|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 307 of 404:
| 
Jan 20 23:27 UTC 2006 |
Well, I'm glad *someone* is finding this whole discussion amusing.
|
cross
|
|
response 308 of 404:
|
Jan 20 23:37 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 309 of 404:
|
Jan 20 23:45 UTC 2006 |
> Parades don't intimidate
Hah - rcurl has evidently never been to Northern Ireland during marching
season!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 310 of 404:
|
Jan 21 03:50 UTC 2006 |
It's the threat, not the parade, that intimidates. If they paraded with funny
floats and asked everyone to join in, there need be no threat. It doesn't
matter what form a threat takes to be a threat.
|
bru
|
|
response 311 of 404:
|
Jan 21 06:34 UTC 2006 |
cross, you wrote, and I quote...
"That said, the second amendment is outdated. Hunting rifles and
revolvers are not going to contributed to a well-ordered and equiped
militia in this day and age. This sort of thing comes from the days
where members of the US military supplied their own weapons and
uniforms (yes, there was such a "time).
This in no way invalidates what the second ammendment was put in for.
It isn't there to require you be a member of the militia to own a gun.
It is there to make sure you are able to defend yourself and your
family from a government gone wild.
"It's like this. If you're one of those Ruby Ridge whackos with a
bunch of 9mm handguns and some paramilitary camp in the mountains, and
they sent me in with my equipment, weapons, and body armor,
well...shoot at me all you want, but I guarantee that the bullets will
bounce off of me and stick to you."
What I am pointing out to you is that your armored vest is not going to
stop a .300 remington, nor is your face shield going to stop a .30-06
You are not a tank nor an armored vehicle, and people in this country
carry ammo just as big or bigger than anything you carry, and those
trained from an early age in how to shoot can probably outshoot most
marines. I know I can, because I have done it.
And that Ruby ridge wacko was a veteran Green Beret. And we won't get
into why you think it is okay for the FBI to shoot a boys dog, shoot
the boy in the back killing him, and then have a sharpshooter kill an
unarmed woman holding a baby. Houriuchi should have been tried as a
criminal, as should the managers of that debacle.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 312 of 404:
|
Jan 21 13:27 UTC 2006 |
Come on Bru. You made your point, but the last paragraph there is over
the line. Dan said nothing about the FBI's actions being okay.
|
cross
|
|
response 313 of 404:
|
Jan 21 17:48 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 314 of 404:
|
Jan 21 17:54 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 315 of 404:
|
Jan 22 01:35 UTC 2006 |
they'll make neat and festive sounds when they bounce off the
tanks just prior to the michigan militia being treaded and
turned into redneck bisque?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 316 of 404:
|
Jan 22 03:39 UTC 2006 |
If I shot at a tank with my Glock, I might chip the paint, causing the
steel to rust, and putting a hole in the armor!
|
cross
|
|
response 317 of 404:
|
Jan 22 03:40 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 318 of 404:
|
Jan 22 03:44 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 319 of 404:
|
Jan 22 05:42 UTC 2006 |
I do not disagree with you Dan. The military technology that exists
today could never have been imagined by the framers of our constitution.
That makes the 2nd amendment difficult to apply, as evident by the
contradicting legal opinions in place.
But until the amendment is changed or repealed, its still the law of the
land.
|
naftee
|
|
response 320 of 404:
|
Jan 22 06:22 UTC 2006 |
you guys are talking in a way that makes it seem that the military isn't
composed of 'average citizens'.
|
cross
|
|
response 321 of 404:
|
Jan 22 07:24 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 322 of 404:
|
Jan 22 07:59 UTC 2006 |
re #318: You know that that argument cuts both ways, right? From an
anti-gun-ownership standpoint you can use it to reason that the rationale
for an armed citizenry is outdated, but from a pro-weapons standpoint it
works just as well (which is to say, not especially..) as an argument that
citizens should be allowed to own anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air
missiles if they so choose.
|
bru
|
|
response 323 of 404:
|
Jan 22 08:48 UTC 2006 |
well, individuals used t be able to own cannon during the civil war and
earlier. I think you still can own a muzzle loading cannon today. It
ain't going to compete with a 155 howitzer, thats for sure.
The citizens are not going to be shooting down any aircraft with
hunting rifles either, or stand up against a determined advance against
a brigade. No one thinks that, and no one has said that. But if I
want to get my hands on a SAM, I will need to start with a rifle. If I
intend to take on an M1-A1, I will need to use other means, but a rifle
or pistol would be a good start.
If I was the violent kind, I could have taken several military rifles
from the National Guard down here with nothing but my pistol. these
guys are walking around with unloaded rifles, and they are not wearing
armor, just fatigues.
in a guerilla war, you take what you need from the enemy, or it is
given to you by people who agree with your position.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 324 of 404:
|
Jan 22 16:58 UTC 2006 |
So, does that mean that you support the Iraqi insurgency, who are just
citizens protesting against their propective government?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 325 of 404:
|
Jan 22 17:01 UTC 2006 |
Thats an interesting point Rane. But I'm not sure you can apply this to
Iraq since most of the insurgency are not Iraqis, but are muslim
extremists from other countries like Syria.
Another difference is that the insurgency is not fighting an oppressive
government, but rather a government that isn't oppressive enough! :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 326 of 404:
|
Jan 22 17:14 UTC 2006 |
I'd like to know what factual information you have about the makeup of the
Iraq insurgency fighters. I heard recently it is mostly radical Sunni
Iraqis.
Their arms and explosives come from munition dumps plundered when we
invaded and failed to protect them. The foreign fighters weren't in Iraq
in any number then.
The radical Sunnis expect a Shiite/Kurd government will be oppressive, and
they are therefore resisting it.
Even with foreigners in the Insurgency - I presume that when armed
American citizens rise up with their 30-06s against our government, they
will welcome Canadians coming to assist them.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 327 of 404:
|
Jan 22 17:21 UTC 2006 |
...just as, when we were rebelling against the British, we were happy to
accept outside aid from the French. I don't think many people would
argue that the American Revolution wasn't a genuine movement but was
instead the meddling of a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Most successful insurgencies will need some kind of outside assistance
eventually.
My take is that such an insurgency, unfortunately, ups the ante on
brutality. If the occupying force is willing to be extremely brutal
(e.g. the Germans occupying Belgium) then the occupier is likely to
prevail militarily (but perhaps not politically.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 328 of 404:
|
Jan 22 20:24 UTC 2006 |
> But I'm not sure you can apply this to Iraq since most of the
> insurgency are not Iraqis, but are muslim extremists from other
> countries like Syria.
That's almost certainly not correct. It's possible the majority of
the people setting off car bombs in mosques and marketplaces are
foreign terrorists but the bulk of the insurgency appear to be Sunni
Arabs who feel they will be effectively disenfranchised by the new
government.
> Another difference is that the insurgency is not fighting an oppressive
> government, but rather a government that isn't oppressive enough! :)
Don't kid yourself, the current Iraqi government is, and will continue
to be, plenty oppressive.
|
bru
|
|
response 329 of 404:
|
Jan 23 04:42 UTC 2006 |
no I do not support the Iraqi insurgency. silly statement.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 330 of 404:
|
Jan 23 05:43 UTC 2006 |
Why not? The Iraqi insurgents are doing what you want American insurgents to
do.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 331 of 404:
|
Jan 23 07:19 UTC 2006 |
Kidnap journalists and detonate car bombs in public places? When did
bru claim he wanted anyone to do that?
Look, I like to turn someone's words against them as much as the next
grexer, possibly more, but the equivalence you've set up is too weak
even to be called "flimsy." Surely a respected professor who prides
himself on his logic can do better..
|