seems clear that the current path will lead to civilians with more and more powerful weapons. Dismissing claims that hand held nuclear devices or other serious weapons will be allowed in the future is naive.
The conditions that produced the second amendment no longer exist. Obviosuly current conditions lend creedence to either side of the argument.
With that said, the supreme court won't take this case. A progressive one might, but this one is too conservative. The best they could do is uphold the second amendment and at worst they would throw it out. It's a no-win for conservatives.
When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
Obviously this topic is seriously complex. But some of the arguments used here aren't the best. Just because guns exist in our country is not an excuse to keep them legal. Arguing that some arbitrary bad guys with guns will take over if law abididng citizens turn over their weapons is based on speculation. Also it seems clear that the current path will lead to civilians with more and more powerful weapons. Dismissing claims that hand held nuclear devices or other serious weapons will be allowed in the future is naive.
The conditions that produced the second amendment no longer exist. Obviosuly current conditions lend creedence to either side of the argument.
With that said, the supreme court won't take this case. A progressive one might, but this one is too conservative. The best they could do is uphold the second amendment and at worst they would throw it out. It's a no-win for conservatives.
And what protects citizens from a rogue government?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
And what protects citizens from a rogue government?
First we'd hope our citizenry doesn't elect a government that would turn rogue. Ha.
Hard to say though. Obviously if the government's goal was simply to erradicate the opposition it would be easy. All of our shotguns/rifles/etc. would be fairly useless against the government's most powerful weaponry (which we aren't using in Iraq, so let's not have the 'Iraqis are doing it' comeback). Now if the goal were obediance, then it'd be a bit harder for them to nail us down if we had weapons.
That said, this is an extreme situation that would be hard for even the most radical thinkers to envision. What we're looking at is an increasingly armed society and the merits/disadvantages of that. Personally, I believe in strict gun control. I'm all for hunters and that lot, it's a hobby/sport that's been around for ages, aids in animal population control (where needed), and actually forwards environmental ideals (the real hunters who appreciate the nature they go into...). Clearly I can't win in this argument. There are too many people who believe owning a handgun is the only way for them to feel that they are protecting their family. As in most American issues, education seems to be the key.
When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
First we'd hope our citizenry doesn't elect a government that would turn rogue. Ha.
Hard to say though. Obviously if the government's goal was simply to erradicate the opposition it would be easy. All of our shotguns/rifles/etc. would be fairly useless against the government's most powerful weaponry (which we aren't using in Iraq, so let's not have the 'Iraqis are doing it' comeback). Now if the goal were obediance, then it'd be a bit harder for them to nail us down if we had weapons.
That said, this is an extreme situation that would be hard for even the most radical thinkers to envision. What we're looking at is an increasingly armed society and the merits/disadvantages of that. Personally, I believe in strict gun control. I'm all for hunters and that lot, it's a hobby/sport that's been around for ages, aids in animal population control (where needed), and actually forwards environmental ideals (the real hunters who appreciate the nature they go into...). Clearly I can't win in this argument. There are too many people who believe owning a handgun is the only way for them to feel that they are protecting their family. As in most American issues, education seems to be the key.
I suppose at the stage it's pretty much the end of the world anyways.
I am forced to look at it practically. Ideally (for me) there would be no weapons of any kind and everyone lives peacefully and responsibly.
Maybe in another 1000 yrs it could be a reality if we don't blow ourselves up first.
Perhaps the squirrels will come back to rise up after the apocalypse and prove it 's actually possible. Man I think is going to have hard time with it.
It's a case of keeping up with the jones's. I'll be happy when govt has been reduced back to where it needs to be instead of an all encompassing cradle to grave father figure.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
...
The citizen Army.
Do you think that the soldiers would carry out these orders? I don't. They are Americans, too.
I'm beginning to wonder a bit about Blackwater. Perhaps another countries military would be used. All crazy thoughts.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I'm beginning to wonder a bit about Blackwater. Perhaps another countries military would be used. All crazy thoughts.
...
Trust me... i work with a LOT of military people. This is their home... we are their people.
Yeah.. when we go all crazy and riot and shit... or barricade ourselves in a bunker and open fire on them... they will destroy us.
But, simply following an order to enslave or oppress their own people... the military would split into pieces... the ones who believe in America against the ones who believe in the Government.
And our military would never allow a foriegn army with malicious intent on our soil... I am sure of that.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Trust me... i work with a LOT of military people. This is their home... we are their people.
Yeah.. when we go all crazy and riot and shit... or barricade ourselves in a bunker and open fire on them... they will destroy us.
But, simply following an order to enslave or oppress their own people... the military would split into pieces... the ones who believe in America against the ones who believe in the Government.
And our military would never allow a foriegn army with malicious intent on our soil... I am sure of that.
But Blackwater are currently training various police forces across the country, and many Blackwater employees are ex military from foreign countries.
But Blackwater are currently training various police forces across the country, and many Blackwater employees are ex military from foreign countries.
Blackwater scares me.
Here's an excerpt from the 11/2 Real Time show:
(Scahill is an investigative reporter for The Nation magazine, whose recent book is Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army)
MAHER: I have to tell you, your book is so scary and so illuminating. Even what I read in the paper didn’t really touch what you have educated me about this group, because I knew that we had private security contractors in Iraq. I didn’t realize that they were really some sort of a parallel national security apparatus with their own air force, their own tanks, their own intelligence agency. Could these people stage a coup?
SCAHILL: Well, it’s an interesting question. I mean, Blackwater’s founder, Erik Prince, says that he wants to do for the U.S. national security apparatus what Federal Express did for the Post Office. And, in fact, he’s built up a sort of parallel structure. He has his own private intelligence company called “Total Intelligence Solutions,” which is headed by a CIA veteran named Cofer Black.
He has an aviation division, 20,000 troops that he can call on at a moment’s notice. They have a maritime division. Now, they just a big – part of a big $15 billion contract to operate in the so-called “war on drugs.” They have operations in nine countries around the world. They, of course, deployed in Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath of the flooding there.
So, certainly this is raising very serious civil liberties questions at home, as Blackwater expands well into California now. They’re trying to open up a new base just above the Mexican border in a little town called Potrero, California.
MAHER: But, this guy, Erik Prince, the head of Blackwater, he’s kind of a crusader, isn’t he? I mean, he’s a Christian – would you call him a “Christian supremist”?
SCAHILL: I would call him a “Christian supremacist.” I mean, the reality is that we’re in the midst of a war right now that President Bush himself has described as a “crusade.” Erik Prince comes from a powerhouse, conservative Christian family that bankrolled the rise of the religious right in this country, groups like Family Research Council, of Gary Bauer, Focus on the Family. I mean, Erik Prince is deeply connected to Chuck Colson, the first person to go to jail for Watergate, who has now remade himself as an evangelical minister and an advisor to President Bush.
I mean, one of Blackwater’s senior executives is an active member of the Knights of Malta, which is a Christian militia dating back to the Crusades. Erik Prince himself has served on the board of evangelical Christian missionary organizations with a conversion agenda. I mean, to have these kinds of forces operating, armed and dangerous, in a Muslim country, I think, is very disturbing.
...
Trust me... i work with a LOT of military people. This is their home... we are their people.
Yeah.. when we go all crazy and riot and shit... or barricade ourselves in a bunker and open fire on them... they will destroy us.
But, simply following an order to enslave or oppress their own people... the military would split into pieces... the ones who believe in America against the ones who believe in the Government.
And our military would never allow a foriegn army with malicious intent on our soil... I am sure of that.
It reminds me of that test they did in the 60's where people were instructed to give volunteers fake electric shocks even if it killed them. It was all an act but the averge person did what they were told when instructed by authority no matter what.
Obviously the scales are different. Violent revolution would erupt well before any military personnel starting rounding up women and children. It would probably still be a highly unliikely in a post apocalyptic scenario.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
anyone that thinks the US would bomb its own cities has to be nuts. a rifle and handgun can match the military without problem. a handfull of insurgents keep our military at bay in iraq. we have 175 million gun owners. we've got the military out numbered at the start.
You are highly paranoid. I was reading the thread on universal health care and most of the american posters on there do no trust their government to manage such a program correctly. When I see you're considering a war with our own military and government, this is not a surprise.
You are highly paranoid. I was reading the thread on universal health care and most of the american posters on there do no trust their government to manage such a program correctly. When I see you're considering a war with our own military and government, this is not a surprise.
WHAT A WAY TO READ SOMETHING INTO A POST. i'd like you to show me where there's any planning. it's been molded into the constitution that if the government becomes corrupt; the people will police the government. maybe do a little reading about the purpose of the second amendment. i posted the link several times. this is our final word on checks and balances.
anyone that thinks the US would bomb its own cities has to be nuts. a rifle and handgun can match the military without problem. a handfull of insurgents keep our military at bay in iraq. we have 175 million gun owners. we've got the military out numbered at the start.
Police Drop Bomb
on Radicals' Home in Philadelphia
WILLIAM K. STEVENS / New York Times 14may85
50 to 60 Other Houses in Area Burn
2 People Known to Have Survived Siege
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
I mean, one of Blackwater’s senior executives is an active member of the Knights of Malta, which is a Christian militia dating back to the Crusades. Erik Prince himself has served on the board of evangelical Christian missionary organizations with a conversion agenda. I mean, to have these kinds of forces operating, armed and dangerous, in a Muslim country, I think, is very disturbing.
There's all kinds of zealot nutter connections throughout the current administration. All people holding positions of power, all with their fingers in the pie.
It's pretty messed up when you really sit back and look at it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
"Whatever be the Constitution, great care must be taken to provide a mode of amendment when experience or change of circumstances shall have manifested that any part of it is unadapted to the good of the nation. In some of our States it requires a new authority from the whole people, acting by their representatives, chosen for this express purpose, and assembled in convention. This is found too difficult for remedying the imperfections which experience develops from time to time in an organization of the first impression. A greater facility of ammendment is certainly requisite to maintain it in a course of action accommodated to the times and changes through which we are ever passing." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823
Jefferson was way ahead of his time and didn't consider solely the independence of our country but also accounted for the foundations that established our country which would ultimately require change based on the evolution of the country, culture and other unforeseen circumstances those in the 1700s never possibly could have foreseen.
For me, the second amendment provides us a prime example of amending our Constitution accordingly. Consider that our founding fathers ultimately seceded from a government that ruled without the notion of freedom. It made sense to create a right to bear arms, one of the reasons for this right being the capability of the populus to uprise against tyranny and a rogue government. It was a sign of the times considering the hardships faced by a fledgling America and difficulty encountered by its people via English rule.
Flash forward to present day America... it is legal for people to own assault rifles. For what do I, you or any other American citizen need an assault rifle? Guns and the right to bear them have been inherently allowed, but we've never seen any kind of legislation that alters this right. The argument of a rogue government is pretty farfetched and is simply another excuse for validating a right written into law over 200 years ago. We have too many checks and balances in our system to allow for a dictatorship or some other semblance of government that would necessitate its citizenry to uprise with an arsenal capable of defeating its leaders and any elements of the military that might support a rogue government. As many of you suggested, our military is made up more of me and you than the affluent pols who attain the offices of leadership in our country; I, too, am confident that if a situaion ever came to fruition in which the military had to choose between the government and its people, the people would be the obvious choice. Do you seriously think a 25 year old soldier would choose government over family??? Not happening.
"Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825
I think the rash of student killings that have plagued our country in recent years is sufficient enough validation to amend the 2nd amendment. If you disagree, let me ask you why? If somebody like Seung-Hui Cho can attain weapons when he's been to doctors who have declared he has mental instabilities, wouldn't it be appropriate to have communications between doctors, gun dealers and governmental agencies to disallow such people from attaining weapons? Unfortunately the NRA, with all its stroke, thinks that making background checks more severe is a violation of our rights and intrudes upon our privacy. I guess people who support the 2nd amendment so fervently think the staus quo is acceptable. We need politicians who will display a willingness to stand up to and quit pandering to politically motivated organizations and do what's best for our country.
I could cite numerous statistics relevant to the number of gun deathes in developed country (we lead by a comfortable margin) but a simple search on the net will provide any interested parties with those numbers.
Just my three cents...
Trading magic for fact, no tradebacks... So this is what it's like to be an adult...
I think the rash of student killings that have plagued our country in recent years is sufficient enough validation to amend the 2nd amendment. If you disagree, let me ask you why? If somebody like Seung-Hui Cho can attain weapons when he's been to doctors who have declared he has mental instabilities, wouldn't it be appropriate to have communications between doctors, gun dealers and governmental agencies to disallow such people from attaining weapons? Unfortunately the NRA, with all its stroke, thinks that making background checks more severe is a violation of our rights and intrudes upon our privacy. I guess people who support the 2nd amendment so fervently think the staus quo is acceptable. We need politicians who will display a willingness to stand up to and quit pandering to politically motivated organizations and do what's best for our country.
I could cite numerous statistics relevant to the number of gun deathes in developed country (we lead by a comfortable margin) but a simple search on the net will provide any interested parties with those numbers.
Just my three cents...
One could argue if the other students had guns it would have never happened, as he would be most likely be shot dead by 10 different people in 5 seconds flat, or never work up the guts to do it, or he'd use bombs (but that's a whole other level of discussion)
Responsible gun ownership is the key, however as you just pointed out, it's a catch 22.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I think the rash of student killings that have plagued our country in recent years is sufficient enough validation to amend the 2nd amendment. If you disagree, let me ask you why? If somebody like Seung-Hui Cho can attain weapons when he's been to doctors who have declared he has mental instabilities, wouldn't it be appropriate to have communications between doctors, gun dealers and governmental agencies to disallow such people from attaining weapons? Unfortunately the NRA, with all its stroke, thinks that making background checks more severe is a violation of our rights and intrudes upon our privacy. I guess people who support the 2nd amendment so fervently think the staus quo is acceptable. We need politicians who will display a willingness to stand up to and quit pandering to politically motivated organizations and do what's best for our country.
There are communications in place to prevent people with mental disabilities from purchasing weapons. However, there's so much bureaucracy and red tape involved that the system failed in Cho's case. It has failed many times and will continue to fail. It doesn't mean the 2nd ammendment should be revoked, but it does mean that the communication system needs a major overhaul.
We need politicians who will display a willingness to stand up to and quit pandering to politically motivated organizations and do what's best for our country.
anyone that thinks the US would bomb its own cities has to be nuts. a rifle and handgun can match the military without problem. a handfull of insurgents keep our military at bay in iraq. we have 175 million gun owners. we've got the military out numbered at the start.
...
You might want to re-check those numbers, bud...
I believe our population odometer just rolled over 300 million (including children). By your estimates... over half the population (58%), or every other person you see in the super market... or at the swap meet... or at the unemployment office... in prison... in kindergarten... owns a gun (including children).
I hope that baby next door doesn't own a gun... she gave me the stink eye the other day... she might want to shoot me.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
You might want to re-check those numbers, bud...
I believe our population odometer just rolled over 300 million (including children). By your estimates... over half the population (58%), or every other person you see in the super market... or at the swap meet... or at the unemployment office... in prison... in kindergarten... owns a gun (including children).
I hope that baby next door doesn't own a gun... she gave me the stink eye the other day... she might want to shoot me.
Well, according the below sources, "Americans own 30% of the world's guns, boasting a high 90 firearms per 100 noncombatants." Numerous surveys (take it for what it's worth) have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.
Well, according the below sources, "Americans own 30% of the world's guns, boasting a high 90 firearms per 100 noncombatants." Numerous surveys (take it for what it's worth) have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.
...
Hell... no wonder people get fucking shot over here.
...
Next time you go to the DMV... look around. Do you feel safer if half of the people ther own guns?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Hell... no wonder people get fucking shot over here.
...
Next time you go to the DMV... look around. Do you feel safer if half of the people ther own guns?
Absolutely not. I think it's a ridiculous argument that more guns owners equals a safer society. One interesting note from what I just read was the esimate that 650 million guns are owned in homes worldwide, and only about 1 in 10 of those are thought to be registered.
Absolutely not. I think it's a ridiculous argument that more guns owners equals a safer society. One interesting note from what I just read was the esimate that 650 million guns are owned in homes worldwide, and only about 1 in 10 of those are thought to be registered.
...
I know... i don't feel safer.
Imagine going to a Raiders game in Oakland. That whole, 'If everyone had a gun, no one would try anything' logic goes flying out the window... right?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I know... i don't feel safer.
Imagine going to a Raiders game in Oakland. That whole, 'If everyone had a gun, no one would try anything' logic goes flying out the window... right?
It would get ugly if the Raiders fans came to the Linc for an Eagles game
The Supreme Court has decided to hear this case. If they rule against the individual right of ownership without making a distinction of DC's unique status do you think we could see a rise in more organizations like Blackwater? Or militia organizations sprouting up as fast as people who buy a building and call it a church without any government oversight?
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Blackwater didn't have any problem disarming the public (ie taking their guns) by force if necessary when Caterina happened
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The Supreme Court has decided to hear this case. If they rule against the individual right of ownership without making a distinction of DC's unique status do you think we could see a rise in more organizations like Blackwater? Or militia organizations sprouting up as fast as people who buy a building and call it a church without any government oversight?
if you're talking about private militias; we already have them. more than you can ever dream of.
but there's a twist here. the justices must take an oath. part of that oath is to protect the constitution. if they rule against the second amendment; they have violated their oath.
Comments
anyone that thinks the US would bomb its own cities has to be nuts. a rifle and handgun can match the military without problem. a handfull of insurgents keep our military at bay in iraq. we have 175 million gun owners. we've got the military out numbered at the start.
Worked out well for the Branch Davidians, didn't it?
...
what?...
...
Oh... really?
...
nevermind.
Hail, Hail!!!
Put it in that perspective, yes I agree. Once could also argue that gun registration is a control feature to let govt know where areas of potential resistance may be encountered and/or are concentrated.
Let's face it, no criminal is going to register anything... especially an illegal firearm.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The conditions that produced the second amendment no longer exist. Obviosuly current conditions lend creedence to either side of the argument.
With that said, the supreme court won't take this case. A progressive one might, but this one is too conservative. The best they could do is uphold the second amendment and at worst they would throw it out. It's a no-win for conservatives.
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
And what protects citizens from a rogue government?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
The citizen Army.
Do you think that the soldiers would carry out these orders? I don't. They are Americans, too.
Hail, Hail!!!
First we'd hope our citizenry doesn't elect a government that would turn rogue. Ha.
Hard to say though. Obviously if the government's goal was simply to erradicate the opposition it would be easy. All of our shotguns/rifles/etc. would be fairly useless against the government's most powerful weaponry (which we aren't using in Iraq, so let's not have the 'Iraqis are doing it' comeback). Now if the goal were obediance, then it'd be a bit harder for them to nail us down if we had weapons.
That said, this is an extreme situation that would be hard for even the most radical thinkers to envision. What we're looking at is an increasingly armed society and the merits/disadvantages of that. Personally, I believe in strict gun control. I'm all for hunters and that lot, it's a hobby/sport that's been around for ages, aids in animal population control (where needed), and actually forwards environmental ideals (the real hunters who appreciate the nature they go into...). Clearly I can't win in this argument. There are too many people who believe owning a handgun is the only way for them to feel that they are protecting their family. As in most American issues, education seems to be the key.
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
I suppose at the stage it's pretty much the end of the world anyways.
I am forced to look at it practically. Ideally (for me) there would be no weapons of any kind and everyone lives peacefully and responsibly.
Maybe in another 1000 yrs it could be a reality if we don't blow ourselves up first.
Perhaps the squirrels will come back to rise up after the apocalypse and prove it 's actually possible. Man I think is going to have hard time with it.
It's a case of keeping up with the jones's. I'll be happy when govt has been reduced back to where it needs to be instead of an all encompassing cradle to grave father figure.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'm starting to see that the NRA is a good thing...
You got to spend it all
I'm beginning to wonder a bit about Blackwater. Perhaps another countries military would be used. All crazy thoughts.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Trust me... i work with a LOT of military people. This is their home... we are their people.
Yeah.. when we go all crazy and riot and shit... or barricade ourselves in a bunker and open fire on them... they will destroy us.
But, simply following an order to enslave or oppress their own people... the military would split into pieces... the ones who believe in America against the ones who believe in the Government.
And our military would never allow a foriegn army with malicious intent on our soil... I am sure of that.
Hail, Hail!!!
But Blackwater are currently training various police forces across the country, and many Blackwater employees are ex military from foreign countries.
You got to spend it all
Blackwater scares me.
Here's an excerpt from the 11/2 Real Time show:
(Scahill is an investigative reporter for The Nation magazine, whose recent book is Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army)
MAHER: I have to tell you, your book is so scary and so illuminating. Even what I read in the paper didn’t really touch what you have educated me about this group, because I knew that we had private security contractors in Iraq. I didn’t realize that they were really some sort of a parallel national security apparatus with their own air force, their own tanks, their own intelligence agency. Could these people stage a coup?
SCAHILL: Well, it’s an interesting question. I mean, Blackwater’s founder, Erik Prince, says that he wants to do for the U.S. national security apparatus what Federal Express did for the Post Office. And, in fact, he’s built up a sort of parallel structure. He has his own private intelligence company called “Total Intelligence Solutions,” which is headed by a CIA veteran named Cofer Black.
He has an aviation division, 20,000 troops that he can call on at a moment’s notice. They have a maritime division. Now, they just a big – part of a big $15 billion contract to operate in the so-called “war on drugs.” They have operations in nine countries around the world. They, of course, deployed in Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath of the flooding there.
So, certainly this is raising very serious civil liberties questions at home, as Blackwater expands well into California now. They’re trying to open up a new base just above the Mexican border in a little town called Potrero, California.
MAHER: But, this guy, Erik Prince, the head of Blackwater, he’s kind of a crusader, isn’t he? I mean, he’s a Christian – would you call him a “Christian supremist”?
SCAHILL: I would call him a “Christian supremacist.” I mean, the reality is that we’re in the midst of a war right now that President Bush himself has described as a “crusade.” Erik Prince comes from a powerhouse, conservative Christian family that bankrolled the rise of the religious right in this country, groups like Family Research Council, of Gary Bauer, Focus on the Family. I mean, Erik Prince is deeply connected to Chuck Colson, the first person to go to jail for Watergate, who has now remade himself as an evangelical minister and an advisor to President Bush.
I mean, one of Blackwater’s senior executives is an active member of the Knights of Malta, which is a Christian militia dating back to the Crusades. Erik Prince himself has served on the board of evangelical Christian missionary organizations with a conversion agenda. I mean, to have these kinds of forces operating, armed and dangerous, in a Muslim country, I think, is very disturbing.
It reminds me of that test they did in the 60's where people were instructed to give volunteers fake electric shocks even if it killed them. It was all an act but the averge person did what they were told when instructed by authority no matter what.
Obviously the scales are different. Violent revolution would erupt well before any military personnel starting rounding up women and children. It would probably still be a highly unliikely in a post apocalyptic scenario.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You are highly paranoid. I was reading the thread on universal health care and most of the american posters on there do no trust their government to manage such a program correctly. When I see you're considering a war with our own military and government, this is not a surprise.
WHAT A WAY TO READ SOMETHING INTO A POST. i'd like you to show me where there's any planning. it's been molded into the constitution that if the government becomes corrupt; the people will police the government. maybe do a little reading about the purpose of the second amendment. i posted the link several times. this is our final word on checks and balances.
Police Drop Bomb
on Radicals' Home in Philadelphia
WILLIAM K. STEVENS / New York Times 14may85
50 to 60 Other Houses in Area Burn
2 People Known to Have Survived Siege
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/MOVE-Phihladelphia-BombNYT14may85.htm
There's all kinds of zealot nutter connections throughout the current administration. All people holding positions of power, all with their fingers in the pie.
It's pretty messed up when you really sit back and look at it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Jefferson was way ahead of his time and didn't consider solely the independence of our country but also accounted for the foundations that established our country which would ultimately require change based on the evolution of the country, culture and other unforeseen circumstances those in the 1700s never possibly could have foreseen.
For me, the second amendment provides us a prime example of amending our Constitution accordingly. Consider that our founding fathers ultimately seceded from a government that ruled without the notion of freedom. It made sense to create a right to bear arms, one of the reasons for this right being the capability of the populus to uprise against tyranny and a rogue government. It was a sign of the times considering the hardships faced by a fledgling America and difficulty encountered by its people via English rule.
Flash forward to present day America... it is legal for people to own assault rifles. For what do I, you or any other American citizen need an assault rifle? Guns and the right to bear them have been inherently allowed, but we've never seen any kind of legislation that alters this right. The argument of a rogue government is pretty farfetched and is simply another excuse for validating a right written into law over 200 years ago. We have too many checks and balances in our system to allow for a dictatorship or some other semblance of government that would necessitate its citizenry to uprise with an arsenal capable of defeating its leaders and any elements of the military that might support a rogue government. As many of you suggested, our military is made up more of me and you than the affluent pols who attain the offices of leadership in our country; I, too, am confident that if a situaion ever came to fruition in which the military had to choose between the government and its people, the people would be the obvious choice. Do you seriously think a 25 year old soldier would choose government over family??? Not happening.
"Time and changes in the condition and constitution of society may require occasional and corresponding modifications." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825
I think the rash of student killings that have plagued our country in recent years is sufficient enough validation to amend the 2nd amendment. If you disagree, let me ask you why? If somebody like Seung-Hui Cho can attain weapons when he's been to doctors who have declared he has mental instabilities, wouldn't it be appropriate to have communications between doctors, gun dealers and governmental agencies to disallow such people from attaining weapons? Unfortunately the NRA, with all its stroke, thinks that making background checks more severe is a violation of our rights and intrudes upon our privacy. I guess people who support the 2nd amendment so fervently think the staus quo is acceptable. We need politicians who will display a willingness to stand up to and quit pandering to politically motivated organizations and do what's best for our country.
I could cite numerous statistics relevant to the number of gun deathes in developed country (we lead by a comfortable margin) but a simple search on the net will provide any interested parties with those numbers.
Just my three cents...
One could argue if the other students had guns it would have never happened, as he would be most likely be shot dead by 10 different people in 5 seconds flat, or never work up the guts to do it, or he'd use bombs (but that's a whole other level of discussion)
Responsible gun ownership is the key, however as you just pointed out, it's a catch 22.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
There are communications in place to prevent people with mental disabilities from purchasing weapons. However, there's so much bureaucracy and red tape involved that the system failed in Cho's case. It has failed many times and will continue to fail. It doesn't mean the 2nd ammendment should be revoked, but it does mean that the communication system needs a major overhaul.
I couldn't agree more.
You might want to re-check those numbers, bud...
I believe our population odometer just rolled over 300 million (including children). By your estimates... over half the population (58%), or every other person you see in the super market... or at the swap meet... or at the unemployment office... in prison... in kindergarten... owns a gun (including children).
I hope that baby next door doesn't own a gun... she gave me the stink eye the other day... she might want to shoot me.
Hail, Hail!!!
Well, according the below sources, "Americans own 30% of the world's guns, boasting a high 90 firearms per 100 noncombatants." Numerous surveys (take it for what it's worth) have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.
http://www.newser.com/story/6588.html?refid=YTF_S
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126
Hell... no wonder people get fucking shot over here.
...
Next time you go to the DMV... look around. Do you feel safer if half of the people ther own guns?
Hail, Hail!!!
Absolutely not. I think it's a ridiculous argument that more guns owners equals a safer society. One interesting note from what I just read was the esimate that 650 million guns are owned in homes worldwide, and only about 1 in 10 of those are thought to be registered.
I know... i don't feel safer.
Imagine going to a Raiders game in Oakland. That whole, 'If everyone had a gun, no one would try anything' logic goes flying out the window... right?
Hail, Hail!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
if you're talking about private militias; we already have them. more than you can ever dream of.
but there's a twist here. the justices must take an oath. part of that oath is to protect the constitution. if they rule against the second amendment; they have violated their oath.
search militias and see what you find.