General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > Armageddon and Survival
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
TheUsed
I'm an emo fuck, who plans to suck off Bert McCracken
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaegertech View Post
The point of bearing arms to serve as a counterweight to the government is that the citizenry should maintain the means to destroy the system when it can no longer be tolerated. If at any point you give up the means, you don't honestly expect you'll get them back when things get bad enough need them?

Very well said. It's not that bearing arms necessarily gives us the right to decide when the government has gone too far, but it would help politicos to think correctly about their position. I feel that many elected officials neglect the fact that they are...elected officials.They stop feeling accountable to the people who voted for them, and begin feeling accountable to the people who pay for their suits and ties. That isn't good for anyone.

When you start thinking of things in terms of "us and them"- us being people in the government, and them being everyone who isn't a CEO or an elected official..You stop caring about the every day citizen, and his or her interests. You stop caring about their freedoms, their rights, their liberties. You put yourself on a pedestal, and the heightened perspective tricks you into believing that your opinion is more important than the people who vote, and you forget that your opinion should be based on, if not directly influenced by, the every day man.

Maybe I've read 1984 and Brave New World one too many times, but when I hear about those books getting banned from libraries, and I see the Patriot Act get voted into action without question, and I see things worth fighting for get ignored....I start to see how having a well informed, and well armed, citizen base can do wonders to hold a government accountable for its actions, and accountable to it's people.
__________________
a8da4ef4e06d54ce5bbc5c1d16950e16 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
Old 04-05-2009, 07:33 PM TheUsed is offline  
Reply With Quote
#46  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

LLC
pwned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUsed View Post
Very well said. It's not that bearing arms necessarily gives us the right to decide when the government has gone too far, but it would help politicos to think correctly about their position. I feel that many elected officials neglect the fact that they are...elected officials.They stop feeling accountable to the people who voted for them, and begin feeling accountable to the people who pay for their suits and ties. That isn't good for anyone.

When you start thinking of things in terms of "us and them"- us being people in the government, and them being everyone who isn't a CEO or an elected official..You stop caring about the every day citizen, and his or her interests. You stop caring about their freedoms, their rights, their liberties. You put yourself on a pedestal, and the heightened perspective tricks you into believing that your opinion is more important than the people who vote, and you forget that your opinion should be based on, if not directly influenced by, the every day man.

Maybe I've read 1984 and Brave New World one too many times, but when I hear about those books getting banned from libraries, and I see the Patriot Act get voted into action without question, and I see things worth fighting for get ignored....I start to see how having a well informed, and well armed, citizen base can do wonders to hold a government accountable for its actions, and accountable to it's people.

I don't think so at all. It's called elections. There are elections every two years. They have motivation to do what the people want so they get reelected. Bush got elected again after all of those things you talked about (Patriot Act etc.) The people vote. You don't need guns to take a man out of office. You need a voter registration card and a finger to pull a lever or touch a button. Voting is holding the politicians accountable. Unfortunately everything is done with votes in mind. Popular public opinion isn't always right. A politician under our system can go against his promises and his position if he feels it's the right thing to do.

Take George Bush senior for example. He promised not to raise taxes but then felt he needed to even if it would cost him the next election. Now, lets say as you are saying there was legitamite fear in our politicians because our citizens were armed and were serious threats to them if they didn't do what the public wanted. I don't want politicians making decisions in fear that citizens will shoot them if they don't do what they want them to do. It wouldn't be a good thing. They would become more of a slave than a representative.

Last edited by LLC; 04-05-2009 at 08:06 PM..
Old 04-05-2009, 07:52 PM LLC is offline  
Reply With Quote
#47  

TheUsed
I'm an emo fuck, who plans to suck off Bert McCracken
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LLC View Post
I don't think so at all. It's called elections. There are elections every two years. They have motivation to do what the people want so they get reelected. Bush got elected again after all of those things you talked about (Patriot Act etc.) The people vote. You don't need guns to take a man out of office. You need a voter registration card and a finger to pull a lever or touch a button. Voting is holding the politicians accountable. Unfortunately everything is done with votes in mind. Popular public opinion isn't always right. A politician under our system can go against his promises and his position if he feels it's the right thing to do.

Take George Bush senior for example. He promised not to raise taxes but then felt he needed to even if it would cost him the next election. Now, lets say as you are saying there was legitamite fear in our politicians because our citizens were armed and were serious threats to them if they didn't do what the public wanted. I don't want politicians making decisions in fear that citizens will shoot them if they don't do what they want them to do. It wouldn't be a good thing.

Well then. Either you trust the system too much, or I don't trust it enough. I agree that elections and free votes are supposed to hold politicians accountable, and I'm not saying that physical violence is a good means to get your point across. After all, people will say anything to make the torture stop; politicians would and could make even more dangerous statements, or more outright lies under the same pressure. I'm merely saying that Hitler was elected, because he promised stability and prosperity for a fearful and beleaguered German country. Yes, we will elect you..just give us good paying jobs and a stable country. Do what you wish with the Jews. I'm not comparing President Bush or any other president to the likes of Adolf Hitler, but it is definately an extreme to keep in mind...

Edit: And as far as holding an election every 2 years holding a senator or other elected official accountable to the people.. It is increasingly difficult to win a political election against an incumbent, particularly one who already has more experience, (which can be a double edged sword...), who has had the support for his or her party for the better part of 2, 4,6 or 8 years, and is experienced in running a campaign-because he or she has already done it 2 or 3 times! They merely know what it takes to win an election, and have the built up support to do so...



Even tyrants can be elected, and even elections can be influenced by dangerous variables outside of the voting booth.. Just because you elect the devil, doesn't mean he's the right person for the job.

And as far as Bush getting elected for a second term, I personally question whether or not that would have happened if the circumstances had been different, and if things that actually mattered in a democracy and prosperous government were on the table- not smear campaigns, fear mongering, and out-of-context reporting of certain facts.
__________________
a8da4ef4e06d54ce5bbc5c1d16950e16 [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.
Old 04-05-2009, 08:06 PM TheUsed is offline  
Reply With Quote
#48  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaegertech View Post
I believe that citizens should be allowed to own everything up to WMDs. If it can be bought with private funds, there should only be one restriction on it: membership in a militia. The cutoff should be whether the weapon needs a crew to service it or not. Joe Sixpack should be allowed to buy a light machine gun out of his wallet, but he needs to be a member of his state's militia to buy a tank.

Militia's should be:
organized at the state level
privately funded (perhaps assistance from the state government for certain supplies)
available for call-up on a voluntary basis to respond to natural disasters
required to attend some sort of professional training (think Guard training, but less often and with more of a focus on response to civic emergencies)
NOT subject to federalization

Crazy? Probably, but I think it has a certain elegance to it.


until jesse jackson gets in charge of that militia...
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 04-06-2009, 01:02 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#49  

jaegertech
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
until jesse jackson gets in charge of that militia...

And does what? It would be a purely volunteer organization. Don't like what you are being told to do? Take your ball (or APC) and go home.

The only time the militias would not be active on a purely voluntary basis would be if the country was being invaded (so basically never), at which point the militias would be integrated into the National Guard structure.
Old 04-06-2009, 04:02 PM jaegertech is offline  
Reply With Quote
#50  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaegertech View Post
And does what? It would be a purely volunteer organization. Don't like what you are being told to do? Take your ball (or APC) and go home.

The only time the militias would not be active on a purely voluntary basis would be if the country was being invaded (so basically never), at which point the militias would be integrated into the National Guard structure.

Ye, so you see no chance of such a militia going rogue trying to fuck shit up?

Given todays scenario, you don't think that such a militia could be lead by rush limbaugh(or someone like him) consisting of fox-news viewers, rednecks and paranoid gun-fetishists trying to tear up shit to stop obama from taking their guns and going against gods will with stem-cell research?

Or during the last presidency, militant leftwingers () tearing up shit (also lol).

No because you see, everyone would be perfectly rational, and such militias would only be used in the case of a REAL emergency.

It was a shit idea, and still is.
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 04-07-2009, 01:48 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#51  

jaegertech
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
Ye, so you see no chance of such a militia going rogue trying to fuck shit up?

Given todays scenario, you don't think that such a militia could be lead by rush limbaugh(or someone like him) consisting of fox-news viewers, rednecks and paranoid gun-fetishists trying to tear up shit to stop obama from taking their guns and going against gods will with stem-cell research?

Or during the last presidency, militant leftwingers () tearing up shit (also lol).

No because you see, everyone would be perfectly rational, and such militias would only be used in the case of a REAL emergency.

It was a shit idea, and still is.

No, actually, I don't fear militant left/right wingers. If such people were going to start trouble, they would already be doing so.

You did notice the part where I mentioned that the militia would be organized at a state level, right? I'm not talking about some half-assed gun clubs, I'm talking about organized volunteer groups that would only function as militias when in uniform and under proper supervision.
Old 04-07-2009, 03:41 PM jaegertech is offline  
Reply With Quote
#52  

28_days
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaegertech View Post
No, actually, I don't fear militant left/right wingers. If such people were going to start trouble, they would already be doing so.

You did notice the part where I mentioned that the militia would be organized at a state level, right? I'm not talking about some half-assed gun clubs, I'm talking about organized volunteer groups that would only function as militias when in uniform and under proper supervision.

Proper supervision? Who exactly is going to to tell them otherwise? A politician? There's quite a large hole in your rationale here.

Fear is a worthless emotion. Preparation and foresight on the other hand can, and will, pay off in spades.
__________________
Best Regards,
28_days
Old 04-07-2009, 04:57 PM 28_days is offline  
Reply With Quote
#53  

jaegertech
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 28_days View Post
Proper supervision? Who exactly is going to to tell them otherwise? A politician? There's quite a large hole in your rationale here.

Fear is a worthless emotion. Preparation and foresight on the other hand can, and will, pay off in spades.

Yes, basically a politician; specifically, they would be subordinate to the state governor, just like the National Guard. A militia unit would probably operate best as an attachment to a National Guard unit. You get the command structure and training of the Guard along with the extra semiskilled hands of the militia unit.

Why bother separating the National Guard from the militias then? Simple: federalization. A militia that isn't, and can't be, federalized can't be sent from American soil.

I'm beginning to think that there is just a misunderstanding here as to how well armed these militias would be. Privately equipped with private funds means you wouldn't see militias with armored vehicles or even significantly unusual weaponry (large caliber weaponry, artillery, etc); it would just be too expensive.
Old 04-07-2009, 06:28 PM jaegertech is offline  
Reply With Quote
#54  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaegertech View Post
Yes, basically a politician; specifically, they would be subordinate to the state governor, just like the National Guard. A militia unit would probably operate best as an attachment to a National Guard unit. You get the command structure and training of the Guard along with the extra semiskilled hands of the militia unit.

Why bother separating the National Guard from the militias then? Simple: federalization. A militia that isn't, and can't be, federalized can't be sent from American soil.

I'm beginning to think that there is just a misunderstanding here as to how well armed these militias would be. Privately equipped with private funds means you wouldn't see militias with armored vehicles or even significantly unusual weaponry (large caliber weaponry, artillery, etc); it would just be too expensive.

AND I SAY TO YOU: JESSE FUCKING VENTURA

he is/was a goddamn governor, and he was calling on people to form a militia to overthrow the government not too long ago.

Congratumalations, your state controlled militias will be potential rogue armies lead by politicians. And since there are almost no limits (oh, cash is a limit ) to which guns/weapons they can own they can royally fuck something up on a first strike basis (no wmds though or was that only citizens? can militias own wmds?). I mean its not like a state has any sort of big budget and/or lots of citizens to collect money to arm their militia with.

Also, when these militias get made, the government would need to keep a strict eye on them to avoid any of these first strike moves, thus you increase military spending while edging towards totalitarianism some more.

Yeah, you are right. It has a certain elegance to it
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 04-08-2009, 05:09 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#55  

Caelum
 
I think like 2 of your posts ago showed your troll intentions. And then the intelligent arguments and conversation went by the wayside to emotion bukkake
Old 04-08-2009, 06:29 AM Caelum is offline  
Reply With Quote
#56  

Bukkakeboy
 
Bukkakeboy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caelum View Post
I think like 2 of your posts ago showed your troll intentions. And then the intelligent arguments and conversation went by the wayside to emotion bukkake

I had/have no intention to troll at all here

But when jaeger brings up a dumb shit (err, i mean elegant) solution like this, I do felt the need to let emotion take control for a while.
I maintain that I'm not trolling in any of my posts here, its just like you said, emotion got the best of me in my replies to jaeger.

Personally I think it was his inability to imagine that something might go wrong with his cunning plan.

Never underestimate the stupidity of crowds, especially not an armed crowd lead by a (potentially) loco politician.
__________________
fuck IRL

this is the internet... and someone is WRONG on it

-Tongboy
Old 04-08-2009, 06:40 AM Bukkakeboy is offline  
Reply With Quote
#57  

Social Misfit
pwned
 
Social Misfit's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
I had/have no intention to troll at all here

But when jaeger brings up a dumb shit (err, i mean elegant) solution like this, I do felt the need to let emotion take control for a while.
I maintain that I'm not trolling in any of my posts here, its just like you said, emotion got the best of me in my replies to jaeger.

Personally I think it was his inability to imagine that something might go wrong with his cunning plan.

Never underestimate the stupidity of crowds, especially not an armed crowd lead by a (potentially) loco politician.

What is the difference between a milita, led by a loco politician, and an army, led by their Commander in Chief? An armed forces enlistment.
__________________
Fuck you Veeborg. Lying ass piece of shit. I hope you die in a fire. Same goes for DHermit.
Old 04-08-2009, 02:34 PM Social Misfit is offline  
Reply With Quote
#58  

jaegertech
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukkakeboy View Post
Personally I think it was his inability to imagine that something might go wrong with his cunning plan.

Funny thing; I'm basing my statements on the history of militias in the United States. Not a whole lot ever went wrong, and that in a day when it was FAR easier for a civilian to achieve parity in armament to the military. Any modern militia wouldn't be a fart in a hurricane to the National Guard. You can buy tanks and APCs on the private market nowadays, but do you know the reason they are rare as hell? The only things more expensive than acquiring one of the damned things is getting it running and keeping it running.

Mine isn't a fully fleshed out plan (mainly because it will never ever happen), so there are definitely improvements that could be made. I could easily understand, for instance, placing restrictions on a militia's ability to purchase certain items with some sort of licensing or certification system. Proof of training, proof of competent leadership, whatever. If you want to discuss why and how restrictions should be made and enforced, by all means discuss; this topic generally, and your reaction to it specifically, is interesting.

BTW, per Title 10, section 311 of the USC, if you are a male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, you are already a member of the unorganized militia.
Old 04-08-2009, 04:57 PM jaegertech is offline  
Reply With Quote
#59  

Redrum
Crate&Barrel Roll
 
Redrum's Avatar
 
Seeing as how it is speculated the US Army has the ability to mount direct heat ray weapons on top of its humvees I believe it's only fair I'm allowed to buy a bastardized semi auto M4.

Either way, if you ban guns I'll just make my own. They might be primitive and innaccurate at first but with every incarnation they will get better and better:

__________________
lol
Old 04-08-2009, 05:30 PM Redrum is offline  
Reply With Quote
#60  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:16 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.