Bronze Supporter
- Messages
- 37,344
- Reactions
- 128,880
I felt the need to start this thread because the last one with a similar name was closed due to it (sadly) degrading into personal insults and attacks to wards a particular member posting an unpopular opinion/position in it. I don't ascribe to the demeaning of ANYONE'S military service... from supply clerks and cooks, to the "cool guy" snake-eaters... all service is honorable, we all had/have a part to play that made/makes the machine do what it does... prosecute the defense of this country and its Constitution.
I didn't get a chance to post a reply to the unpopular opinion that I read early this morning, as I wanted to ponder a cogent response and not dog pile onto said member with the unpopular opinion who has indeed proved himself (to me anyway) to be a thoughtful, articulate, commentator who has my respect, even though I conclude we are not in agreement on more than a few things in life.
The original topic was just as the thread's name states, and sets the context of this quote (member name withheld unless he wants to claim it).
One of the the unpopular posts from this member was this...
This post stirred me up to say the least, and I thought it best to step back and ponder it during the course of my day today in order to have a critical discussion. I shall respond (not attack) piece by piece, quote by quote.
No sir, I contend that the THREAT of (overwhelming) violence is what will (and does) ensure freedom. Its what keeps MOST criminals/thugs from breaking into MOST houses or assaulting MOST people on the street.
The THREAT of overwhelming violence is what keeps the "Arabs" from exterminating Israel and its citizens, the THREAT of overwhelming violence is what kept the Soviets at bay (for the most part) around the world, and "won" the Cold War.
I also contend that the THREAT of overwhelming violence is what has kept our Constitution alive for over 200 years DESPITE the efforts of "learned" men (and women) who have dashed themselves against its anvil-like structure, trying to beat it down... they come and go, but the Constitution is still there!
The government has ALREADY singled out certain people for firearms confiscation, the implementation of it is waiting in the wings for the "perfect storm" to set it in motion. Case in point, DHS Director Janet Napolitano has PERSONALLY said (to the effect) that Military Veterans, particularly male Caucasian "traditionalists" are the prime demographic for "homegrown terrorists" and "anti-government militia members.
The public (at large) will believe whatever lie the media will force feed it given enough time. I'm not too concerned with what the (general) population sympathizes over as they're too busy with their "pop-culture issues de jure" anyway. Often times its a lonely place standing up for what is right, even lonelier when your life is at stake.
By giving up your firearms, you are ALREADY "playing right into the hands of the people taking your guns".
Leave the country and go where exactly? I've been all over Europe, Central and South "Amerika", Canada, and Australia... The U.S.A. is it, its the last stand for true freedom in this world that the human race YEARNS for (just ask all those Mexicans risking everything sneaking across the deserts), there's no other place left to go... if we go down that's it.... prepare for 1000 years of "darkness" for your descendants... if you have any left. You think the Chinese or whatever European "Union" is around will be benevolent? Guess again.
In the context of a Constitutional amendment (which your comment was based on), there could never be a (legal) "popular vote" of the people, it would have to go through the machinations of the Constitutional Convention process... which is a good thing, as it HELPS protect us from "mob rule".
Let's say there was a vote to outright ban same-sex marriage, or some other "pet cause" you may have that specifically impacts you. Would you have the same stance on "moral authority" in your above statement if you and your lifestyle were banned? I don't need to tell you that there is a STRONG "defense of marriage" movement that's pushing for a Constitutional Amendment and/or statute laws pertaining to just that.
What if you were confronted with that one day? What if same-sex couples were ordered to surrender their kids (adopted or otherwise)? I bet you'd be a livid, fierce, badger-like opponent if they "came for you" (its happens(ed) in other countries), and those "lifestyle issues" aren't even specifically addressed by the Constitution, however the 2A is pretty clear on firearms. IMHO it is analogous to the "original argument"... I guess it comes down to priorities.
I understand what you are saying about the "lone defender/Rambo" thing, and I see your point (to a point), and are possibly calling out some of those in the last thread who may be talking smack.
The population in this country is so fractured, that I dare say it will NEVER agree to even disagree, and I believe this is by short term and long-term design.
Politicians have so polarized their constituency groups to get elected and maintain their power (aka paychecks and "contributions") that "liberals" and "conservatives" would just as soon pour more fire on each other if the other was actually on fire... this is "short- term" design.
"Puppet masters" (like Geo. Soros, and other "world elites") have so corrupted "the system" to the point that the "everyday citizen" would NEVER have a chance to get elected to office unless they have the right "pedigree". Only politicians that do the long term bidding of "world elites" get the funding to campaign and get elected. The long term goal is to divide the spoils that is the USA, including its citizens.
I'm all for protecting the lives of our families, but how many more times must we retreat, regroup, and coordinate (as if... see last paragraph)? How many more times do we "suck it up"? How many more lines in the sand is enough?
Finally, concerning another post you made in the other thread... "none of us will ever know how we will perform/behave under fire, and the "big talking macho men" are usually the first to fold and collaborate with the enemy". What you say is generally true, but I wear the scars from an RPG (shot in anger) across the left side of my nose and left temple... I KNOW how I'd perform/behave under fire... if only briefly before I'm "slotted", because if that day DOES come in my lifetime... I'm already dead, and THAT my friend is the nightmare no opposing soldier/thug/despot wants to face.
To the member in question, please take this response in the respectful spirit I say it is meant to be, and I also enjoy and subscribe to your You-tube submissions as they are done quite well.
I didn't get a chance to post a reply to the unpopular opinion that I read early this morning, as I wanted to ponder a cogent response and not dog pile onto said member with the unpopular opinion who has indeed proved himself (to me anyway) to be a thoughtful, articulate, commentator who has my respect, even though I conclude we are not in agreement on more than a few things in life.
The original topic was just as the thread's name states, and sets the context of this quote (member name withheld unless he wants to claim it).
One of the the unpopular posts from this member was this...
No, our children will be fools if they think the only way to insure freedom is through violence.
If you are singled out by the government for removal of your firearms there is likely a reason...and fighting back violently will only make the public believe that reason is valid. In such a case you would need to fight back in a way that evokes sympathy from the public...not in a way that frightens them or you play into the hands of the people taking your guns.
In the case of an outright ban on firearms by popular vote of the people then you would have the option of leaving the country. You do not have the moral authority to decide you know better and try to violently overthrow the will of the masses.
In the case of a rogue government that works against the people and public opinion is against the government is the only time people can rally and fight with any chance of victory. Even in this case fighting back as a lone defender of your home against a government incursion is foolishness and poor battle planning. You would just be sacrificing yourself and removing a fighter from the arena. A martyr would serve no purpose in an environment where the battle lines are already drawn. You would be much wiser to cooperate and turn over whatever weapons they are able to find. This isn't the movies where acting tough in the face of overwhelming odds gets you anything but killed...and probably your family killed too. You survive, regroup, coordinate, and act at another time.
This post stirred me up to say the least, and I thought it best to step back and ponder it during the course of my day today in order to have a critical discussion. I shall respond (not attack) piece by piece, quote by quote.
No, our children will be fools if they think the only way to insure freedom is through violence.
No sir, I contend that the THREAT of (overwhelming) violence is what will (and does) ensure freedom. Its what keeps MOST criminals/thugs from breaking into MOST houses or assaulting MOST people on the street.
The THREAT of overwhelming violence is what keeps the "Arabs" from exterminating Israel and its citizens, the THREAT of overwhelming violence is what kept the Soviets at bay (for the most part) around the world, and "won" the Cold War.
I also contend that the THREAT of overwhelming violence is what has kept our Constitution alive for over 200 years DESPITE the efforts of "learned" men (and women) who have dashed themselves against its anvil-like structure, trying to beat it down... they come and go, but the Constitution is still there!
If you are singled out by the government for removal of your firearms there is likely a reason...and fighting back violently will only make the public believe that reason is valid. In such a case you would need to fight back in a way that evokes sympathy from the public...not in a way that frightens them or you play into the hands of the people taking your guns.
The government has ALREADY singled out certain people for firearms confiscation, the implementation of it is waiting in the wings for the "perfect storm" to set it in motion. Case in point, DHS Director Janet Napolitano has PERSONALLY said (to the effect) that Military Veterans, particularly male Caucasian "traditionalists" are the prime demographic for "homegrown terrorists" and "anti-government militia members.
The public (at large) will believe whatever lie the media will force feed it given enough time. I'm not too concerned with what the (general) population sympathizes over as they're too busy with their "pop-culture issues de jure" anyway. Often times its a lonely place standing up for what is right, even lonelier when your life is at stake.
By giving up your firearms, you are ALREADY "playing right into the hands of the people taking your guns".
In the case of an outright ban on firearms by popular vote of the people then you would have the option of leaving the country. You do not have the moral authority to decide you know better and try to violently overthrow the will of the masses.
Leave the country and go where exactly? I've been all over Europe, Central and South "Amerika", Canada, and Australia... The U.S.A. is it, its the last stand for true freedom in this world that the human race YEARNS for (just ask all those Mexicans risking everything sneaking across the deserts), there's no other place left to go... if we go down that's it.... prepare for 1000 years of "darkness" for your descendants... if you have any left. You think the Chinese or whatever European "Union" is around will be benevolent? Guess again.
In the context of a Constitutional amendment (which your comment was based on), there could never be a (legal) "popular vote" of the people, it would have to go through the machinations of the Constitutional Convention process... which is a good thing, as it HELPS protect us from "mob rule".
Let's say there was a vote to outright ban same-sex marriage, or some other "pet cause" you may have that specifically impacts you. Would you have the same stance on "moral authority" in your above statement if you and your lifestyle were banned? I don't need to tell you that there is a STRONG "defense of marriage" movement that's pushing for a Constitutional Amendment and/or statute laws pertaining to just that.
What if you were confronted with that one day? What if same-sex couples were ordered to surrender their kids (adopted or otherwise)? I bet you'd be a livid, fierce, badger-like opponent if they "came for you" (its happens(ed) in other countries), and those "lifestyle issues" aren't even specifically addressed by the Constitution, however the 2A is pretty clear on firearms. IMHO it is analogous to the "original argument"... I guess it comes down to priorities.
In the case of a rogue government that works against the people and public opinion is against the government is the only time people can rally and fight with any chance of victory. Even in this case fighting back as a lone defender of your home against a government incursion is foolishness and poor battle planning. You would just be sacrificing yourself and removing a fighter from the arena. A martyr would serve no purpose in an environment where the battle lines are already drawn. You would be much wiser to cooperate and turn over whatever weapons they are able to find. This isn't the movies where acting tough in the face of overwhelming odds gets you anything but killed...and probably your family killed too. You survive, regroup, coordinate, and act at another time.
I understand what you are saying about the "lone defender/Rambo" thing, and I see your point (to a point), and are possibly calling out some of those in the last thread who may be talking smack.
The population in this country is so fractured, that I dare say it will NEVER agree to even disagree, and I believe this is by short term and long-term design.
Politicians have so polarized their constituency groups to get elected and maintain their power (aka paychecks and "contributions") that "liberals" and "conservatives" would just as soon pour more fire on each other if the other was actually on fire... this is "short- term" design.
"Puppet masters" (like Geo. Soros, and other "world elites") have so corrupted "the system" to the point that the "everyday citizen" would NEVER have a chance to get elected to office unless they have the right "pedigree". Only politicians that do the long term bidding of "world elites" get the funding to campaign and get elected. The long term goal is to divide the spoils that is the USA, including its citizens.
I'm all for protecting the lives of our families, but how many more times must we retreat, regroup, and coordinate (as if... see last paragraph)? How many more times do we "suck it up"? How many more lines in the sand is enough?
Finally, concerning another post you made in the other thread... "none of us will ever know how we will perform/behave under fire, and the "big talking macho men" are usually the first to fold and collaborate with the enemy". What you say is generally true, but I wear the scars from an RPG (shot in anger) across the left side of my nose and left temple... I KNOW how I'd perform/behave under fire... if only briefly before I'm "slotted", because if that day DOES come in my lifetime... I'm already dead, and THAT my friend is the nightmare no opposing soldier/thug/despot wants to face.
To the member in question, please take this response in the respectful spirit I say it is meant to be, and I also enjoy and subscribe to your You-tube submissions as they are done quite well.