ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th February 2013, 02:07 PM   #281
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Why not let everyone have whatever they can afford to have? If some rich guy wants a mini-gun, then let him buy one and shoot it on his ranch to his heart's content. (which he CAN already do btw)
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2013, 02:54 PM   #282
Xulld
Master Poster
 
Xulld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,154
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Prohibition against murder, for instance, is tyranny ?

We might as well call civilization tyranny.
You know full well what is meant by prohibition, the context was even in the post itself.

This is the level of discussion typical here, find anything to disagree with even if it was not what was meant.

Thanks,
__________________
"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus

Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong
Xulld is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2013, 03:00 PM   #283
Xulld
Master Poster
 
Xulld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,154
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
You haven't addressed any of my concerns:
1. Wouldn't it be more effective to head off a dictatorship first by non-violent means before it takes over the government? Isn't this the place to invest our time and effort?
2. Why are you certain that the reverse isn't more likely, and nuts with weapons will overturn a democratic government and install a dictatorship? If you look at history, which is the way to bet?
3. Who decides when the government is evil enough to allow citizens to attack and kill other citizens representing that government? Should random groups of armed "patriots" be allowed to make this determination on their own? Doesn't the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing indicate that there are individuals and groups who already believe they have the right to attack the current USA government?
4. Isn't there considerable precedent that an armed rebellion will lead to years of anarchy and in-fighting between different political groups and warlords, like Somalia, rather than restoration of a democracy?
All of your questions can be answered by YOU taking the time to learn some history.

None of your questions deal is anything fundamental at all.

Examples exist so long as you are willing to avoid narrowing your goal posts into meaninglessness.

The best example is the country in which this debate is taking place.

Pretending that if your opponent cannot answer questions related to history makes their arguments invalid is dishonest and just a gotcha move attempt.

THAT is why you are being ignored.
__________________
"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus

Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong
Xulld is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2013, 06:08 PM   #284
Giordano
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
All of your questions can be answered by YOU taking the time to learn some history.

None of your questions deal is anything fundamental at all.

Examples exist so long as you are willing to avoid narrowing your goal posts into meaninglessness.

The best example is the country in which this debate is taking place.

Pretending that if your opponent cannot answer questions related to history makes their arguments invalid is dishonest and just a gotcha move attempt.

THAT is why you are being ignored.
I honestly am puzzled my the intensity and nature of your response.

I have not engaged in any attacks on you, and I calmly asked what I think are reasonable questions that I am truly interested in having answered.

It is just my understanding of history that raises these concerns in my mind as to the dangers from armed and unregulated groups within a democracy. You must have drawn different conclusions from your reading of history. Okay.

Am I to assume you are referring to the history of the USA as an example of a democracy created by use of guns by the civilian population? I stated that there were few examples of that, not that there were none, but okay. Is your USA history reference also meant to address my points 1 to 4 in my last post? Here i'm stuck. Please tell me more so I can see what you are getting at.

Last edited by Giordano; 20th February 2013 at 06:09 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2013, 08:19 PM   #285
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,848
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
It IS a right though. It's right there in the amendment.
I don't think so. Every known draft of the 2nd Amendment is discussing state militia members and armories in the clearest possible terms. For example:

Originally Posted by draft 2nd amendment
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
What's this about? It's establishing that the states should be defended by standing armies (as opposed to wartime levies) whose members are citizens (as opposed to slaves or mercenaries) ... which is not to say that all citizens are compelled to bear arms (i.e. pacifist Quakers).

Look at "bear arms". The founders treat "bear arms" as a synonym for "rendering military service". Everyone has a right to render military service, i.e. bear arms, but Quakers are not compelled to.

The surviving draft still describes militia armament, but in less clear terms---it removes the clarifying Quaker exemption. Now, if you read "bear arms" and pretend it has nothing to do with military service, it sure sounds like an individual right to concealed carry. But this is a mistake. It's a misreading.

So: you want to defend gun ownership? Go ahead, defend gun ownership. Just don't quote the 2nd Amendment at me. Don't pretend that that's the end of the argument. Don't imply that I'm some rabid rights-destroying fascist, who will come for your guns first and your free-press next. (You do have the Constitutional right to a free press; that's clear in phrasing and intention.)

(By the way, several early state constitutions---not all---established a right to self-defense and hunting weapons. They did not use the words "keep and bear arms" to say this, they just said it. They did not hide the self-defense and hunting right within a weird militia clause, they just stated it on its own. But the authors of the Constitution did not do this, and there's no evidence they meant to.)

Quote:
Any overreaching attempts to circumvent it have failed in the USSC.
"Any"? That's a stretch. The only NRA-era SCOTUS decisions that affirm an NRA-style "individual right" are Heller and Mcdonald, both 5-4 decisions, with the same five justices in both cases.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 03:35 AM   #286
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 38,392
Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
You know full well what is meant by prohibition, the context was even in the post itself.
No, I don't. Why would you think that one kind of prohibition is tyranny and not the other ? And why are you dodging the question by pretending I don't mean what I said ?
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 09:06 AM   #287
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I don't think so. Every known draft of the 2nd Amendment is discussing state militia members and armories in the clearest possible terms. For example:



What's this about? It's establishing that the states should be defended by standing armies (as opposed to wartime levies) whose members are citizens (as opposed to slaves or mercenaries) ... which is not to say that all citizens are compelled to bear arms (i.e. pacifist Quakers).

Look at "bear arms". The founders treat "bear arms" as a synonym for "rendering military service". Everyone has a right to render military service, i.e. bear arms, but Quakers are not compelled to.

The surviving draft still describes militia armament, but in less clear terms---it removes the clarifying Quaker exemption. Now, if you read "bear arms" and pretend it has nothing to do with military service, it sure sounds like an individual right to concealed carry. But this is a mistake. It's a misreading.

So: you want to defend gun ownership? Go ahead, defend gun ownership. Just don't quote the 2nd Amendment at me. Don't pretend that that's the end of the argument. Don't imply that I'm some rabid rights-destroying fascist, who will come for your guns first and your free-press next. (You do have the Constitutional right to a free press; that's clear in phrasing and intention.)

(By the way, several early state constitutions---not all---established a right to self-defense and hunting weapons. They did not use the words "keep and bear arms" to say this, they just said it. They did not hide the self-defense and hunting right within a weird militia clause, they just stated it on its own. But the authors of the Constitution did not do this, and there's no evidence they meant to.)



"Any"? That's a stretch. The only NRA-era SCOTUS decisions that affirm an NRA-style "individual right" are Heller and Mcdonald, both 5-4 decisions, with the same five justices in both cases.
I find it amusing that you think that your opinion on the matter overrides that of the supreme court. hahahahahaha!!!!!!! get outta town with that malarky!


http://www.saf.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html

Last edited by StankApe; 21st February 2013 at 09:08 AM.
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2013, 03:00 PM   #288
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,848
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
I find it amusing that you think that your opinion on the matter overrides that of the supreme court. hahahahahaha!!!!!!! get outta town with that malarky!
I didn't think I override anyone. Unlike you, I did not attempt to end the debate by pretending that disagreement is silly. It's not. You and I disagree. Anthony Scalia and John Paul Stevens disagree. The pre-1980 NRA disagrees with the post-1980 NRA. ( http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_...d_gun_control/ )

You're the one who seems to think your reading is so obvious that debate is "silly". Heck, even Scalia's majority opinion in Heller admits the existence of controversy and ambiguity. But none of that is good enough for you:

Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
I think these debates are kinda silly;


THE 2ND AMENDMENT


that's the only argument required.
Can you imagine an abortion-rights debater doing the same thing?

Originally Posted by Pro-choice arguer
I think these debates are kinda silly;


THE 14TH AMENDMENT

that's the only argument required.
No, abortion-rights debates talk about the merits or harms caused by a right to legal abortion, not about repealing the 14th amendment which, according to the 7-2 Roe v. Wade majority, contains the right to medical privacy and choice. Libel-law debates talk about the merits and demerits of different libel laws, not about repealing free speech. And so on.

I repeat: the text of the 2nd Amendment does not come anywhere close to ending gun-control arguments.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 07:06 AM   #289
zeggman
Graduate Poster
 
zeggman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The sad thing is that without people like you, a true Dictator would find it hard to stay in power. As long as the Dictator can point at the "Domestic Terrorists" who threaten to destroy law and order, and who will slaughter innocent people in their beds, and raise loyal towns to the ground in wholesale massacres, they can actually keep the support of a lot of people, regardless of the draconian measure they put in place "to protect the people from the violent terrorists".
People like me would be driving the Dictator from power.

No, sadly, it's people like you who would enable them to justify their tyranny. As long as the Dictator can point at the "filthy pedophiles" who threaten to undermine the moral fabric of the nation, and who will rape and murder innocent children in their beds, and diddle entire pre-schools in wholesale debauchery, they can actually convince the people that no-knock searches are necessary, all communications must be secretly monitored, and people can be locked up indefinitely without being charged "to protect the children from the predatory perverts".

Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
It is you that is making stuff up, that civilians with guns have overthrown or prevented tyranny. In neither Iran nor Cuba did civilians with guns, acting on their own without any military or government assistance overthrow tyranny.
What nonsense. The Cuban military cooperated by almost wiping out the rebels. If you consider eventually laying down their guns "assistance" then the allies won World War II with the assistance of Germany and Japan.
zeggman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 11:24 AM   #290
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,528
Could the OP please define the term 'The Government' as he or she is using it.
__________________
Refenestrate the delusional.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2013, 03:05 PM   #291
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 11,722
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
People like me would be driving the Dictator from power.
Comedy gold.

Quote:
No, sadly, it's people like you who would enable them to justify their tyranny.
People like me realise that the best way to stop a Dictator is before they get into power and that fighting them with guns afterwards only allows them to strengthen their grip. The real way to deal with a dictator after the fact is through political movements and speech to turn the people towards back democracy. The Soviet Union didn't fall because of guns, it fell because of people stood up and used their voices. Look at Burma and how it is changing, not by the power of the gun, but because of the voices of the people.

Quote:
As long as the Dictator can point at the "filthy pedophiles" who threaten to undermine the moral fabric of the nation, and who will rape and murder innocent children in their beds, and diddle entire pre-schools in wholesale debauchery, they can actually convince the people that no-knock searches are necessary, all communications must be secretly monitored, and people can be locked up indefinitely without being charged "to protect the children from the predatory perverts".
Nice try, but all you are doing is making yourself look silly. It's somewhat easy and believable to accuse your opponents of being murderers when they are already running around with guns shooting at people. The OP of this thread called the likes of Nat Turner a hero and seems to think that any rebellion against a dictator should emulate him. Nat Turner and his men murdered people in their homes, he didn't go after government troops, he went after civilians. How hard is it to point at people shooting guns at your troops and idolising muderers and claim that they are planning the same sort of things, to murder anyone that is still loyal to the President and country?

In contrast. trying to paint your political opponents as pedophiles for speaking against you looks desperate and silly, and Dictators are neither, which is why they don't do it. Instead they are more likely to use sedition, or incitement to riot type charges. Consider Nelson Mandala or Aung San Suu Kyi.

The simple fact of the matter is that armed rebellion gives a Dictator the exact reasons that he/she needs to enforce Martial Law and take away rights, all while the crowd cheers him/her on. Political Protests and using the voices of the people might still result in crackdowns, but the oppression of political opinion has always strengthened it, made it grow stronger, and eventually led to the toppling of the oppressors. Guns aren't the solution to Tyranny, they are detrimental to the solution.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 28th February 2013 at 03:08 PM.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 03:31 AM   #292
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 38,392
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
People like me would be driving the Dictator from power.
Gee, sorry. I didn't think we were in the fantasy subforum.
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 03:53 AM   #293
P.J. Denyer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,361
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Gee, sorry. I didn't think we were in the fantasy subforum.
Yes, didn't you know, if the Orcs had been armed they'd have overthrown Sauron and there would have been no need for all that Ring business.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 05:38 AM   #294
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details...
Posts: 38,392
They'll take my spear from my dead, cold hands.
__________________
"'Ought' statements are merely 'is' statements that beg the question." - PixyMisa

"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived." - Starship Troopers
Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 12:10 PM   #295
Xulld
Master Poster
 
Xulld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,154
Quote:
I repeat: the text of the 2nd Amendment does not come anywhere close to ending gun-control arguments.
Only because of cognitive dissonance and a weak interpretation of the 14th.
__________________
"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus

Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong
Xulld is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 12:24 PM   #296
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,275
Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
Only because of cognitive dissonance and a weak interpretation of the 14th.
I always like to read arguments that any any gun control law would violate the 2nd amendment right before I read arguments that we already have too many gun laws and they just need to be enforced. It helps my digestive processes to read such concentrated ********.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 12:39 PM   #297
IDB87
Illuminator
 
IDB87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
They'll take my spear from my dead, cold hands.
...


....



And my axe?


__________________
That really hustled my bones.
IDB87 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 12:45 PM   #298
Giz
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,802
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I hate to be boring, but I haven't seen any answers from the pro-arms side to the concerns I expressed in my one post here, so I will ask again:

1. Are there many examples of an armed populace overthrowing a dictatorship and installing a stable democracy? The examples of overthrows of governments I've seen cited here so far (Iran, Cuba) have ended pretty badly.
The USA
The Republic of Texas
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 12:59 PM   #299
Xulld
Master Poster
 
Xulld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,154
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I always like to read arguments that any any gun control law would violate the 2nd amendment right before I read arguments that we already have too many gun laws and they just need to be enforced. It helps my digestive processes to read such concentrated ********.
So . . . you disagree that the meaning of shall not be infringed was clear, and that no dissonance was involved with all of the various infringements thereafter?

Or that the 14th amendment should or should not apply to the 2nd?

As to concentration, well you could always quote me . . .
__________________
"Natural justice is a symbol or expression of usefullness, to prevent one person from harming or being harmed by another."-Epicurus

Freedom of Speech is a right recognized in the First Amendment. Freedom from consequence is nowhere to be found. -Bstrong
Xulld is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 03:04 PM   #300
Captain_Swoop
Philosopher
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,403
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The USA
The Republic of Texas
Apart from the Armies that helped you mean?
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 03:12 PM   #301
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,275
Originally Posted by Xulld View Post
So . . . you disagree that the meaning of shall not be infringed was clear, and that no dissonance was involved with all of the various infringements thereafter?
I'll defer to the Heller court on that. I think they largely got it right, which is there job after all.

I was just pointing out the dissonance involved in claiming there may be no infringement while also acknowledging that there are already many infringements.

Maybe it's time to seek second amendment solutions to these infringements of the second amendment.


Quote:
As to concentration, well you could always quote me . . .
The funny thing is how often I actually agree with you. We both think the prohibition of marijuana has been a complete failure. We both think guns should be readily available to responsible gun owners. We both think guns should not be readily available to criminals or the insane. Our disagreements are mainly in the details, but there is where the devil always lies.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 04:22 PM   #302
shuttlt
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,807
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Apart from the Armies that helped you mean?
I've been reading this thread off and on. Has anybody yet come up with a successful armed rebellion in modern enough times to be relevant where legally armed citizens were a significant factor? Cuba doesn't seem to count. The arab spring doesn't seem to count. Lot's of the violent overthrows of governments one can think of are at the hands of the military. The arms generally seem to come from outside, or from the army. It's not as if there aren't plenty of revolutions, coups and so forth over the past 50 years.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 07:48 PM   #303
Giordano
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The USA
The Republic of Texas
Okay, as I said a few. Are you planning to get to my points 2 to 4?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2013, 11:07 PM   #304
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,848
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
The USA
The Republic of Texas
Gun-aficionados like to imagine the US revolutionary war as "random citizens, with their personal guns, against the British Army".

First, it wasn't random citizens. The colonies were substantially self-governing---each had an elected legislature/assembly and a crown-appointed governor. The Continental Congress, which issued the Declaration of Independence, was organized by these 100%-official colonial elected assemblies. The minutemen were not "spontaneous citizens grabbing arms", they were a drilled and trained force (like a National Guard) of the Colonial government, who when push came to shove sided with the elected assembly instead of the Governor. The early revolution was not all like Arab Spring (street demonstrations against a government) more like, e.g. Prague Spring (one branch of government against another). Don't imagine "Red Dawn"----imagine if the House of Representative declared a usurpation of the Executive Branch.

Second, militiamen didn't defeat the British Army. The American colonies were defended by a tiny band of British soldiers---a handful of units intended to fight Indian border skirmishes. It's not the great army that later fought Napoleon and so on, it's basically the "British Empire border patrol, North American division". Revolutionary militias also fought against loyalist militias. That's right, it wasn't "Americans vs. British", it was "pro-British Americans vs. anti-British Americans". This is what anti-gun arguments always point out about "arming the people". You arm the people, you arm both sides of whatever the conflict is. By the time the British got serious---blockading New York and so on---it was no longer Brits vs. Militiamen. By this time the French, Dutch, and Spanish---professional armies, with government-supplied arms---were on our side.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 10:57 AM   #305
P.J. Denyer
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,361
Ben_M, great post, a welcome dose of reality. Prepare to be flamed out of existance in 5...4..3......
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 06:00 PM   #306
Giordano
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,830
Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
People like me would be driving the Dictator from power.
Good news! If you check out the associated, "I don't believe the US military" thread, you will find that you will have help! MaGZ will be there to help- he's got your back! In fact, he and his friends might even be there in the mountains before you, getting everything ready for the armed overthrow, because he disapproves of the kind of people already in the US government.

No, I'm not suggesting that you approve of MaGZ's views. Just the opposite. It's not just people like you. I am certain there are political groups that you do not approve of, and who you hope will never grab political power by force. Well more generally I don't want random groups of armed, self-declared patriots to decide when the government is "bad" enough to be overthrown by force. How does one make that determination? Who has that right? There are already nuts who have claimed the last election was "rigged." Donald Trump called for people to advance on Washington DC on election night to take on the government because he mistakenly thought the electoral vote would differ from the popular vote. I think that both Bush and Obama have violated the Constitution. Would you feel comfortable if I used that as justification to arm a group of friends and try to install a socialistic government instead?

So again, I see the US military as the protector of our freedom, not armed militia groups with unpredictable views.

Last edited by Giordano; 2nd March 2013 at 06:05 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 07:16 PM   #307
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,848
Can we imagine a "modern" equivalent to the American Revolution? With the same arms playing the same role? Sure, let's try.

a) Imagine the Alaska State House declares independence from the US. The Alaska state police enter the US Federal Building in Anchorage; they round up a the federal judges and US Marshals and tell them to be on the next boat out of town.

b) The President orders armed troops out of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson to protect the Federal Building. However, there aren't many actual ground-troops at this base---it's mostly a strategic air command base---so the company that marches out is actually fairly small.

c) During the convoy to the Federal Building, the army exchanges fire with the Alaska National Guard. The shots heard round the world! The tiny Army force, unprepared, retreats to its base and takes casualties.

d) The US declares the ANG "treasonous" against the US. It issues an order nationalizing the guard, ordering that all ANG armories handed over to the Army. This prompts the first pitched battles, as loyalist ANG divisions try to carry out this order but are opposed by both secessionist divisions and by scraps of infantry out of Elmendorf-Richardson.

e) The US realizes this is a big deal. It orders a much-bigger military force to deploy from Fairbanks and seize control of Anchorage over land, and orders a Navy force out of Hawaii to blockade Anchorage.

f) Russia declares its support of Alaska. A Russian naval contingent steams towards Anchorage to meet the blockade, while Russian troops airdrop in to advise the ANG on meeting the "redcoats" out of Fairbanks.

g) Nancy Lanza, or her alaskan equivalent, plays no role whatsoever. She spends the "Alaskan Revolutionary War" indoors watching CNN. If she wants join the ANG, she'll be armed out of the ANG armory, not out of her private stash; her AR-15 never leaves its closet.

That's what the American Revolutionary War looked like, I think, translated into modern terms. Exciting stuff, but not Red Dawn. Talk to me about the film rights!

Last edited by ben m; 2nd March 2013 at 07:21 PM.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.