The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-08-2013, 02:30 PM   #226
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
Are those in the military not also "the people"?
Which makes the right-wing argument absurd,they are essentially are advocating turning against our own people.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 02:46 PM   #227
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,185

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Which makes the right-wing argument absurd,they are essentially are advocating turning against our own people.
It's a little more complex than that. I don't understand why it is so utterly unfathomable that a people successfully resist tyranny from a government or larger more powerful military. Revolutionary War, Soviet/Afghan War for examples. Yes, in each the weaker force was assisted by a larger but who's to say it can't happen? A civilian force fighting for freedom has more to lose than a corrupt government thus will fight harder. Add to that my point on the military also being of the people, many but not all would shift sides (national guard/reserve units). Now if you disarm the people, there is no hope.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 02:55 PM   #228
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
It's a little more complex than that. I don't understand why it is so utterly unfathomable that a people successfully resist tyranny from a government or larger more powerful military. Revolutionary War, Soviet/Afghan War for examples. Yes, in each the weaker force was assisted by a larger but who's to say it can't happen? A civilian force fighting for freedom has more to lose than a corrupt government thus will fight harder. Add to that my point on the military also being of the people, many but not all would shift sides (national guard/reserve units). Now if you disarm the people, there is no hope.
I don't understand the delusion some on the right have about some fantasy that tyranny is at our doorstep or is around the corner. When all that is happening is that the right-wing is no longer the majority in the country. Our entire system of gov. Would have to be abolished & moved into a dictatorship for tyranny to truly happen. We have a house of reps,senate & scotus to prevent tyranny from happening.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 03:30 PM   #229
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 
Fun at the range MAR 2014

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 9,248

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
Are those in the military not also "the people"?
I'm sure some would have conflict of emotions but in their training they do go over scenarios where martial law is declared. Obviously I think a soldier is loyal to his family 1st and foremost but after that it's to the service, not strangers they would not even know, even if they are Americans.
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 03:53 PM   #230
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
To the extent that there have been struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq, those have not been due to armed individuals. It's been the result of armed, organized, and well-trained groups. No such groups exist in the U.S., and they won't sprout spontaneously if needed.
I think we had this argument before, and if I remember right, credible estimates put insurgency strength in Afghanistan as something like 10-15,000. Insignificant. If the federal government decided to go house to house taking weapons in the United States, you'd have far more current and former military-trained fighters alone who would take up arms. Many States themselves would likely resist as well, as would many of their local arms of law enforcement.

The federal government could order such a thing. But they have no realistic means to carry it out.

Quote:
FYP.

By the way, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams would probably give you two different responses if you asked them about "foundational principle," and Ben Franklin a third still. The Founders weren't some monolithic bloc sharing the same opinions on all subjects anymore than politicians today are. For anyone to appeal to "foundational principle" or the "intent of the Founders" is nothing more than self-serving rhetoric; it's not historical.
Please. "They didn't agree 100% on absolutely everything, therefore whatever I want their document to say, it can say"

You might not find a single Constitutional topic on which there was more agreement than the importance of an armed populace as a check on their government. If you've found citations to the contrary, please feel free to share. I've asked for this before and have yet to see a single example.

In the meantime, as I've said before, you no longer have any basis to call Separation of Church and State a Constitutional principle. That was thrown out one time by exactly one founding father, while there was far wider disagreement on what exactly freedom of religion really meant in practice.


Quote:
Carte blanche? No, and neither do you (and, more importantly, neither does the Supreme Court). The problem is, the Founders had something different in mind when discussing "arms" in the 18th century. For anyone to try and pretend to know what the opinions of the Founders would be regarding arms in the 21st century is ludicrous. They formulated 18th century solutions to their 18th century problems. The constitution isn't Holy Writ; it's chock full of anachronisms. That's why Jefferson said the constitution should be ripped up and rewritten every 20 years.
Which is why core principles matter as much (if not more) as literal interpretation.

The 2nd Amendment was written as a check on federal power. It's absurd to then argue that the supposed supremacy of federal power renders the issue moot. In the context of the clear intent of the Constitutional contract that joins our States, the 2nd Amendment is needed now more than ever. Any effort to further encumber it should be resisted.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 04:01 PM   #231
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZONA View Post
I'm sure some would have conflict of emotions but in their training they do go over scenarios where martial law is declared. Obviously I think a soldier is loyal to his family 1st and foremost but after that it's to the service, not strangers they would not even know, even if they are Americans.
Well in their Oath, their first allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States. The idea that our predominately Red-State military would blindly carry out Blue State orders against Red State civil liberty is interesting. Not realistic, but interesting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 04:15 PM   #232
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Well in their Oath, their first allegiance is to the Constitution of the United States. The idea that our predominately Red-State military would blindly carry out Blue State orders against Red State civil liberty is interesting. Not realistic, but interesting.
1st it isn't a red state military,it's the US military. 2nd they also swear to follow the orders of the president,not any given governor of a state. 3rd if this scenario even happened it would be cuz one or more red states decided to violate the constitution & tried to succeed. So our military if were to take the red states side would by definition be committing treason.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 04:47 PM   #233
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,185

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
1st it isn't a red state military,it's the US military. 2nd they also swear to follow the orders of the president,not any given governor of a state. 3rd if this scenario even happened it would be cuz one or more red states decided to violate the constitution & tried to succeed. So our military if were to take the red states side would by definition be committing treason.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 04:48 PM   #234
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,185

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZONA View Post
I'm sure some would have conflict of emotions but in their training they do go over scenarios where martial law is declared. Obviously I think a soldier is loyal to his family 1st and foremost but after that it's to the service, not strangers they would not even know, even if they are Americans.
Country before government.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 04:53 PM   #235
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Somehow I'm not surprised.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 04:55 PM   #236
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
Country before government.
We the people are the country & we the people are the government. One & the same.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 05:44 PM   #237
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE???

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,185

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
We the people are the country & we the people are the government. One & the same.
Not anymore.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 07:24 PM   #238
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Funny that you bring up SCOTUS,considering they ruled guns can be regulated,including the ban of certain guns.
the same people who brought you the Dred Scott decision ......

like I said they don't always make the right decision
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 07:35 PM   #239
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
Are those in the military not also "the people"?
there's a reason why the oath a military man takes is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign or domestic.

Domestic enemies could include our own government and lawmakers ..... not to mention many of the current law abiding gun owners in America are former military members who know to organize a plan train andhow to use the equipment.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 08:39 PM   #240
ZONA
Ring of Famer
 
ZONA's Avatar
 
Fun at the range MAR 2014

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 9,248

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
there's a reason why the oath a military man takes is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign or domestic.

Domestic enemies could include our own government and lawmakers ..... not to mention many of the current law abiding gun owners in America are former military members who know to organize a plan train andhow to use the equipment.
Would not matter if they were former Navy seals. The president would declare martial law and with that any means necessary to secure the government. They would have a hard time organizing when the government turned off cell phone and internet satellites. In fact, it could be harder to organize then it would have been 200 years ago. They were not reliant on the internet and phones back then and they had means to organize where as now days, those other means are not practiced, there's no real structure in place for that.

Regardless - nobody could predict how something like that would turn out. It would be pure chaos. The closest thing we have as an example would be what the Nazi party did in Germany. This isn't some ragged 3rd world country with a few jets, a battleship maybe and everybody carrying an AK. Our government would have all the advantages. Satellites, CIA and FBI intelligence, weapons galore.

What's funny to me is that most die hard Repubs are for more military spending and making the military even bigger. We all already know how big and strong it is now. But the die hard Repubs on the other hand want to have means to "counter act" as somebody said before, our own military.

You can't have it both ways. Our military is already so big and so powerful there's nothing "the people" could do if martial law was enforced.

Gimmie a break. AR-15's, glocks and some pepper spray against missiles, fighter jets, apache's, drones and probably some secret ass **** we never even heard of before.
ZONA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 08:58 PM   #241
ghwk
Ring of Famer
 
ghwk's Avatar
 
DOUBLE JESUS MUTHER EFFERS!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,301

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Von Be Smokin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
It's a little more complex than that. I don't understand why it is so utterly unfathomable that a people successfully resist tyranny from a government or larger more powerful military. Revolutionary War, Soviet/Afghan War for examples. Yes, in each the weaker force was assisted by a larger but who's to say it can't happen? A civilian force fighting for freedom has more to lose than a corrupt government thus will fight harder. Add to that my point on the military also being of the people, many but not all would shift sides (national guard/reserve units). Now if you disarm the people, there is no hope.
Who in Gods name is talking about disarming the people? Where is this delusion coming from?
ghwk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 09:44 PM   #242
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghwk View Post
Who in Gods name is talking about disarming the people? Where is this delusion coming from?
Exactly. It's why you can't anything they say serious.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 08:08 AM   #243
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZONA View Post
Would not matter if they were former Navy seals. The president would declare martial law and with that any means necessary to secure the government. They would have a hard time organizing when the government turned off cell phone and internet satellites. In fact, it could be harder to organize then it would have been 200 years ago. They were not reliant on the internet and phones back then and they had means to organize where as now days, those other means are not practiced, there's no real structure in place for that.
Come now. The President couldn't manage to lock down a White House social mixer, let alone a national superpower.

You invest far far too much power in the Presidency. He possesses no internet or telco network kill switch. Many of those can operate fairly autonomously without any help or connection to the world outside.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 09:48 AM   #244
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,343
Default

The right keep shooting themselves in the foot.They are going to stop a vote on gun legislation. More filibusters, more obstrucionism.What are they scared of?Expect a resounding ass kicking in next year's elections.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:00 AM   #245
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
the same people who brought you the Dred Scott decision ......

like I said they don't always make the right decision
You may not agree with all the decisions scotus makes,I don't agree with all them either. At the end of the day they have the final say on what's constitutional and what isn't. Not you or me.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:01 AM   #246
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
there's a reason why the oath a military man takes is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign or domestic.

Domestic enemies could include our own government and lawmakers ..... not to mention many of the current law abiding gun owners in America are former military members who know to organize a plan train andhow to use the equipment.
They also,in that same oath,swear to follow the orders of the president.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:03 AM   #247
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
Not anymore.
Always has been. your side of the aisle being in the minority,doesn't change that.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:50 AM   #248
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Police chiefs are politicians appointed by politicians. Sheriffs are locally elected police officers who have spent their careers on the streets.

See the ideological difference?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 10:57 AM   #249
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
The right keep shooting themselves in the foot.They are going to stop a vote on gun legislation. More filibusters, more obstrucionism.What are they scared of?Expect a resounding ass kicking in next year's elections.
What I find most amusing is how liberals had their asses kicked in the Heller decision and they won't admit it. Further, I'm tickled to no end that they've had to admit the legitimacy of home defense laws and conceal carry laws - both of which most liberals and liberal legislators fought tooth and nail against from the get-go with alarmist fearmongering such as Wild West imagery and aren't man enough to admit these alarmist scenarios never happened once these laws were passed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 11:01 AM   #250
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
What I find most amusing is how liberals had their asses kicked in the Heller decision and they won't admit it. Further, I'm tickled to no end that they've had to admit the legitimacy of home defense laws and conceal carry laws - both of which most liberals and liberal legislators fought tooth and nail against from the get-go with alarmist fearmongering such as Wild West imagery and aren't man enough to admit these alarmist scenarios never happened once these laws were passed.
It's the Heller decision that ruled that guns can be regulated,including the banning of certain guns. Hell it was your boy scalia who wrote it.
Quote:
3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)
DC at the time had a ban on owning handguns,and was rightfully overruled by scotus. Along with that ruling came this.

Last edited by peacepipe; 04-09-2013 at 11:07 AM..
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Denver Broncos