The Vertual President

Classic Liberal said:
Golly Geeee! It must have left them all speechless, huh?
Click to expand...

It's the same nonsense where, at the end, he references how governments killed so many of their own people. Were those governments democratically elected? Except for Hitler the rest were a result of violent takeovers. Of course people were killed. They were civil wars or coup d'etats or revolutions. Whatever term one wishes to use the point is part of the population was for it and part against it and whenever there is a war or revolution or coup d'etat people get killed.

There are many countries that restrict or virtually outright prohibit gun ownership and no mass murders are taking place. The idea individual gun ownership is or would be a deterrent to the force of government is absurd.

Just look at the Boston terrorist who was located in a boat. Heat sensing equipment from a helicopter not only detected his presence but "saw" his movements. The people in the helicopter could have had a spear and won the "battle". Or simply dropped a big enough rock on him. LOL The point being it's just silly to even suggest armed individuals are effective against the government. I suppose in 1776 that worked but it's long outdated.

The only justified use/purpose of a fire arm is to protect one against a fellow citizen and that doesn't require an armor-piercing, 100 bullets-a-minute type of weapon best suited to sit on a tripod.
 
apple0154 said:
It's the same nonsense where, at the end, he references how governments killed so many of their own people. Were those governments democratically elected? Except for Hitler the rest were a result of violent takeovers. Of course people were killed. They were civil wars or coup d'etats or revolutions. Whatever term one wishes to use the point is part of the population was for it and part against it and whenever there is a war or revolution or coup d'etat people get killed.

There are many countries that restrict or virtually outright prohibit gun ownership and no mass murders are taking place. The idea individual gun ownership is or would be a deterrent to the force of government is absurd.

Just look at the Boston terrorist who was located in a boat. Heat sensing equipment from a helicopter not only detected his presence but "saw" his movements. The people in the helicopter could have had a spear and won the "battle". Or simply dropped a big enough rock on him. LOL The point being it's just silly to even suggest armed individuals are effective against the government. I suppose in 1776 that worked but it's long outdated.

The only justified use/purpose of a fire arm is to protect one against a fellow citizen and that doesn't require an armor-piercing, 100 bullets-a-minute type of weapon best suited to sit on a tripod.
Click to expand...

This is a retarded argument. So much so that I don't know where to begin to refute it.
 
apple0154 said:
It's the same nonsense where, at the end, he references how governments killed so many of their own people. Were those governments democratically elected? Except for Hitler the rest were a result of violent takeovers. Of course people were killed. They were civil wars or coup d'etats or revolutions. Whatever term one wishes to use the point is part of the population was for it and part against it and whenever there is a war or revolution or coup d'etat people get killed.
Click to expand...

And a “democracy” being government by a “majority,” by what assurance does democracy guarantee the “righteousness” of every majority or the guaranteed equality of treatment of every minority? Oh! That’s right, the “Constitution” is the only guarantee of equality of rights for minorities, huh?

As you correctly noted, Hitler was elected by a “democracy.” America in colonial days was ruled by an English democracy yet our founders saw fit to revolt against that “democratic” tyranny

There are many countries that restrict or virtually outright prohibit gun ownership and no mass murders are taking place. The idea individual gun ownership is or would be a deterrent to the force of government is absurd.
Click to expand...

On the contrary! If you do your homework, you’ll find that “mass murders” have and do occur in every country on planet earth. Even school shootings in countries with gun prohibitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

Try telling those people in Libya they didn’t need semi-automatic weapons to take back their country. Tell it to the people of Syria and see what they have to say about it.

Just look at the Boston terrorist who was located in a boat. Heat sensing equipment from a helicopter not only detected his presence but "saw" his movements. The people in the helicopter could have had a spear and won the "battle". Or simply dropped a big enough rock on him. LOL
Click to expand...

The helicopter heat sensing thingy has been refuted as being a falshood. The dude in the boat was noticed by the boat owner when he noticed blood on the side of his boat and called the cops.

The point being it's just silly to even suggest armed individuals are effective against the government. I suppose in 1776 that worked but it's long outdated.
Click to expand...

Again you’ll need to tell that to the people of Libya and Syria, betcha you’ll find they disagree.

The only justified use/purpose of a fire arm is to protect one against a fellow citizen and that doesn't require an armor-piercing, 100 bullets-a-minute type of weapon best suited to sit on a tripod.
Click to expand...

But Thomas Jefferson and I disagree! Our case is well made by the following,

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
 
DamnYankee said:
If you're asking if I follow along with your shtick, then no. Each thread should stand on its own.
Click to expand...

Of course you’ll excuse me for not recognizing you’re the Editor-n-Chief and Critic-Extraordinary for these here forums, right?
 
Classic Liberal said:
On the contrary! If you do your homework, you’ll find that “mass murders” have and do occur in every country on planet earth. Even school shootings in countries with gun prohibitions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
Click to expand...

I was referring to mass murders by government in msg. #4.

Try telling those people in Libya they didn’t need semi-automatic weapons to take back their country. Tell it to the people of Syria and see what they have to say about it.
Click to expand...

Tell it to the people at Wako. Oh, you can't. They were armed. The government simply burnt them alive. Men, women and children, if I recall.

But Thomas Jefferson and I disagree! Our case is well made by the following,

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

That made sense when the people could obtain weapons similar to what the government had.

Let's take a realistic look here. If the US Army can defeat countries that have military weapons surely you are not suggesting a group of people with rifles could defeat the US military. Regardless of what the Constitution says if there was a rebellion within the country the government would deploy the military. It's illogical to assume the government would allow itself to fall because of " some words on a piece of paper".

Look at the Boston terrorist. It was permitted to interrogate him without legal counsel due to a "public safety" exemption. Before 911 who would have thought no right to legal counsel or being locked up without notifying anyone would ever be acceptable? I think people look at the current laws and figure if they had a gun then they would be matched/equal to typical law enforcement but that's not reality. The government will and has in the past changed laws to adapt to the situation.

One weapon that comes to mind is a microwave thingy. It shoots microwaves at people simulating an instant sun burn. I imagine it could be modified to cook terrorists/freedom fighters hiding in a building. And then there's drones. The point being when it reaches a certain level a guy with a rifle is obsolete.

Some have argued the military is composed of citizens similar to the "freedom fighters" and that may be but the government is good at propaganda. It wouldn't take long to turn the majority of the population against them. And then there's the whole idea of a government falling. If we think we have to watch out for terrorists now just imagine a country with no government. Say, like Afghanistan. The southern border would be a joke if the idea was the overthrow the government. Border patrol/customs agents would not be upholding laws decreed by a falling government.

So, what would the people do? Would it be worth removing a tyrannical government while at the same time opening all the borders and letting terrorists run free? Which side is the average citizen going to take?

While the saying, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" may be popular but the reality is quite different. If removing a government means the destruction of the country the government will have to be a very, very, very bad government. Otherwise, the general population will not support such action.
 
Oh goodie! A teabagger wannabe comedian is the best you nincompoops can come up with? Is Uncle Herman his "vertual" VP.

I prefer Vaughn Meader.
 
apple0154 said:
Tell it to the people at Wako. Oh, you can't. They were armed. The government simply burnt them alive. Men, women and children, if I recall.
Click to expand...

But guns don’t guarantee victory, they simply give us a fighting chance at victory and without them our chances are severely limited.





Let's take a realistic look here. If the US Army can defeat countries that have military weapons surely you are not suggesting a group of people with rifles could defeat the US military.
Click to expand...

What’s the size of the group? What are the group’s guerrilla tactics? How much of the US military is sympathetic to the cause of the rebellion? How many other weapons of war might the group procure with the guns they have? Who are the leaders of “the group?”

Oh hell yes! Any government with whatever kind of weapons can be overthrown by an armed rebellion by its citizens. Again I give you Libya. Any army can be defeated by armed rebellion. I remind you of Afghanistan and its rebellious citizen’s victory over the Russians and their ability now to “outlast” the Americans. Do you believe that Afghanistan will ever be ruled by another nation’s government or even an Afghan Central government?

Regardless of what the Constitution says if there was a rebellion within the country the government would deploy the military. It's illogical to assume the government would allow itself to fall because of " some words on a piece of paper".
Click to expand...

The words on the paper are our guarantee of our right of self-protection and the means thereby to procure it. The piece of paper doesn’t guarantee victory or defeat. Victory and defeat are solely dependent on the will and resolve therewith or the lack thereof.

Look at the Boston terrorist. It was permitted to interrogate him without legal counsel due to a "public safety" exemption. Before 911 who would have thought no right to legal counsel or being locked up without notifying anyone would ever be acceptable? I think people look at the current laws and figure if they had a gun then they would be matched/equal to typical law enforcement but that's not reality. The government will and has in the past changed laws to adapt to the situation.
Click to expand...

But y’all “law-lovers” ignore one simple fact, in armed rebellions there is no law. All becomes fair and lawful in war for the victor and all becomes criminal for the loser. Laws are only as good as the ability to enforce them and only enforceable as long as the governed aren’t yet sick of them.

One weapon that comes to mind is a microwave thingy. It shoots microwaves at people simulating an instant sun burn. I imagine it could be modified to cook terrorists/freedom fighters hiding in a building. And then there's drones. The point being when it reaches a certain level a guy with a rifle is obsolete.
Click to expand...

Oh! But the rifle and the pistol armed rebel can procure and or destroy anything that a tyrannical government has. The gorilla warriors with brains, leadership and connections and enough national sympathy and camaraderie can overcome any obstacle including tyrannical BIG intrusive government with all its weapons.

While the saying, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" may be popular but the reality is quite different. If removing a government means the destruction of the country the government will have to be a very, very, very bad government. Otherwise, the general population will not support such action.
Click to expand...

And your guarantee that your own government can’t and won’t become a very, very, very bad government is what? The old saying “it can’t happen here” is for fools and the historical ignorant.

Beside that no saying was ever more truthful than, “outlaw guns and only the government and other outlaws will have guns.”

Government by definition and its very nature is force.

“Government is not reason it is not eloquence, its force like fire a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible actions.” George Washington)
 
Howey said:
Oh goodie! A teabagger wannabe comedian is the best you nincompoops can come up with? Is Uncle Herman his "vertual" VP.

I prefer Vaughn Meader.
Click to expand...

As usual from ole Howey, no rational argument of opposition, just more horseshit!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top