Will the GOP admit and then adapt to their loss?

[N-7]

The people should be just as well armed as the military.

So, what your saying is that the people should be allowed to purchase war-planes, nuclear weapons, AA missiles, tanks, warships and anything that the military have? do you realize how ridiculous your proposition sounds?

[starlord]

Get out of my head!

the innocent have nothing to fear, citizen.

[obdigore]

Too late, I already have a sword!

That must mean I'm already an officer. hah!

<--- Brigadier General Belfpala.

This is strike team Obdi to strike team 117, prepare to eliminate the Brigadier General, over.

Oh wait, we don't have radios. Or telephones. Originalism sucks.

[Shadowbayne]

OP i think you are the one in denial. I saw your replies - and you don't think there is a valid point to arguing both sides of an issue? You feel that because you think global warming is real, woman should have the right to fuck around and when they messup - just kill a baby that's inside of them? Well, those are opinions you have the right to have - but to tell others their opinions are wrong and don't matter because they differ from yours is pathetic.

UM news flash... in a country thats says its the land of the free.. women do have that right.. and lets get something straight here.

Late term abortions = the child is pretty much close to or fully formed..its alive. Killing it now is bad on so many levels...
First trimester abortions= a cell in the mothers body .. just because its "going" to be child doesn't mean its a life yet. If we are gonna designate cells as living things with rights and not a building block in a living thing to be then you best stop masterbating because sperm are cells and cells are living and every time you "clean up " and throw it away your killing life unless your a female that is... and i dont see males stopping this anytime soon do you ?

see what i did there?

[PizzaSHARK]

If the only reason for wanting to bear arms in the US is to be able to protect yourself from a potentially tyrannical government. Then, you really have no reasons to bear arms nowadays because any of your toys that you can purchase in stores even automated guns won't stand a chance against the military might of the USA.

You'd be surprised. Just look at what insurgents have been doing overseas with little more than "automated guns," and improvised explosives. Tanks aren't worth much against an opponent that's not going to get into a slugging match with you, and you're seeing how well-received our government blowing up civilians with collateral damage is going over.

So, what your saying is that the people should be allowed to purchase war-planes, nuclear weapons, AA missiles, tanks, warships and anything that the military have? do you realize how ridiculous your proposition sounds?

Virtually no one would be able to afford them, anyway.

[belfpala]

You'd be surprised. Just look at what insurgents have been doing overseas with little more than "automated guns," and improvised explosives. Tanks aren't worth much against an opponent that's not going to get into a slugging match with you...

Some guy did a lot of damage in your state with farming goods...

Anyway, my uneducated analysis:

1. Small "rebel" groups. Splat. I'm thinking Waco, things like that.

2. Extremely large and pervasive "rebel" movements. The problem in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is that the US military can't just kill everyone. If the rebellion is large enough, it's essentially an enemy army, so fire away. But that leads to...

3. Small but distributed guerrilla "rebel" movements. Here, you don't know who's a fighter and who's a civilian. The most dangerous, unless you're a crazy madman dictator.

And of course, there's always the question of whether our military would fire on our own citizens. If it ever gets to that point... well... yeah, bad. I would hope our troops disobey that order. And in effect, they would then become part of the militia.

Virtually no one would be able to afford them, anyway.

Remember that corporations are people under our laws. I'm sure Walmart or Exxon could afford a few.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Remember that corporations are people under our laws. I'm sure Walmart or Exxon could afford a few.

As much as I oppose arming random idiots with even the simplest of guns, I would be highly amused to see militia like "The Wal-Mart Republic", "The People's Confederacy of Home Depot", "The United Exxon Conglomerate" and my favorite, "The McDonald's Sovereignty".

[belfpala]

As much as I oppose arming random idiots with even the simplest of guns, I would be highly amused to see militia like "The Wal-Mart Republic", "The People's Confederacy of Home Depot", "The United Exxon Conglomerate" and my favorite, "The McDonald's Sovereignty".

Maybe I've read too much cyberpunk fiction and/or played too much EVE.

However, it strikes me that deregulation and privatization (both Republican goals, right?) can only go there. We already are outsourcing our military functions to private companies. That's step one. I'm not a slippery slope kind of guy, usually, but I don't like it.

[obdigore]

Maybe I've read too much cyberpunk fiction and/or played too much EVE.

However, it strikes me that deregulation and privatization (both Republican goals, right?) can only go there. We already are outsourcing our military functions to private companies. That's step one. I'm not a slippery slope kind of guy, usually, but I don't like it.

The far right side of the political and economical spectrum would be Corporations having enough power to literally own everything. It would be very 1984ish but you would work for the corporation instead of the government.

[belfpala]

The far right side of the political and economical spectrum would be Corporations having enough power to literally own everything. It would be very 1984ish but you would work for the corporation instead of the government.

I'd say it's the opposite of 1984ish. I'd call it more 1889ish (pre-Sherman Act).

Steam Punk it is, then.

[PizzaSHARK]

Some guy did a lot of damage in your state with farming goods...

Anyway, my uneducated analysis:

1. Small "rebel" groups. Splat. I'm thinking Waco, things like that.

2. Extremely large and pervasive "rebel" movements. The problem in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is that the US military can't just kill everyone. If the rebellion is large enough, it's essentially an enemy army, so fire away. But that leads to...

3. Small but distributed guerrilla "rebel" movements. Here, you don't know who's a fighter and who's a civilian. The most dangerous, unless you're a crazy madman dictator.

And of course, there's always the question of whether our military would fire on our own citizens. If it ever gets to that point... well... yeah, bad. I would hope our troops disobey that order. And in effect, they would then become part of the militia.

It's also worth noting that if we had a second Civil War, foreign governments would be even more involved than they were last time, because we weren't the world's sole remaining superpower back in the 1800s. For sure, Canada and Mexico would be damned interested in making sure the guy that comes out on top is one that's going to be on friendly terms with them - the last thing you want is some kind of insane military dictatorship that shares a continent-wide border with you.

But, really, I just don't see it happening. Ours is a volunteer military and I just can't see the entire military just going "okay, sure, we'll go burn Atlanta to the ground again because you told us to," nor do I think that outside interests would just sit back with a bag of popcorn and watch. I mean, our government's pretty fucked right now and I imagine sooner or later we'll see significant changes in one direction or the other... but full-on rebellion and civil war? Nah.

[belfpala]

[long post]

A couple things...

First, this line of discussion was started by gun rights. I am sometimes too subtle about things. I referenced the Oklahoma City bombing, the worst act of domestic terrorism in any of our lifetimes. As a result, http://csat-help.dhs.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:1:0::::: fertilizer is more regulated than handguns. 168 people died in that Oklahoma City disaster. That same year, 1995, over 35,000 US citizens died from gunshot wounds and many more were injured. Just to be anti-sacrosanct, that makes 9/11 look wimpy.

Second, I just asked a friend who was USMC, who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now Army Reserve, if he would obey an order to fire on US citizens. He said no, unless the citizens in question were threatening other citizen's lives or the lives of anyone in his unit.

Third... you always have to have three bullet points, right? So, third... I like guns. I like shooting them. But I'd give all of mine up in an instant if it meant no one else had any.

[Seranthor]

A couple things...

First, this line of discussion was started by gun rights. I am sometimes too subtle about things. I referenced the Oklahoma City bombing, the worst act of domestic terrorism in any of our lifetimes. As a result, http://csat-help.dhs.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:1:0::::: fertilizer is more regulated than handguns. 168 people died in that Oklahoma City disaster. That same year, 1995, over 35,000 US citizens died from gunshot wounds and many more were injured. Just to be anti-sacrosanct, that makes 9/11 look wimpy.

Second, I just asked a friend who was USMC, who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and is now Army Reserve, if he would obey an order to fire on US citizens. He said no, unless the citizens in question were threatening other citizen's lives or the lives of anyone in his unit.

Third... you always have to have three bullet points, right? So, third... I like guns. I like shooting them. But I'd give all of mine up in an instant if it meant no one else had any.

1. your logic is flawed, how many lives have been saved, because a gun or someone with a gun was present?

2. your friend subscribes to the same answer that most servicemembers past and present hold.

3. but thats the thing, even IF you gave up your gun, and even IF they were all banned, there would still be more than enough guns. There are plenty of citizens and criminals alike that would ignore the ban, regardless of the penalty.

[belfpala]

1. your logic is flawed, how many lives have been saved, because a gun or someone with a gun was present?

Don't ask a question in a debate unless you know the answer to it. So, please, do tell.

2. your friend subscribes to the same answer that most servicemembers past and present hold.

I didn't have a point with that one. I was just asking a distinguished member of our military what he thought.

3. but thats the thing, even IF you gave up your gun, and even IF they were all banned, there would still be more than enough guns. There are plenty of citizens and criminals alike that would ignore the ban, regardless of the penalty.

I said "if it meant no one else had any."

I kind of want to smack people like you up the head. All guns in the US are legal guns at some point. Or, almost all, except those that were manufactured legally elsewhere and then imported illegally.

Think about it. I'm tired of explaining this again and again.

[Seranthor]

I said "if it meant no one else had any."

I kind of want to smack people like you up the head. All guns in the US are legal guns at some point. Or, almost all, except those that were manufactured legally elsewhere and then imported illegally.

Think about it. I'm tired of explaining this again and again.

Yes, I know exactly what you said. you may as well wish for all the guns in the world to vanish at the same instant, folks would find new and creative ways to kill and brutalize each other.

[belfpala]

Yes, I know exactly what you said. you may as well wish for all the guns in the world to vanish at the same instant, folks would find new and creative ways to kill and brutalize each other.

Folks had plenty of ways, often more brutal, to do it without guns. But I don't think you responded to anything other that my magical wish that all guns go poof.

Again, I'm no anti-gun fanatic. I own three.

[Spectral]

But I don't think you responded to anything other that my magical wish that all guns go poof.

Funny, this is essentially my magic wish as well. While there's lots of nasty ways to kill people without guns, guns are just so damned easy.

[belfpala]

Easy, impersonal, collateral damage... I could maybe pick you off from 400 yards with one of my hunting rifles. Maybe. Or maybe I might hit someone near you. (FBI: this is not a threat... I will not be shooting at Spectral or any other human). If I really had cause to attack you, honestly, I'd much rather do it with one of my swords or my baseball bat.

I'm really, really trying to understand people who make the 2nd amendment an issue. It's straight up clear to me. "A well regulated militia..." I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything but... "A well regulated militia..."

Militia: A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency. (most relevant definition I could find). I'm 100% certain our National Guard system satisfies the 2nd.

[Spectral]

I'm really, really trying to understand people who make the 2nd amendment an issue. It's straight up clear to me. "A well regulated militia..." I don't see how that can be interpreted as anything but... "A well regulated militia..."

The weird comma placement as well as historical interpretations of what constitutes a "militia". Really though:

[belfpala]

The weird comma placement...

I have the same complaint about Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.

I know you don't disagree with me. I've never heard anything I'd consider satisfactory as a counter-argument to the 2nd's first four words. As was mentioned earlier, even Scalia admitted it's not absolute.