It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Virginia: The People vs The Authoritarian Democrats

page: 11
58
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Legal orders.

Is being ordered to fire upon citizens practicing their Constitutionally protected rights a legal order??

I doubt it. More than one soldier, marine, airman, and sailor would probably agree with me. Many more than one.




posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Is not.. is.. is this.. You sound pathetic, and obviously you never served in the US military.



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsukoI think we are close here Ket.

I think you are right, it's a small scale MAD. Interesting because I had never thought of that angle before this morning, and then you describe it that way. Neat.

I think that the real establishment wants guns because it keeps the illusion going that we protect ourselves and our freedoms with them. I just don't believe it is true beyond it being an illusion. It keeps some people feeling safe when in reality we are losing freedoms that the second cannot protect.

I think that there are those who knee jerk want to dismantle the second while at the same time knee jerk defend it. To me it's a red herring.

I think that their hope is that support for the second will wither away over the next generation. Meanwhile those freedoms that it cannot protect will have been lost because we were so focused on that specific right that the ''end run'' on freedom went unnoticed.



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I don't disagree with that seagull, it would definitely tear apart our military. Some would as you say while others I think would not be a forthright. Maybe it's just my cynic that sees it that way but I don't place that much faith in all our soldiers being that insightful.



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AutomateThis1

I get that you do not like to discuss with pathetic people who never served in the military. I guess you have. Does that make you superior and your perspective so sound that you just dismiss any pour bastard who doesn't have your experiences as inferior?



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Thing is that when you come right down to it if an armed conflict between the government and the citizens were ever to break out, there is a lot more to factor in than simply matching straight up firepower to firepower.

For example, take a look at the electoral map and how much of the country tends to vote in sympathy with more conservative/libertarian leaning pols (or in this case in sympathy with the 2nd and the COTUS). Any successful armed force would have to quell and control all of that territory while controlling all of their own in order to fully put down a rebellion. Otherwise, a committed rebellion could simply move from place to place for a long time especially if a significant portion of the population, while not in active rebellion, is sympathetic to them.

That's how the Colonists won against England, and they didn't necessarily have equal or superior firepower.

But if all it takes is superior weaponry, there's no reason on earth why Afghanistan hasn't been conquered at least several times over by now.



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

As I said in the post just before, if it was to go down, the entire state(s) would go down for restructuring/reorganization. That means federal, state and local support systems for the individuals that need them are going to go down as well. Charities might still continue. I mean for all the boogie man grumblings about Freemasonry, few know that some groups deliver groceries (usually free) to home bound elderly women every month. Several church groups do so as well.

As for buying tanks, bazookas, flamethrowers, etc. there really is no need to do so. Do you honestly think such equipment would not be liberated at some point?

Here is the thing about freedom. You understand and respect the reality that you may need to armed for your own common defense for whatever reason. You may not have any hesitation about collectors or target shooters that represent zero danger to the public at large (which is the group I fall mostly within btw). Or even hunters, despite your personal opinion of that activity, so long as they are safe and responsible.

Would a civilian firearm ever be pressed into ad hoc service? Always possible. Would I want it to be used as such? No, but begrudgingly acknowledge it. Is it the best tool for the job? Of course not, but beats having nothing else. But just as freedom of speech means someone can use it for derogatory reasons, denying all speech to everyone to lower the odds of being offended is not a free society by any stretch of the imagination.

Take ATS as an example. We do not allow hate speech and will remove it as encountered. Even ban membership with minimal discussion if particularly bad. But every one still has the chance to speak freely despite that risk. Why must firearm ownership be different?



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

The obvious answer you'll get is that words don't kill, of course. But the way certain leftists carry on, words are now equated with physical violence and considered in some circles to be the excuse for retaliation with such, so the difference in reasoning narrows all the time.



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No, words don’t kill. But they can incite.



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

They can, but we pretty quickly start walking into awful gray territory when we start controlling speech and what can be said and penalizing speech based on what might be incited. That's a rabbit hole a lot of little authoritarians would love to start jumping down.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Your understanding here is realistic to me. The analogy at the end of what you point out though fits with how I see the second amendment.

My position to this question is that the notion of defending the second on the grounds that it is a deterrent to government overreach is a bluff. Ketsuko in another reply interestingly suggests that it really is a small scale MAD or cold war stand off. I find this a reasonable perspective.

As you point out at the top of your reply, should an armed revolt kick in, it would within a short time bring about a shut down of vital resources for those that need them and then federal state and local municipalities would need to be restructured. This would not be pretty at all and likely not only comfort levels but more, survival levels would be greatly challenged.

What would rise from those ashes would likely not be what any of us want, don't you think? As the rest of the world continues, could the US go down for a decade, restructuring and recuperating and still survive as a place we would want to be? Me, I could see a total dissolving of the union into smaller geographic areas, none of which could likely survive on their own economically. That just makes no sense to me. Hence, armed conflict against the government would be a no win equation. To me, only a mad man would play into that scenario.

So yes, I think we should keep our guns for a number of the reasons you point out. I want mine for those reasons as well. However, once we take the fighting against the government out of the equation, then who needs the more powerful weaponry that is constantly being developed and SOLD to us. In defending our rights to have our own weapons for our own reasons to the degree of allowing these advanced weapons to end up in the hands of mad men when we ourselves to not need them are we not just continuing the very reasons the anti second protesters cite?

So yes, ATS does not allow hate speech (military weapons) and needs to be checked while at the same time we still need to allow free speech (our normal weapons for personal safety and sport)



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Legal orders.

Is being ordered to fire upon citizens practicing their Constitutionally protected rights a legal order??

I doubt it. More than one soldier, marine, airman, and sailor would probably agree with me. Many more than one.


Many of us do. This is something the Left doesn't understand about the military. They think we're all a bunch of mindless idiots that have to do whatever we're told. If mass-scale gun confiscation was ever ordered, most of the military would not comply. All the leftist fantasies about the military wiping out all the right-wingers, not gonna happen. Most of the military would side with the gun owners.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: face23785

Man oh man. You extrapolate oddles from my one little line there don't you. I replied to a poster who had mentioned what the writers of the second contemplated. And while surely tech advanced from what was used in the war, it still was the main weaponry that was used during it. And even as they could guess that weaponry would become more deadly I have serious doubts that they could have imagined weapons of mass destruction in the hands of one person capable of killing a hundred perople inside of a minute. Do you disagree with that?


I don't have to extrapolate anything, it's not like I've never seen you on here before. You're here calling a rifle a "weapon of mass destruction." That just shows how grossly ill-informed you are and how badly you just want to push propaganda rather than have a real, honest discussion about the subject matter. So congrats, you're part of the problem. People like you distract from any real, meaningful conversation because you're more interested in a political agenda than you are in actually solving anything. And then you think you sound smart.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I commend you for not falling for the trap laid out.

No one should contemplate armed revolt. They should never be placed into a position of having to contemplate armed revolt. However the second amendment has not been followed adamantly. Which has only led to further abandonment. Until we have encountered this touchstone event which may require judicious enforcement.

And I say this not with a bloodcurdling rebel yell, but from a more objective position of if we cannot define “shall not infringe” then what hope do we have against a more nebulous “cruel and unusual punishment” from an all encompassing grab for power?

But in every anti-second argument, it is rare to nonexistent that anyone brings up that maintaining a standing army at the state or federal level is absolutely unconstitutional yet continues. That the defense of the nation was supposed to be left to the people, which in the modern day would absolutely require modern arms to suppress an invasion. That this was not a duty shirked by the people but stripped from them by color of law with no recourse.

edit on 1-1-2020 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

See? There you go again, extrapolating oddles believing that ''people like me''. Or is it people you don't like who you think I am one of.... As well, you think that I call a rifle a weapon of mass destruction. Not a rifle, I have rifles. I do not have a machine that will spray hundreds of bullets into a crowd within a minute. THAT is what I would call mass destruction. What would you call it...

Do you own one of those? Do you think you will ever use it on a crowd of people. Or ever have the need? You want meaningful dialogue? Well let's do it. Answer some questions ok? Why do you defend the sale and purchase of weapons that can kill dozens and dozens of people in a minute or so to be readily available to people who will and do use them on innocent citizens? Let's get meaningful here if that is what you really are after.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Neither of us was alive in those revolutionary times. Neither of us has a level of consciousness that is on a par with those times either. What we have in the way of understanding the mentality of those times is far removed in time and conditions which are so paramount in the development of consciousness.

Personally I love the idea of citizens defending ourselves, yet that idealistic idea was based upon those past gone times.
When the constitution was written all the authors were not in unison. There were those who wanted this and those who wanted that. There were compromises and there were agreements. And though the second was so adamantly written, it is clear that it was as you point out, not followed with the same adamancy. It has morphed as the need for defense, both foreign and domestic has increased. Increased due to not only tech advances, but as well the advances in the wealth to be achieved here.

I think my whole point is that we do not live in those times. We live now and things are greatly different. What I do not want is to have your guns taken from you just as I do not want mine taken from me. What I would like to see is what could be considered by most to be sensible laws on weapons that find their way into the hands of those who would use them on innocent civilains.

Honestly Ala, I see that in the defense of the second, those of us who have no intention of using weapons like that, yet in our concern that our weapons will be taken from us defend so adamantly and idealistically that the excessive availability to fall into the hands of those who will and do use them is not curtailed at all.

Will more laws work? Likely not but we could try. I think they would work better if we did not hold so strongly to idealistic interpretaions of the second. Sorry if I have failed in expressing myself here well enough. I don't want to give up my pieces and I don't fear that I will have to. Again, my greater concern is that while we spend so much time and energy on defending the second, we are loosing freedoms behind our backs that the second could never help to protect.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

They would at first, anyway.

They'd soon learn the error of their ways...too late, probably, but they'd learn.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Not insightful?

Why? They are not, contrary to what seems to be a growing belief among some, mindless robots.

The US military today is better educated than it's ever been--sort of has to be, given the level of technology, and the situations in which they find themselves.

Many, if not most, have at least some college education, and the training for their various jobs would qualify in most respects.

Every former, or active, soldier I've ever known is fully capable of insight.



posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: tanstaafl
I used to believe this idea that our right to bear arms is constitutionally protected so as to protect us from an overly zealous government. As well I still believe that that was valid, then and for a long while since the framing. However now I find it a futile exercise to believe that we can protect ourselves from the modern weaponry that has been developed.

Whether or not this was the purpose is not subject to debate. The Founders made this crystal clear in all of the debates surrounding the creation and adoption of the Constitution.

If you don't believe that it is still relevant today in the age of modern weaponry, you are not thinking things through.

First, a large portion of our Nations military would not just blindly obey orders to blatantly violate the Constitution. In reality a substantial minority would immediately defect to the side of the Citizens under certain conditions (e.g., if they were ordered to confiscate all weapons from private Citizens in blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment). Some I(I would hope) would do their duty and shoot the officer who gave them such a blatantly treasonous order.,

Second - see recent wars for historical reference as to the difficulty in fighting entrenched guerillas. It would not be the cakewalk as you seem to think.


The only way that could happen would be the big IF that you describe above, that citizens could own and operate their own tanks and RPGs and what ever else they deemed necessary to defending themselves from that government.

The National Guard has some, but obviously not enough or the most modern, but again, see above.

Again - a substantial percentage of the military, complete with the arms and equipment they control, would be on our side.



posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

You are right or it won't matter one flip. IF they are not on our side, we are toast. ONLY chance then will be if we confiscate and properly operate various components of the war machines our citizenship taxes paid for to defend us.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join