Question for Pro-choicers

[Brent]

Seriously though, either Peroutka or Badnarik.

Immie

The thing I don't like about Badnarik is how he flipped on abortion in order to appease support within the party. He was 100% pro-life but shifted to the left on that issue. But I do like what he says about blowing up the UN Building.

 

[Immanuel]

The thing I don't like about Badnarik is how he flipped on abortion in order to appease support within the party. He was 100% pro-life but shifted to the left on that issue. But I do like what he says about blowing up the UN Building.

Even I have shifted to the left on that issue.

Not on my beliefs about the issue but on my beliefs about the other side. I used to think that they were thrilled to death every time a woman entered a clinic for an abortion. Now, I can see that this is not true. Just as I agree with the ideas of Welfare and Social Security but differ from them in regards to how these ideas should be implemented, they (the vast majority of them) too seem to share the repulsion I have at the thought of abortion, but they have different ideas on how eliminating them should be accomplished.

Immie

 

[LadyT]

I've somewhat changed my stance on gun control. I'm not completely anti-gun ownership. I used to be relatively anti-gun, however I realize that there are times when people really do need one: i.e. if you live out in the country and there are a lot of bears (my ex-boss has had bears snooping around his home) or if you hunt to eat. I feel if there are legitimate reasons for the need of such a thing than the gov't shouldn't have the right to withold them from its citizens. I still do think the right to bear arms and for protection from gov't is an incredibly weak argument.

 

[Immanuel]

I still do think the right to bear arms and for protection from gov't is an incredibly weak argument.

Weak? Only because a person (family or even militia) can not possibly hope to defend itself from the government. Not because we don't need to protect ourselves from the government. I guess you wouldn't have a problem if you fully trust the people in our government.

Immie

 

[Care4all]

I've somewhat changed my stance on gun control. I'm not completely anti-gun ownership. I used to be relatively anti-gun, however I realize that there are times when people really do need one: i.e. if you live out in the country and there are a lot of bears (my ex-boss has had bears snooping around his home) or if you hunt to eat. I feel if there are legitimate reasons for the need of such a thing than the gov't shouldn't have the right to withold them from its citizens. I still do think the right to bear arms and for protection from gov't is an incredibly weak argument..

Picture this totally made up Scenario:

Right before the elections in 2008, we have another major attack, and President Bush institutes Marshall Law and calls off all elections, and remains our leader, in full control of everything, with the Military being the ones pointing rifles at us, on our soil....for another 10 years or until infinity......

Wouldn't you be wishing then that you had the forsight to see the insight of our founding father's view on never letting the government or Military get bigger than you, we the People?

Our founding fathers were only able to first rebel and start the Revolution to break away from Britain with their own arms....to deny that this is what gave us the ability to rebuke the Tyranny that the British gvt was putting on to them, is denying history...ya know? So I kinda have to pay attention when it comes to this amendment....especially lately.... I am wishing BOOMSTICK would be visiting us again so I can make arrangements to buys a few of them... ESPECIALLY with moving to Maine...with all the Bears!

good morning!

care

 

[LadyT]

Realistically, we would not be able to fight our military with our little guns. They've got sophisticated weaponry which includes satellite, war planes, tanks, nuclear power, and some of the best trained soldiers on earth. If it ever came down to it our miliarty would undoubtedly crush any little bit of insurgency and unrest if it had to. For that argument to hold water IMO, civilians would have to have the same advanced technology as our military, and quite frankly I'm do not and will not support, any joe schmo being able to house weapons grade plutonium at his leisure. Please, we'd only be so lucky if they were only pointing rifles at us. 200 years ago, a gun was the height of weapon technology and it was practical and could be relatively safe for people to own them. I don't think its common sense for us as non-military trained citizens to own the "height of weapon technology".

 

[Damocles]

Realistically, we would not be able to fight our military with our little guns. They've got sophisticated weaponry which includes satellite, war planes, tanks, nuclear power, and some of the best trained soldiers on earth. If it ever came down to it our miliarty would undoubtedly crush any little bit of insurgency and unrest if it had to. For that argument to hold water IMO, civilians would have to have the same advanced technology as our military, and quite frankly I'm do not and will not support, any joe schmo being able to house weapons grade plutonium at his leisure. Please, we'd only be so lucky if they were only pointing rifles at us. 200 years ago, a gun was the height of weapon technology and it was practical and could be relatively safe for people to own them. I don't think its common sense for us as non-military trained citizens to own the "height of weapon technology".

If this were true then the "insurgency" would be worthless in Iraq. Our little guns would make a HUGE impact if it became necessary. There is also the fact that the military is made up of volunteers who likely would not do what was ordered if it was to fight their families....

 

[Care4all]

Realistically, we would not be able to fight our military with our little guns. They've got sophisticated weaponry which includes satellite, war planes, tanks, nuclear power, and some of the best trained soldiers on earth. If it ever came down to it our miliarty would undoubtedly crush any little bit of insurgency and unrest if it had to. For that argument to hold water IMO, civilians would have to have the same advanced technology as our military, and quite frankly I'm do not and will not support, any joe schmo being able to house weapons grade plutonium at his leisure. Please, we'd only be so lucky if they were only pointing rifles at us. 200 years ago, a gun was the height of weapon technology and it was practical and could be relatively safe for people to own them. I don't think its common sense for us as non-military trained citizens to own the "height of weapon technology".

Our founding father's arsenol was also pathetic, compared to the arsenol of the mighty British....

But we used our smarts, and we used other countries, to support our cause for various reasons, and supply us with the eventual ammunitions that we needed....

Without any arms at all, we call UNCLE before the fight begins....and,

they control all options and power....without the 2nd amendment, and that is not what Our founding fathers saw as a means to keep our government from becoming the same tyranny that they escaped and rebeled against imo.

care

 

[Immanuel]

Our founding father's arsenol was also pathetic, compared to the arsenol of the mighty British....

But we used our smarts, and we used other countries, to support our cause for various reasons, and supply us with the eventual ammunitions that we needed....

Without any arms at all, we call UNCLE before the fight begins....and,

they control all options and power....without the 2nd amendment, and that is not what Our founding fathers saw as a means to keep our government from becoming the same tyranny that they escaped and rebeled against imo.

care

Do you think that the American people are smart enough to pull that off today? After all, half of us voted for Bush a second time around.

Guilty as charged.

Immie

 

[LadyT]

Do you think that the American people are smart enough to pull that off today? After all, half of us voted for Bush a second time around.

Guilty as charged.

Immie

And there is another good point. We give good lipservice, but as a whole, I highly doubt we would really be united in effort to overthrow the gov't for anything. We should all be united and marching on the WH front lawn with the atrocities this admin has committed. But we're not, there's vacation time to worry about, traffic, etc....... Our affliction with apathy is epidemic.

 

[LadyT]

Our founding father's arsenol was also pathetic, compared to the arsenol of the mighty British....

I don't think that is a good parallel at all. Yes, the brits were mighty but
a) they weren't on their home turf
b) The disparity between the brits and the militias weapons is definitely not as great as the dispartity between citizens with guns vs the US military.

As you can see, our military can relatively easily conquer nations' militaries almost effortlessly (please note conquered does not imply stabilization). And these nations have had home turf advantage. The only way you really be able to win would be to fight the US military is by infiltrating and using terrorist and guerilla methods which wouldn't necessarily be reliant on civilians owning guns. But before it would even get to that, I don't think our prozac-loving-paris-hilton-obsessed-politically uninformed nation would ever come together to do such a thing. No, I can see us fragmenting into various groups before I see anything like that. I don't think many people would really care if say texas decided to declare itself its own country or if the south wanted to cecede again. It would be good water cooler talk for a while, but then the new season of Lost would start or the playoffs would take top priority.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I don't think that is a good parallel at all. Yes, the brits were mighty but
a) they weren't on their home turf
b) The disparity between the brits and the militias weapons is definitely not as great as the dispartity between citizens with guns vs the US military.

As you can see, our military can relatively easily conquer nations' militaries almost effortlessly (please note conquered does not imply stabilization). And these nations have had home turf advantage. The only way you really be able to win would be to fight the US military is by infiltrating and using terrorist and guerilla methods which wouldn't necessarily be reliant on civilians owning guns. But before it would even get to that, I don't think our prozac-loving-paris-hilton-obsessed-politically uninformed nation would ever come together to do such a thing. No, I can see us fragmenting into various groups before I see anything like that. I don't think many people would really care if say texas decided to declare itself its own country or if the south wanted to cecede again. It would be good water cooler talk for a while, but then the new season of Lost would start or the playoffs would take top priority.

Don't dismiss the problem of stabilization. That's the same mistake our military leaders are making. "Asymmetrical warfare" isn't just a catch phrase. It's a fancy new way of saying "guerrila warfare" without having to spell "guerrila."

Nevertheless, I agree with your take on the American people, sadly. We just aren't concerned with these issues. I believe we should be, but we're not.

 

[Damocles]

Don't dismiss the problem of stabilization. That's the same mistake our military leaders are making. "Asymmetrical warfare" isn't just a catch phrase. It's a fancy new way of saying "guerrila warfare" without having to spell "guerrila."

Nevertheless, I agree with your take on the American people, sadly. We just aren't concerned with these issues. I believe we should be, but we're not.

When the boot reaches their necks they will again be.

 

[Immanuel]

When the boot reaches their necks they will again be.

By then it will be too late.

Immie

 

[Damocles]

By then it will be too late.

Immie

I always hear this, but never quite grasp it. Too late for what?

If we can never fix what happened then I guess we shouldn't buy German because that was where Hitler led...

 

[Immanuel]

I always hear this, but never quite grasp it. Too late for what?

If we can never fix what happened then I guess we shouldn't buy German because that was where Hitler led...

Well, let me put it this way. It would be insane for the American People to even consider rising up in rebellion in any kind of a physical way. Our only hope is to wrest control legally from those who have stolen it by sending the offenders home packing and making them one of us. We'd have to put honest and reliable men and women into office and limit their power in a much more secure way than we do right now.

Immie

 

[LadyT]

Don't dismiss the problem of stabilization. That's the same mistake our military leaders are making. "Asymmetrical warfare" isn't just a catch phrase. It's a fancy new way of saying "guerrila warfare" without having to spell "guerrila."

Nevertheless, I agree with your take on the American people, sadly. We just aren't concerned with these issues. I believe we should be, but we're not.

Oh, I'm not dismissing. I'm merely pointing out, that our military effortlessly for lack of a better word was able to conquer for example the Iraq army and seize control of Afghanistan from Al Queda in a matter of months. Guns in the hands of their respective militaries and militias didn't really do them much good - and they were united and motivated - on the flip side you have your average American citizens.

 

[Damocles]

Well, let me put it this way. It would be insane for the American People to even consider rising up in rebellion in any kind of a physical way. Our only hope is to wrest control legally from those who have stolen it by sending the offenders home packing and making them one of us. We'd have to put honest and reliable men and women into office and limit their power in a much more secure way than we do right now.

Immie

The problem is neither main party puts forward those people. You have to get most of the US to vote against their party, and they just won't do it.

 

[Immanuel]

The problem is neither main party puts forward those people. You have to get most of the US to vote against their party, and they just won't do it.

Tell me about it. Thus the feeling that America will break up in my lifetime.

Immie

 

[uscitizen]

This thread kinda makes one wonder why the current administration is trying to take national guard control away from the states.......