|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 332 of 404:
| 
Jan 23 08:43 UTC 2006 |
No, it is not what I want american insurgents to do. I do not want
another american civil war.
What I do want is for people to understand and respect the constitution
and not warp the original intent to meet their own ends.
What I want is for people to understand that the ability to do
something does not mean that you have to do something.
What I want is for the people who are charged with defending this
country to understand that they are not invincible and that they can be
killed just as quick by a .22 caliber round in the wrong hands as by
a .308 in those same hands.
|
cross
|
|
response 333 of 404:
|
Jan 23 15:17 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 334 of 404:
|
Jan 23 16:31 UTC 2006 |
I'm not defending anybody here, but I learn more by stating something on
Grex and having it contradicted than by asking a question.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 335 of 404:
|
Jan 23 16:31 UTC 2006 |
Don't think that American insurgents wouldn't resort to kidnappings and car
bombings.
Bru writes "What I do want is for people to understand and respect the
constitution and not warp the original intent to meet their own ends", but
the original intent was clearly stated to be to form "A well regulated
Militia", and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Who is warping
the "original intent to meet their own ends"? Bru.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 336 of 404:
|
Jan 23 16:38 UTC 2006 |
If you take "militia" as meaning another military, then I can see your
point. But if you take "militia" as meaning an armed citizenry, can you
see our point?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 337 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:28 UTC 2006 |
The most famous contemporary American "insurgents" used bombs in
Oklahoma City and Atlanta. I see no reason to believe that, in the
presence of a more oppressive government, these tactics would change.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 338 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:39 UTC 2006 |
Theodore Kaczynski and Eric Robert Rudolph were insurgents. Timothy
McVeigh was not.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 339 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:43 UTC 2006 |
McVeigh was a terrorist.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 340 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:44 UTC 2006 |
How is McVeigh different from the people planting car-bombs in Iraq?
I'm not sure I follow.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 341 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:55 UTC 2006 |
An insurgent is someone who tries to exact political change through
violence. McVeigh's purpose was vengance for the Branch Davidian attack
two years before.
The people in Iraq planting car-bombs are terrorists, but some may not
be insurgents.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 342 of 404:
|
Jan 23 18:07 UTC 2006 |
Re #336: "But if you take "militia" as meaning an armed citizenry, can you
see our point?"
How can just a randomly armed citizenry be a "A well regulated Militia"?
It's impossible: clearly the 2nd Amendment means "another military"
regulated by some governmental agency. The Supreme Court agreed with this.
What is SO DIFFICULT to understand about "A well regulated Militia"?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 343 of 404:
|
Jan 23 19:14 UTC 2006 |
Re #342: I'll take that as a >NO< to the question I asked.
A radomly armed citizenry is the necessary pool by which the militia
must be drawn. The 2nd amendment ensures that pool is always there.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 344 of 404:
|
Jan 23 19:33 UTC 2006 |
That's not what the Supreme Court said.
|
eprom
|
|
response 345 of 404:
|
Jan 23 20:20 UTC 2006 |
ok..Whats with the silly argument that if you've never served in the
military, your point is somehow less valid?
I'm sure Bela Karoli couldn't do a back handspring to save his life,
but it certainly doesn't mean he don't know what he's talking about.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 346 of 404:
|
Jan 23 20:32 UTC 2006 |
Its not so silly when the argument is that if you never served in the
military, your knowledge of the military is less valid.
Re #344: Care to cite some examples?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 347 of 404:
|
Jan 23 21:28 UTC 2006 |
> The thing that's irritating about you is that
> you somehow feel that you're in a position to lecture to the rest of us.
Now isn't that the marine, sorry, Marine calling the kettle black.
|
cross
|
|
response 348 of 404:
|
Jan 23 23:48 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 349 of 404:
|
Jan 24 00:05 UTC 2006 |
Neither of you strikes me as an especially reliable and unbiased
source of information on the topic.
|
cross
|
|
response 350 of 404:
|
Jan 24 00:32 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 351 of 404:
|
Jan 24 01:25 UTC 2006 |
And yet, despite all the overwhelming military superiorty of our
occupying force (jets included) there's still an Iraqi insurgency
that seems quite capable of destabilizing the Iraqi government..
In any case, it seems to me this exchange isn't really about Bruce's
expertise or his (alleged) revolutionary fantasies. Very few people
here seem to put much credence in bru's views on military matters
but you clearly get some special sort of thrill out of asserting
superior knowledge and experience. You seem pretty reasonable,
if not especially congenienal to discuss things with, on a wide array
of other topics, so why the bug up your butt about bru's paramilitary
fantasy life?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 352 of 404:
|
Jan 24 01:25 UTC 2006 |
dude...you realize that bru is grex's art bell, right?
don't waste your time getting upset with him...i mean if you
ARE getting upset.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 353 of 404:
|
Jan 24 01:26 UTC 2006 |
slippage
|
nharmon
|
|
response 354 of 404:
|
Jan 24 01:32 UTC 2006 |
Whats wrong with Art Bell? You don't think aliens exist and use Grex for
their personal e-mail needs?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 355 of 404:
|
Jan 24 02:55 UTC 2006 |
*hic*
from india or *hic* them one from outer space?
/narrows eyes 'n turns up the poh-leese scanner
|
cross
|
|
response 356 of 404:
|
Jan 24 03:02 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|