American Patriotism Terrifies me!!

While this entire thread seems to have turned into an attack on Americas Gun policy(? - it aint policy if its enshrined?) let me point something out while this tiring argument seems to be drifting into a whole "if you hate america then get the hell out" kinda bullspit jingoistic crap pile.

1. If your government decided you were in the wrong, you'd lose your gun, freedom, life or all 3.

2. Afghanistan was allowed to happen - we as the rest of the world saw your grief and let you go into that one to soothe the 911 pain.

3. Iraq was a big #up. You argued it. France disagreed with you. I remember seeing McEnroe on letterman while he was sick having a shot at how stupid the french were... apparently the french were right.

4. No, american patriotism doesnt scare me; no more than any other patriotism. What chills me to the bones is Nationalism of any sort... a virtue americans seem to be displaying more and more... along with xenophobia... funny considering that country was built on its immigrant labour like Australia (yeah I like my country... but sorry, i wont go out of my way to argue that my country is right all the time...)

Be well all... dont confuse the patriots with the nazis and the jingos.

Dave

reply to post by awakened1


almost inspirational... but jingoism.... yep it sure is.

Dave

Originally posted by daptodave3. Iraq was a big #up. You argued it. France disagreed with you. I remember seeing McEnroe on letterman while he was sick having a shot at how stupid the french were... apparently the french were right.

I am not a supporter of the Iraqi adventure, but a good rule of thumb is NEVER to use the French to back up your argument, who were up to their nuts in Saddam's regime and were more worried about losing their own lucrative contracts and influence..............

Originally posted by TruthTellist
To those of You in the UK Surveillance Society:

And let's face it; The US Government now tortures children sexually in front of their parents in order to obtain information.

And yet so many Americans are all armed and waiting? Waiting for what exactly?

The Bush administration has used the Patriot Act 1 and 2 aswell as PDD-51 to remove what legal/constitutional protections Americans had left to Ensure their freedom was upheld.

America is under a State of Emergency and has been since 9/11. Continuity of Government plans were implemented on that day also.

And again, just what are armed Americans waiting for exactly? You've got "children sexually in front of their parents in order to obtain information", then a removal of your "constitutional protections". How bad will it have to get?

Here are some examples of what I am referring to:

Google: Bilderberg Group
Google: Alex Jones Bohemian Grove (he exposes them),
Google: NSPDD-51 - this is on the .gov websites
Google: REX- 84, RX 84
Google: Continuity of Government, John Warren Defense Commission -.gov
Google: John Yoo Torture Memo (sexual torture of children authorized)
Google: Patriot Act 1 & 2

Oh, you're telling me more about how bad it's actually got? Not in the future? But now? Again, armed Americans are going on about how they're armed, but what the hell are they waiting for?

Only a Stupid American would refuse to arms themselves under such circumstances.

No, I think a "Stupid American" is better defined as harping on about why they need guns and when it has actually come along, they won't do anything about it.

*Please stop making snide remarks about Americans arming themselves in case of British re-Invasion. We all know full well why Patriots arm themselves.

I'm sorry you have a problem with it, but it's a large part of the context behind why it exists. There's some Americans who are quite pointed (not to mention tedious) about how America 'won' the war of independence and yet, when someone else talks about how the context of subsequent policies and measures that come about as a result of that, it's all 'please stop making snide remarks'? I'm sorry, I should have been aware I was playing a game with 'American rules'. Please, forgive me.

The Human Rights Violations and War Crimes of the Bush Administration did not occur in the years preceding 1776, they are happening now.

Again, it's happening what are they waiting for?

And if you happen to find yourself to be suspected of terrorism, your children can be sexually tortured in front of you until you tell the nice marines what they want to know.

Ah, it's this what it's all about? It can happen to someone's kids, but they're waiting until it's their own before they reach for the safety?

I won't even travel to America, that is how scared I am of their Gestapos the HSD. I don't want to disappear and be tortured for the rest of my life by psychotic American soldiers handpicked for the job. Bush authorized via John Yoo the torture-rape and mutilation of children's genitalia as a method of 'Advanced Interrogation" in front of their parents - so as to better 'persuade' them to reveal pertinent Data.

It is so sick. This Truth is more horrible than anything. It is sanctioned by the Bush Regime.

I don't want to go to any country that does that. It could happen to anyone, and no one would ever know. People would just think I went missing. Nazi Germany didn't even have the courage to advertise their Evil the way NeoCon America does.

You're certainly painting a grim picture of America in 2008.

I hope you can now see why American Patriots choose to keep Arms.

No, if anything, you're post has actually made me question it more. If what you say is right, then all the reasons for them to be arming themselves are actually here and I don't see them being used apart from as 'mugger deterrents'.

It has nothing to do with British Re-Invasion. It has everything to do with the clear and Present danger which the NeoCon Regime Represents - Not King George circa 1776.

I doubt anyone, even me, has seriously suggested that the British will invade. The whole point was about the context, which I think you actually missed.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

reply to post by Merriman Weir


When you say "What are they waiting for?"

Could you please expand on that statement. What is it they should be doing?

Please explain further.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by TruthTellist]

Originally posted by Merriman Weir


How did you manage to eek out that particular nugget from what I actually said? Where did I actually say that I think "that government has the peoples best interests and freedom in mind?" Is that some kind of strawman?

Do you honestly think the infringements upon your freedom and liberties will stop with cameras?

But isn't that the basis and the context of the second amendment though? I don't really remember reading stuff about taking on a muggers on burglars, unless you're raising a standing army to stop someone taking your iPod away.

Yep, you are correct. That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment. history has proven that in every tyrannical state, one of the first steps taken by government is to remove gun ownership rights from the people.

I do not buy guns solely for that purpose, but certain guns I do own have no investment value, nor fun value. They quietly kick back in my safe should the need ever arise for them to be used against government agents.

Maybe, maybe not. However, I think civilians without combat training are deluding themselves with your nightmare scenario. Firstly, if a government wants to take over it's own people by force as a preface to genuine tyranny, then 'rules of engagement' will have gone right out of the window, there's going to no 'fair fight' and if anyone thinks they really can take down the American military with a handgun they are deluded.

One need not take down the entire military to be victorious, only the leadership

For example, inevitably, there's threads on here where people are fairly certain that the American military is the 'biggest, best' and most capable and able to take on any other army in the world. Yet, when it comes down to it, they still won't be able to take on their own civilians with hand guns? The American military is capable of defeating China, Russia &c, but not its own people?

No. The military is not capable of defeating the American people.

Know why? They have never faced the threat of 75 million + pissed off, gun owning Americans.

reply to post by TruthTellist


The OP is saying that American gun owners should be using their weapons to overthrow the government – getting rid of an oppressive govt being the justification for civilian gun ownership in the first place.

Instead, the OP says, the gun owners do nothing. Apparently they are content to buy into the myth of a righteous, heroic need for private gun ownership but the real reasons for private gun ownership are far more mundane and self-serving.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

When you say "What are they waiting for?"

Could you please expand on that statement. What is it they should be doing?

Please explain further.

[edit on 14-10-2008 by TruthTellist]

Well, you paint a nightmare scenario of where the government is actually turning against the people. Surely that's the kind of scenario that the right to bear arms is all about, surely?

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
Do you honestly think the infringements upon your freedom and liberties will stop with cameras?

No, and I've never for one minute suggested that would be the case. For about the last 10 to 15 years, I've firmly believed the British people are sleep-walking into a police state-lite. With each passing year, I become more convinced of it. However, I also believe that other countries, such as America are heading down either the same road or very similar roads.

Where America tends to be different is that armed Americans are very self-assured that it won't happen to them, despite the evidence to the contrary. When Americans have been tested, such as with Katrina, they handed over their weapons. It will happen again.

Yep, you are correct. That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment. history has proven that in every tyrannical state, one of the first steps taken by government is to remove gun ownership rights from the people.

I do not buy guns solely for that purpose, but certain guns I do own have no investment value, nor fun value. They quietly kick back in my safe should the need ever arise for them to be used against government agents.

You might not buy them "solely" for that purpose, but that is the context with which you're granted to the right to bear arms in the first place, isn't it? The fact that you can use them for "fun", "investment" or to repel muggers are bonuses that have come about after the fact?

One need not take down the entire military to be victorious, only the leadership

That's true, but how often do you see politicians or even military leaders on the front lines. People like that don't do their own fighting.

No. The military is not capable of defeating the American people.

Know why? They have never faced the threat of 75 million + pissed off, gun owning Americans.

I'm sorry, but that's a nonsense. You'll have 75 million + pissed off cannon fodder. There's whole threads devoted to the brilliance of the American military on these forums, how fantastic the planes, tanks are not to mention the vast number of threads about weird, exotic weaponry. How about the threads about countless billions going into military black budgets? Are these threads wrong? Is the rest of the world being spun a lie about how great the American military is?

Again, with Katrina, people were asked to hand over their weapons to the police. Are people not going to do the same when asked to do so the military? I said this before, but if the government was to forcefully take over - the context behind the right to bear arms - do you think it's going to be a 'fair fight'? Do you think they're going to give a monkey's about the vast majority of gun owners with little training and very limited fire power and ammunition?

And non-armed Britons need to wake up?

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Where America tends to be different is that armed Americans are very self-assured that it won't happen to them, despite the evidence to the contrary. When Americans have been tested, such as with Katrina, they handed over their weapons. It will happen again.

I don't think it is so much self assured, more that they have a greater chance with armed citizenry than without.

I'm sorry, but that's a nonsense. You'll have 75 million + pissed off cannon fodder. There's whole threads devoted to the brilliance of the American military on these forums, how fantastic the planes, tanks are not to mention the vast number of threads about weird, exotic weaponry. How about the threads about countless billions going into military black budgets? Are these threads wrong? Is the rest of the world being spun a lie about how great the American military is?

the American military is the most technologically advanced, that is not even up for debate- however, as is shown in Afghanistan the terrain and more importantly, the WILL might not be there to fully use it. By the same token a well armed population in their towns and cities would be no easy thing to deal with, no matter what technology you come up with- additionally I doubt the will would be there to exterminate 75 million americans. My doubt is one thing, but the fact that there are such armed numbers is a great deterrent for leaders getting the wrong idea.

Nothing is perfect, but they are in a better position than we would be in the UK, no matter how futile you feel it is.

Additionally, the defence against criminals is a top notch "bonus", I like such "bonuses"




[edit on 14-10-2008 by blueorder]

reply to post by Merriman Weir


I believe the American people are beginning to open their eyes for once and realize whats going on. That being said, I truly do not feel that all of them could mobilize and be willing to take action.

After Katrina, you do know what happened when people ignored being "asked" to turn in their guns dont you?

Government agents went door to door searching for guns. IMO, the reason so many didnt fight is pretty simple: New Orleans is pretty much a welfare city, people rely on government way too much and willingly bend over and grease up when the government tells them too.

Do you think the same thing would happen in Texas?

I am not granted the right to keep and bear arms, I am born with it.

huge difference

I don't really have to: my parent were born in Wales and I grew-up in my Welsh grandfather's house.

Yours is only one perspective.

If you're really interested in English patriotism, you must be aware of the current writing and discussion on how, whilst Irish, Scots and Welsh identity and patriotism is fostered but, English patriotism and identity has been to a large extent lost.

Sad, in my opinion.

I'm not really sure where anyone in this thread is talking about an English patriotism, as far as I'm aware, you're the first to bring it up.

Only because I felt the OP was being a little hypocritical about American patriotism when my experience has been that people I have met from other countries and cultures are patriotic as well, although it appears to be fading in modern times with the advent of the Globalist agenda, something I detest.

However, what I'm not a big fan of is people trying to carry grudges over 200, 300, or even 400 years.

I don't have a grudge against the English people or any other people for that matter. However, in the 4 years I served in the U.S. Navy, I did personally experience a smidgen of English arrogance and superiority that colors my attitude to this day. I ask your forgiveness for my inability to dismiss it easily.

Originally posted by blueorder
I don't think it is so much self assured, more that they have a greater chance with armed citizenry than without.

Greater chance? Perhaps, but good chance? I doubt it.

the American military is the most technologically advanced, that is not even up for debate- however, as is shown in Afghanistan the terrain and more importantly, the WILL might not be there to fully use it. By the same token a well armed population in their towns and cities would be no easy thing to deal with, no matter what technology you come up with- additionally I doubt the will would be there to exterminate 75 million americans. My doubt is one thing, but the fact that there are such armed numbers is a great deterrent for leaders getting the wrong idea.

I appreciate your point, but the massive difference is that, generally Afghanistan is fairly unique or at least different. America, generally doesn't offer the same terrain problems that Afghanistan did. yes, you've got swamps and you've got mountains &c, but by and large, any conflict potential conflict between the people against the government/military will be in urban areas.

As for the urban conflict that Americans and other countries are participating in now elsewhere, they are bound by various conventions with the rest of the world watching on the sidelines. They're fighting a war with their hands tied behind their backs. If it was a no holds barred conflict - which it would be if it had got to the stage the government had physically turned on the people - a lot of those problems wouldn't exist. To put it bluntly, I doubt they'd give a #.

As for the government not getting the wrong idea? Hmm, the idea of an American armed populace is hardly preventing them from screwing them 'til Tuesday at the moment is it? And it will get worse. So, again, at what point will Americans who are so very proud of their right to bear arms actually use them?

Nothing is perfect, but they are in a better position than we would be in the UK, no matter how futile you feel it is.

I'm not disputing this: theoretically you are in a better position. However, I'm disputing how realistic this is when it comes to the push.

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar

I believe the American people are beginning to open their eyes for once and realize whats going on. That being said, I truly do not feel that all of them could mobilize and be willing to take action.

After Katrina, you do know what happened when people ignored being "asked" to turn in their guns dont you?

Government agents went door to door searching for guns. IMO, the reason so many didnt fight is pretty simple: New Orleans is pretty much a welfare city, people rely on government way too much and willingly bend over and grease up when the government tells them too.

Yes, I know what happened in Katrina, that's actually been the point I've been arguing about! As to the point about 'welfare', that maybe the case, I'm certainly not arguing with that. But what about the other poorer cities? What's to stop them going in the same manner? The raised army is getting smaller, and the smaller it gets, the less appealing the proposition becomes. I know the fight to the last man standing is very romantic and that, but it's a numbers game, the smaller the remaining number, the more likely that the resolve will break. The opposite of 'strength in numbers'.

Do you think the same thing would happen in Texas?

I don't know. I know the idea of an independent Texas is a very popular one, so I'm more inclined to believe the idea that Texas would fight for independence rather than for America.

I am not granted the right to keep and bear arms, I am born with it.

huge difference

Not really, you're only 'born with it' because the right to bear arms has been granted in the first place. Remove that and your kids or grand-kids are going to be born with nothing.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


"I'm not disputing this: theoretically you are in a better position. However, I'm disputing how realistic this is when it comes to the push. "

I think you have been 'projecting' throughout this thread.

Most people are cowards, but some aren't. Are you?

I'm being serious, do you fight or do you run in a confrontation? (unarmed of course)

There are over 10 million vets in the USA right now. You are totally and completely discounting those discharged soldiers.

You are also forgetting the millions of militiamen in the U.S.

They are also Patriotic, in that they are Loyal to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


Actually everyone is born with that right, it is government that takes it away.

Government is exponentially more harmful than it is worthwhile. Blood running through the streets of DC could only be viewed as a good thing.

Originally posted by DisgustedOne

Yours is only one perspective.

What, so it doesn't count? You asked me to ask the Welsh, the Irish or the Scots for their perspective, so why does theirs count and mine doesn't? How does that work? Isn't their perspective only one perspective too?

Sad, in my opinion.

Maybe so, but all the current writing on the subject does actually undermine the idea of English patriotism being the issue that you're suggesting. Seriously, the British internal relationships are far more complicated that non-British think and certainly not as cut-and-dried as Americans thing. For example, 'West Lothian question'

Only because I felt the OP was being a little hypocritical about American patriotism when my experience has been that people I have met from other countries and cultures are patriotic as well, although it appears to be fading in modern times with the advent of the Globalist agenda, something I detest.

I don't see anything hypocritical in what the OP did at all. If he was complaining about vociferous and excluding American patriotism but then was equally vociferous and excluding in English patriotism, then perhaps. I've yet to see him personally be hypocritical and I don't think he's denying that other countries aren't patriotic either. I think, to various degrees all countries have at least some patriotism, however, as I've pointed out elsewhere in the thread, I think America's take on patriotism is fairly unique in the Western world. Again, for clarification, I say that more as an observation rather than a criticism.

I don't have a grudge against the English people or any other people for that matter. However, in the 4 years I served in the U.S. Navy, I did personally experience a smidgen of English arrogance and superiority that colors my attitude to this day. I ask your forgiveness for my inability to dismiss it easily.

Well, I didn't have to join the armed forces to experience American arrogance! I'm not saying only Americans are arrogant by any means, as arrogant swines come from every country, and I'm not saying all Americans are arrogant either, but I've seen American arrogance on every internet community I've ever been a part of.

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by Merriman Weir

 

"I'm not disputing this: theoretically you are in a better position. However, I'm disputing how realistic this is when it comes to the push. "

I think you have been 'projecting' throughout this thread.

Most people are cowards, but some aren't. Are you?

I'm being serious, do you fight or do you run in a confrontation? (unarmed of course).

I don't want to give the impression of not answering this fairly heavy accusation but I will point out that I'm replying to this via U2U.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Greater chance? Perhaps, but good chance? I doubt it.

tens of million armed citizens is formidable

I appreciate your point, but the massive difference is that, generally Afghanistan is fairly unique or at least different. America, generally doesn't offer the same terrain problems that Afghanistan did. yes, you've got swamps and you've got mountains &c, but by and large, any conflict potential conflict between the people against the government/military will be in urban areas.

which brings a different, but arguably equally (if not more) setting to conduct a war

As for the urban conflict that Americans and other countries are participating in now elsewhere, they are bound by various conventions with the rest of the world watching on the sidelines. They're fighting a war with their hands tied behind their backs. If it was a no holds barred conflict - which it would be if it had got to the stage the government had physically turned on the people - a lot of those problems wouldn't exist. To put it bluntly, I doubt they'd give a #.

It wouldn't be as simple as that though, as the soldiers would be fighting their "own" (could even be family members) and that is a big disuasive factor- as are millions of armed citizens

As for the government not getting the wrong idea? Hmm, the idea of an American armed populace is hardly preventing them from screwing them 'til Tuesday at the moment is it? And it will get worse. So, again, at what point will Americans who are so very proud of their right to bear arms actually use them?

Whilst I detest the surveillance society at present in the UK (as Im sure it is in the US) we are not even remotely close to a situation where armed insurrection is necessary. As bad as it is in the US, I dont think by and large people are being screwed til Tuesday, although certainly the direction is not good.

At what point? Who knows, things would need to get a lot worse and who knows what sort of catalyst could spark such an event

I'm not disputing this: theoretically you are in a better position. However, I'm disputing how realistic this is when it comes to the push.

I would suggest in a good position, basically because of two factors

a) an armed citizenry
b) it would be american soldiers having to fight their "own", which would undoutedly ruffle a few feathers and affect "will"

this is what your guns are doing

guns needed?



you must protect your rights so that you can carry guns because you need em,

fools, when you live in a society without guns you will understand