Go on record: YOUR gun control position.

[tylerdolphin]

If the gun owners in the US united to overthrow some government, there are only about a dozen countries in the world that could put up a reasonable fight much less withstand the onslaught. I don't think you comprehend the strength of our people. Our government should fear us, not the other way around.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Maybe 100 years ago. Now, the Air Force would cripple an insurgency. You arent going to accomplish much without any threat in the air at all.

[GoonBoss]

Interesting. So you love the Constitution, except Article 3:




To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


So where do you rights come from, if not from Constitution (which establishes the Supreme Court)? It can't be from God. He's not mentioned. So where?

The right of freedom is every man's. They aren't granted by a piece of paper, a god, or a person.

In response to the previous statement; Just because a man says it is or it isn't so does not make a thing constitutional, or not
constitutional. Men can be wrong, and because a thing is lawful at a given time doesn't make it just, right or constitutional.

[GoonBoss]

Maybe 100 years ago. Now, the Air Force would cripple an insurgency. You arent going to accomplish much without any threat in the air at all.

The Marine Corps will replace eight Harriers that were destroyed or badly damaged in a bold attack by insurgents on a prominent aviation base in southern Afghanistan, Marine officials said.

The AV-8B II jump jets were targeted on the flight line at Camp Bastion late Sept. 14 after 15 insurgents broke through the base’s perimeter using rocket-propelled grenades, automatic rifles and suicide vests, military officials said. Six of the planes were destroyed, and two more were badly damaged. Each is worth about $24 million.

That's how you fight aircraft in an Asymetrical fight.

You also interdict supply lines.

That's how it works in an insurgency.

We've been fighting one in Afganistan since what, 2001?

When we leave, the insurgency will still be around. If we can't
beat an insurgency in Afganistan, where it's not your neighbors,
parents, kids, and friends fighting, why are people so quick to assume
one would be summarially disposed of here?

Why would one assume the US Armed forces would engage in
enthusiastic war against it's own people?

[tylerdolphin]

That's how you fight aircraft in an Asymetrical fight.

You also interdict supply lines.

That's how it works in an insurgency.

We've been fighting one in Afganistan since what, 2001?

When we leave, the insurgency will still be around. If we can't
beat an insurgency in Afganistan, where it's not your neighbors,
parents, kids, and friends fighting, why are people so quick to assume
one would be summarially disposed of here?

Why would one assume the US Armed forces would engage in
enthusiastic war against it's own people?

Similarly, I think a lot of Americans wouldnt have the stomach for an insurgency. For Afghanistan, fighting is just another day in their life. Sun comes up, they fight, sun goes down. They have been seeing fighting their whole lives. Is Bob the accountant going to have the stomach for that? Id venture to guess that as often as not, the answer would be no.

[GoonBoss]

Similarly, I think a lot of American's wouldnt have the stomach for an insurgency. For Afghanistan, fighting is just another day in their life. Sun comes up, they fight, sun goes down. They have been seeing fighting their whole lives. Is Bob the accountant going to have the stomach for that? Id venture to guess that as often as not, the answer would be no.

There's the most valid argument against a national level insurgency in the US.

I think, though, it's just like every other time in our history. If you would have
asked me in 1995 if the US as a nation had the stomach for a grinding decade
+ of warfare, I'd've said no. But we did.

Right now, GoonBoss the prison guard does not have the stomach for an insurgency,
but I'm damn sure willing to if that's what it comes down to. When pressed, I think
Bob would too. Every man has a different breaking point, though.

[TheWalrus]

The right of freedom is every man's. They aren't granted by a piece of paper, a god, or a person.

Somehow I doubt that argument gets you very far in China. Or in a court of law. Or really anywhere.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper, too. Are you saying our rights are not granted by it?

You're a prison guard, right? I seem to remember reading that in some thread or another (edit: you just did it again in the post above me, lol). That sounds like a job that would give you a better understanding than most of the difference between the concept of the inherent rights of man and the laws of society as created by man... laws that are built on the balance between the collectivized rights of the group and the rights of the individual. Each society, each founding document, places those balance points in different places. And the document puts in writing that agreement and the rights of each, and the mechanisms by which conflicts are resolved. In some places, the rights of the group are emphasized over the rights of the individual. In other places, the rights of the individual are supreme.

There is no right answer to these balance points, and you are free as an individual in our system to agitate for their change. But you are not free to deny their existence and expect that the collectivized right of the group will not come down on your head if you act upon that denial.

In response to the previous statement; Just because a man says it is or it isn't so does not make a thing constitutional, or not
constitutional. Men can be wrong, and because a thing is lawful at a given time doesn't make it just, right or constitutional.

That goes for you, too. Especially since you're not a legal scholar.

You are right in a sense that the definition of "constitutional" changes over time. But where you're wrong is in inferring that there is some perfect interpretation of the Constitution that we're either living up to or not. Such a thing does not exist. That's why the document itself establishes the Supreme Court, in order that interpretations can be made. One cannot respect the document and ignore the establishment of the arbiter by the document at the same time.

[GoonBoss]

Somehow I doubt that argument gets you very far in China. Or in a court of law. Or really anywhere.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper, too. Are you saying our rights are not granted by it?

You're a prison guard, right? I seem to remember reading that in some thread or another (edit: you just did it again in the post above me, lol). That sounds like a job that would give you a better understanding than most of the difference between the concept of the inherit rights of man and the laws of society as created by man... laws that are built on the balance between the collectivized rights of the group and the rights of the individual. Each society, each founding document, places those balance points in different places. And the document puts in writing that agreement and the rights of each, and the mechanisms by which conflicts are resolved. In some places, the rights of the group are emphasized over the rights of the individual. In other places, the rights of the individual are supreme.

There is no right answer to these balance points, and you are free as an individual in our system to agitate for their change. But you are not free to deny their existence and expect that the collectivized right of the group will not come down on your head if you act upon that denial.



That goes for you, too. Especially since you're not a legal scholar.

You are right in a sense that the definition of "constitutional" changes over time. But where you're wrong is in inferring that there is some perfect interpretation of the Constitution that we're either living up to or not. Such a thing does not exist. That's why the document itself establishes the Supreme Court, in order that interpretations can be made. One cannot respect the document and ignore the establishment of the arbiter by the document at the same time.

I don't really care "how far it gets me" in China, or anywhere else.

I understand what is law, and what is not, and I understand how it applies to my job.
Just because I understand and follow a law does not make that law right, or just.
Nor does a person that decides guns are icky get to make any control on firearms
in this country right or just.

I most certainly have the right to deny the existence, legality, or any other aspect of anything
I choose. I fully understand that if I act on denials of existing laws, there will be consequences.

I fully understand that I can be wrong. I'm not wrong about firearm ownership, however, which should
be restricted to only what the government may own/use.

[TheWalrus]

Just because I understand and follow a law does not make that law right, or just.
Nor does a person that decides guns are icky get to make any control on firearms
in this country right or just.

Can you point me where you're getting firm answers to what's right and just relative to gun control and these other issues? 'Cause that would really clear a lot of things up.

[Buddy]

Maybe 100 years ago. Now, the Air Force would cripple an insurgency. You arent going to accomplish much without any threat in the air at all.

Although I suggested an insurgency situation with regards to overthrowing foreign nations with the red neck militia to prove a point, any foreseeable situation here at home would simply be resisting a potentially tyrannical government. That changes the tactics tremendously and negates a lot of the effectiveness of air support. The home team has a tremendous advantage! You don't have to best them per say, just harass and outlast them. Unless the US military started nuking everything in sight, snuffing out teens of millions of fairly well armed people would be fairly impossible. The cities would be fairly easy to control but the country would be impossible, especially if the resistance could maintain communication.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Bumpus]

Maybe 100 years ago. Now, the Air Force would cripple an insurgency. You arent going to accomplish much without any threat in the air at all.

Surely you're not suggesting that the US Air Force would be ordered to direct strikes against Americans on our own soil?!?

We The People would not stand for that bull****. Those who would never consider rising up against our government would lash the **** out after that noise!