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



Poll: Does an armed society deter assault and murder?
Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.
Poll Options
Does an armed society deter assault and murder?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-25-2013, 09:34 AM   #51
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,743

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

Monkeys? Ah, no.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 09:38 AM   #52
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
Yes, yes it was. And still is. But there was (and still is) a veneer of tolerance and acceptance painted over it.

Again: do you think people have fundamentally changed recently? Did someone wave their magic PC wand and automagically banish antisemitism, racism and bigotry?

Or are we still nasty monkeys under the skin - still struggling to du reds primal urges to mistrust and fear "Other"?
Absolutely. And the Germans feel the same way, which is why they have enacted laws that define certain rights.

I feel it is perfectly reasonable to revisit and/or re-assess all of our rights at any time. The founding fathers felt this way, as well, and gave us ways to change, repeal, and interpret them. Hell, as has been stated before, Beavis' hero T-Jeff proposed the Constitution be re-written every 19 years.

Additionally, if there is a violent insurrection in this country, it won't be at the hands of the liberals who "want your guns". It will come from some right winger who has, as you have clearly pointed out, convinced people like txtebow, Meck, DramaLlama, cut, errand and Dr. Broncenstein that a certain ethnicity or culture wants to take away their rights. You can see the writing on the wall in their very posts in several of the threads over the past few months. The language they use in those threads is eerily similar to the writings I had to read during my graduate coursework at MSU. Little wonder I respond to their posts with such animosity. People like them are the cause of societal collapse, not the people they victimize.

Edit: Oh, and Pony Boy. Forgot about him.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 09:38 AM   #53
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,649

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post


What an unarmed citizenry might look like when dealing with a suddenly tyrannical government.
The same scenario could be applied to the unarmed citizens of South Africa during Apartheid.

Last edited by Pony Boy; 11-02-2013 at 05:28 PM..
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 09:41 AM   #54
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,976

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Can I piggyback on this question?

No one has yet been able to answer (in fact no one has even addressed) the question I've posed several times, which is, if the intent of the founding fathers (again, treating as if they're some monolithic body with one pervading view) when they passed the Second Amendment in 1791 was to have an armed populace that could raise up in rebellion to tyranny, why did those same founding fathers then proceed to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794?

Was their intent just to set up some epic duel? Was it an 18th Century form of a sequester?

I still wonder why, again, given the fact that the founding fathers acted directly against what they had been fighting for only years before, given that many of them were well versed in both legal language as well as etymology language history, given that militias were how the American Revolution was fought and won, and given that, particularly in political discourse, "state" does not always mean "former colony", they chose to put the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" at the very beginning. Surely no one is going to argue that word placement doesn't matter in the English language...they haven't stopped teaching that in schools, have they?
As long as we're piggybacking. Can any of the gun worshipers here explain, in 18th century context, what a 'well regulated militia' means? Hint: The term "regulated" has changed meaning (in common usage) a lot in the last couple centuries.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 09:43 AM   #55
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 983

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Houghtam, you're absolutely right. The intent of 2 was principally to establish the rights of the state to regulate militias, not the other way around. Most of the founders didn't want the ongoing expense of maintaining a standing army.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 09:45 AM   #56
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 983

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Requiem View Post
Monkeys? Ah, no.
Ok - apes.

But nasty monkey just has a nice ring to it.
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 10:22 AM   #57
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,976

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 10:42 AM   #58
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 983

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 11:06 AM   #59
BroncsRule
Perennial Pro-bowler
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 983

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Can I piggyback on this question?

(if their intent) when they passed the Second Amendment in 1791 was to have an armed populace that could raise up in rebellion to tyranny, why did those same founding fathers then proceed to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794?
Obviously, they did not consider themselves tyrants. But then tyrants rarely do.

Last edited by BroncsRule; 03-25-2013 at 11:54 AM..
BroncsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 11:25 AM   #60
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,976

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

The government has these:










amongst many other weapons system far more expensive than normal citizens can afford -- even if it were legal to posses such items.

Do you really think they give a **** if you have one of these?:



Do you really think you're going to win a war against the full might of the U.S. Army by relying on strength of arms? Has any "grass roots" revolution been successful when the rebellion tried to fight with strength of arms alone?

The answer is no. The only way to successfully fight an overwhelming superior force is through unconventional tactics and strategy (i.e. "terrorist" tactics), forging alliances (i.e. France in the Rev. War), or convincing defection of actual military units (e.g. the Civil War).

The government doesn't give one rats ass about how many AR-15s are out there. A bunch of rednecks armed with them are exactly zero threat against the U.S. Military.

Last edited by Fedaykin; 03-25-2013 at 11:29 AM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 11:26 AM   #61
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncsRule View Post
Obviously, thy did not consider themselves tyrants. But then tyrants rarely do.
But they had to have known that there would come a time when someone would want to fight back. They talked about it a lot.

So why then give someone a right to fight back with firearms? Could it be that the intention wasn't for the citizenry to be able to defend itself from its own government, but from more immediate, more real threats such as Native Americans and foreign incursions, and to do so in an organized, efficient way, namely, keeping a militia in each state which is tasked with not only peacekeeping and the like in its home state, but can be supplied under a federal command when there is a threat to national security.

Why do you think regiments were designated by what state they were from until after the Civil War? It's because the bulk of the fighting force that made up the Union Army (actually both armies) at the beginning of the war were not US Regulars, but folks who served in local militia units, which formed companies and marched to the more populated areas to enlist with fellows from their state. Of these companies at the beginning of the war, many of them could tie their roots back to the period after the Revolutionary War, or even before, where they were formed as militias for defense against raids by "injuns" and to have an organized way to get a hold of people in the days before cell phones, not training to repulse some imminent threat from the federal government.

It was precisely this system, as I've talked about before, that was responsible for both sides to raise almost a million troops in 6 months time. IMO we'd be better off to go back to that system. Shrink the size of the federal armed forces and delegate it to the states to be called up in a time of need. Of course if Obama tried to go back to that bastion of states' rights that true conservatives used to be in support of, they would brand it as him getting the armed forces to split the forces up individually so as to weaken them and let his commie Arab brethren come in and establish an African colony in the US. Sound about right?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 11:54 AM   #62
orinjkrush
...
 
orinjkrush's Avatar
 
Hey, no hurling on the shell, dude,

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: FrontRangeAbove8500ft
Posts: 5,187

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ben Garland
Default

Guns don't save. Guns don't kill. Knives don't kill. Knives don't save. Cars don't kill. Cars don't save.

People do. Evil people kill. Good people save.
orinjkrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 12:18 PM   #63
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,594
Default

The american public has every right to defend themselves against the impending zombie aplocalypse

Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:00 PM   #64
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,013

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The government has these:










amongst many other weapons system far more expensive than normal citizens can afford -- even if it were legal to posses such items.

Do you really think they give a **** if you have one of these?:



Do you really think you're going to win a war against the full might of the U.S. Army by relying on strength of arms? Has any "grass roots" revolution been successful when the rebellion tried to fight with strength of arms alone?

The answer is no. The only way to successfully fight an overwhelming superior force is through unconventional tactics and strategy (i.e. "terrorist" tactics), forging alliances (i.e. France in the Rev. War), or convincing defection of actual military units (e.g. the Civil War).

The government doesn't give one rats ass about how many AR-15s are out there. A bunch of rednecks armed with them are exactly zero threat against the U.S. Military.
Do you really think 100% of the military and police will turn their weapons on their mothers fathers brothers sisters etc The tyranny always consists of a very small number of people. The power always rests with the people except when the don'r know that or are paralyzed by fear then it doesn't.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:08 PM   #65
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Do you really think 100% of the military and police will turn their weapons on their mothers fathers brothers sisters etc The tyranny always consists of a very small number of people. The power always rests with the people except when the don'r know that or are paralyzed by fear then it doesn't.
A very small number of people in power with power over a huge military.

Are our men and women of the US military somehow of a higher moral fiber than their German counterparts 70 years ago? No.

The reality is that the vast majority of the population saw increased gun rights, and when the weakest of their society was in peril, the gun owners were not out there fighting for their fellow countrymen, were they? Kind of throws the "benevolent gun owners protecting society from government" argument right on its head doesn't it?
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:19 PM   #66
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,013

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
A very small number of people in power with power over a huge military.

Are our men and women of the US military somehow of a higher moral fiber than their German counterparts 70 years ago? No.

The reality is that the vast majority of the population saw increased gun rights, and when the weakest of their society was in peril, the gun owners were not out there fighting for their fellow countrymen, were they? Kind of throws the "benevolent gun owners protecting society from government" argument right on its head doesn't it?
I never said I held out a lot of hope that Americans would stand up to tyranny but one can hope. There is NO chance without an armed citizenry.

Does this bother you?

Why The Heck Is DHS Buying More Than A Billion Bullets Plus Thousands Of Guns And Mine-Resistant Armored Vehicles?
35 comments, 3 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano . (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Is there something really serious brewing that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano isn’t telling us? Like for example, is she concerned that those thousands of illegal immigrant prisoners her organization is releasing will join with others crossing our border to reclaim former Mexico territory…and accomplish this before the Democrats can manage to capture Texas for themselves in 2016 using Amnesty votes? Hey, if some of us may be getting just a bit paranoid, DHS certainly isn’t making it easy to resist that temptation.

First, we hear that DHS is in the process of stockpiling more than 1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, along with 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” plus a huge stash of 30-round high-capacity magazines. Incidentally, those are also known as “assault weapons”, but are not the limited single-fire per trigger-pull semi-automatic types that we civilians are currently allowed to own. By some estimates, that’s enough firepower to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq war.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ored-vehicles/
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:23 PM   #67
Requiem
~~~
 
Requiem's Avatar
 
~ ~ ~

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Earth Division
Posts: 23,743

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Princes of Tara
Default

At some point in time there probably won't be a United States.
Requiem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:30 PM   #68
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
I never said I held out a lot of hope that Americans would stand up to tyranny but one can hope. There is NO chance without an armed citizenry.

Does this bother you?

Why The Heck Is DHS Buying More Than A Billion Bullets Plus Thousands Of Guns And Mine-Resistant Armored Vehicles?
35 comments, 3 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano . (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Is there something really serious brewing that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano isn’t telling us? Like for example, is she concerned that those thousands of illegal immigrant prisoners her organization is releasing will join with others crossing our border to reclaim former Mexico territory…and accomplish this before the Democrats can manage to capture Texas for themselves in 2016 using Amnesty votes? Hey, if some of us may be getting just a bit paranoid, DHS certainly isn’t making it easy to resist that temptation.

First, we hear that DHS is in the process of stockpiling more than 1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, along with 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” plus a huge stash of 30-round high-capacity magazines. Incidentally, those are also known as “assault weapons”, but are not the limited single-fire per trigger-pull semi-automatic types that we civilians are currently allowed to own. By some estimates, that’s enough firepower to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq war.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...ored-vehicles/
We have an armed citizenry. We don't need an armed-to-the-teeth citizenry.

And no, it doesn't concern me in the least. Why? Because I don't live my live cowering in fear from my government, which is exactly what the gun nuts do. I focus on making each day a spectacular one for my kids and for myself and the people I come into contact with.

I also recognize the fact that if the government really wanted to come for your guns, they would have done so a long time ago. There are far more efficient ways to rule over your lives, like the corporatization of the government that has occurred over the past 30 years. Your guns are useless against a tyrant that doesn't fight in conventional ways.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:37 PM   #69
BroncoFanatic
Roaming Coloradan
 
BroncoFanatic's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 466

Adopt-a-Bronco:
t-mobile girl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
When?

How?
1776
BroncoFanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:38 PM   #70
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,013

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
We have an armed citizenry. We don't need an armed-to-the-teeth citizenry.

And no, it doesn't concern me in the least. Why? Because I don't live my live cowering in fear from my government, which is exactly what the gun nuts do. I focus on making each day a spectacular one for my kids and for myself and the people I come into contact with.

I also recognize the fact that if the government really wanted to come for your guns, they would have done so a long time ago. There are far more efficient ways to rule over your lives, like the corporatization of the government that has occurred over the past 30 years. Your guns are useless against a tyrant that doesn't fight in conventional ways.
Nor do I but I do prepare for what I see coming the fact you don't decries your arrogance & stupidity
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:47 PM   #71
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Nor do I but I do prepare for what I think I see coming the fact you don't agree that what I perceive as an imminent threat makes me very angry, so I resort to lashing out.
FYP
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:50 PM   #72
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,013

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
FYP

Wrong again Carnac the Magnificent. You don't make me angry, I do pity you and those you are responsible for though.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:53 PM   #73
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Wrong again Carnac the Magnificent. You don't make me angry, I do pity you and those you are responsible for though.
You're right, when I pity someone, I tend to call them stupid and arrogant, too. Name calling isn't generally associated with anger.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:56 PM   #74
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoFanatic View Post
1776
Another bastion of the American educational system. Take a bow.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2013, 01:57 PM   #75
baja
Happy camper
 
baja's Avatar
 
Sweet

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 60,013

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ware
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
You're right, when I pity someone, I tend to call them stupid and arrogant, too. Name calling isn't generally associated with anger.
Stupid & arrogant are terms I use to describe what I deduce from your posts it is not required to attach emotions to the observations
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:27 AM.


Denver Broncos