Guest American Woman Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) There are no guarantees of anything but is your military the government's or the people's. Would it make war on its own citizens. If so, we are no better than Syria. How does anyone know what the future will bring? That's my point. Do you think Jewish Germans believed their government would kill them? - that friends and neighbors would betray them? Many countries have waged war on their own people - brothers have fought brothers, neighbors have turned in neighbors, children have reported parents to the government. Who is the commander in chief of your armed forces? The GG - or someone appointed by the GG? At any rate, the military is a government military. If your government decided not to hold elections and the military supported it, I doubt there would be elections. Our military wouldn't be strong enough to enforce that. We have no regular army units west of the Rockies and I doubt reservists in particular would be very happy about shooting their neighbours. If your government decided not to hold elections, who would have the power to step up and proceed with them? Edited July 25, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 If your government decided not to hold elections, who would have the power to step up and proceed with them? Since the government has control of nuclear weapons, no one. Even those with the high-powered cannons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 How does anyone know what the future will bring? That's my point. Do you think Jewish Germans believed their government would kill them? - that friends and neighbors would betray them? Many countries have waged war on their own people - brothers have fought brothers, neighbors have turned in neighbors, children have reported parents to the government. The question you should be asking, is yours one of those countries? Who is the commander in chief of your armed forces? The GG - or someone appointed by the GG? At any rate, the military is a government military. Our Commander in Chief is subordinate to Parliament If your government decided not to hold elections, who would have the power to step up and proceed with them? Who indeed. Our military is subordinate to Parliament, not the government. Interesting. I see all these yellow ribbons and signs proclaiming support for your military. Turns out you are actually afraid of them. Unfortunate that you don't really believe in your own system of governing yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Who is the commander in chief of your armed forces? The GG - or someone appointed by the GG? At any rate, the military is a government military. What's worse we have had Roman Catholic GG's! Don't tell the Queen! Good thing our current one is Anglican. Edited July 25, 2012 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Most militias are not the Oathkeepers. This is true. That was against a foreign invader....and after decades on intrnal dictatorship.... and complicated by sectarian strife and terrorism.I"m not saying things couldn't go violently bad, in the US, Canada, or anywehere else. There will be crunch time soon. Several factors are leading to the crunch. Are you prepared? Or do you even see it coming? I'm disputing the self-serving, childish fanatsy, cribbed from action movies asnd defined by a narrow and self-aggrandizing view of history, that freedom-lovers, perhaps led by teen-girl diddler Ted Nugent, are going to rise up and overthrow the governemnt by force of arms. I don't watch many movies these days, so I can't talk to the violence in them. Ted Nugent is irrelevant to it all. They're weak, they're reactionary, they're statist, they're obedient (to government!), and they're stupid. The are not weak, they have been pro-actionary and they are nationalists, that only worship one thing. The Constitution of the USA. The rest of America has little cause to be concerned about them. The government certainly isn't, beyond a mild irritant. Ask yourself again why the police are heavily getting militarized since 2001. The other thing is that many of these oathkeepers and other militia groups have a good number of veterans from theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan. That will end up being a problem for the police, and if it goes down, you will have US military firing on US citizens within the continental USA. They already know what urban warfare is all about. No matter the advancements in tech, there is always a low tech solution to cause problems. We see examples of that all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Since the government has control of nuclear weapons, no one. Even those with the high-powered cannons. You mean like when the Soviet Union used nuclear weapons when communism fell? Come'on man, use your brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 You mean like when the Soviet Union used nuclear weapons when communism fell? Did the Soviet Union have an armed uprising? I'm not saying nuclear weapons will be used on citizens because I believe our system is strong enough to prevent such an event from happening. It's also strong enough that citizens do not need guns to fight back against their government. They can just vote them out instead. Get it now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Did the Soviet Union have an armed uprising? I'm not saying nuclear weapons will be used on citizens because I believe our system is strong enough to prevent such an event from happening. It's also strong enough that citizens do not need guns to fight back against their government. They can just vote them out instead. Get it now? There would have been an armed uprising if they had not let the revolution take place. Come'on man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Glasnost, Perestroika. The government itself led the way to dismantling the soviet union. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Wow, this conversation has gone a long way from the Colorado shooting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 There would have been an armed uprising if they had not let the revolution take place. Come'on man. That's because the right to bear arms (whatever that means) was entrenched in the Soviet Union constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 That's because the right to bear arms (whatever that means) was entrenched in the Soviet Union constitution? Huh? You don't think people posessed firearms in the old Soviet Union? Also, is it your contention that the Soviet government would have used nuclear weapons on Moscow in the event of a more violent revolution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Huh? You don't think people posessed firearms in the old Soviet Union? Also, is it your contention that the Soviet government would have used nuclear weapons on Moscow in the event of a more violent revolution? It is my contention that if a government is so vile it deserves armed insurrection, it is likely so vile to counter that insurrection with superior firepower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 It is my contention that if a government is so vile it deserves armed insurrection, it is likely so vile to counter that insurrection with superior firepower. And yet, in the case of the Soviet Union, one of the most vile governments in history fell without either of those things happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 And yet, in the case of the Soviet Union, one of the most vile governments in history fell without either of those things happening. Then I guess it wasn't necessary to include the right to bear arms in the Soviet constitution after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 And yet, in the case of the Soviet Union, one of the most vile governments in history fell without either of those things happening. Exactly. No country in the history of the world had done what Bubbet is suggesting. For obvious reasons. Or at least obvious to everyone except for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Exactly. No country in the history of the world had done what Bubbet is suggesting. Really? I seem to remember that the urgency for the war in Iraq was because Saddam Hussein gassed his own people...13 years earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Really? I seem to remember that the urgency for the war in Iraq was because Saddam Hussein gassed his own people...13 years earlier. Shady is saying people need guns encase someone like Saddam comes to power then at least you have something to fight with. This is an argument against banning things like assault riffles because you need something more then a hunting riffle to fight a military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Shady is saying people need guns encase someone like Saddam comes to power then at least you have something to fight with. Then Shady must be saying people need tanks and other high-powered artillery in order to put up a fight against a 21st century military. I wonder if Shady feels only hillbilly militias should have this right to arms and not young American muslim men. I imagine that's a question he would shrink from answering. Edited July 25, 2012 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Then Shady must be saying people need tanks and other high-powered artillery in order to put up a fight against a 21st century military. I wonder if Shady feels only hillbilly militias should have this right to arms and not young American muslim men. I imagine that's a question he would shrink from answering. There are plenty out there that would argue that point. I am not one of them but they exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Interesting that Gun Sales and applications for a Gun License have increased in the wake of this event. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/25/gun-sales-colorado.html I guess this event will actually make Gun Control in the US harder not easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Shady is saying people need guns encase someone like Saddam comes to power then at least you have something to fight with. This is an argument against banning things like assault riffles because you need something more then a hunting riffle to fight a military. Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I just don't think that the government should be the line entity allowed to possess firearms. That doesn't mean I'm against reforms to the process of obtaining them. Your strawmen are getting tiresome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Interesting that Gun Sales and applications for a Gun License have increased in the wake of this event. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/25/gun-sales-colorado.html I guess this event will actually make Gun Control in the US harder not easier. Some are buying guns for protection, while some are buying them now in case gun laws change in light of this massacre. Most Americans don't believe that one tragedy should take away everyone's rights. After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. - William S. Burroughs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) The question you should be asking, is yours one of those countries? Do you seriously not get it? No one knows what might happen in the future. I repeat. Jewish Germans didn't think their country was one of those countries. Our Commander in Chief is subordinate to ParliamentWho indeed. Our military is subordinate to Parliament, not the government. So your Parliament isn't part of your government? Interesting. I see all these yellow ribbons and signs proclaiming support for your military. Turns out you are actually afraid of them. Unfortunate that you don't really believe in your own system of governing yourself. There's no point in responding to this, in spite of how ludicrous it is. Either you can't understand what I'm saying, or you refuse to understand it. Either way, there's no point in discussing it further. Keep believing that there's absolutely no way anything could ever change in Canada from now until eternity. Edited July 25, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 25, 2012 Report Share Posted July 25, 2012 Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I just don't think that the government should be the line entity allowed to possess firearms. That doesn't mean I'm against reforms to the process of obtaining them. Your strawmen are getting tiresome. Be specific what are you for then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.