jcd11235 0 #351 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops. The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power). Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations? Member nations like the USA?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #352 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops. The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power). Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations? Here, let me put it into terms maybe you can understand. NATO is the equivalent of The Alliance in World of Warcraft. Their leaders talk and coordinate strategy, their troops may (or may not) fight under a collective banner, but the troops and leaders belong to the individual countries.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #353 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops. The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power). Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations? Member nations like the USA? What makes you think our government would not give their approval? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
muff528 3 #354 July 22, 2012 Quote ... And you can take mine as, "maybe then, but certainly not now." Well, to further clarify, I wasn't considering a direct "attack" on the POTUS. I was referring more to Chango's statement that "...the Federal Government will defeat you ...". That's why I wondered if the allegiance of the Armed Forces is to the leadership or to the Constitution. A little off topic anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #355 July 22, 2012 Quote And the "Why" of "not now", seems to scare a few, lending to the larger contingent of internet tough talk, radical rants, and the rise firearms ownership. Reasonable measures are hard to argue against, some will, fearing it is the first step on the slippery slope to a completely disarmed society, then subjugated to the GOV. Fair enough, but it's nuts to argue about that in this thread unless somebody is suggesting this was all some sort of conspiracy set up to take guns away. Let's get real. Will the event be used as an argument that maybe some people shouldn't have access to guns? Certainly. Does that effort have anything to do with a systematic disarming of the citizenry so they can't rise up and over throw it? Gimme a fuckin' break.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #356 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops. The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power). Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations? Member nations like the USA? What makes you think our government would not give their approval? You said, "It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops."Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #357 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops. The U.N. lacks a standing army. Further, the U.N. cannot take military action without the approval of the United States (and every other country on the UNSC with veto power). Does the UN not have "Peace Keeping Troops" made up of members from all of their member nations? Member nations like the USA? What makes you think our government would not give their approval? You said, "It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops." All they have to do is approve UN or NATO troops onto our soil with no US troops involved. Welcome to the world of loopholes. Getting off topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #358 July 22, 2012 "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #359 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote ... And you can take mine as, "maybe then, but certainly not now." Well, to further clarify, I wasn't considering a direct "attack" on the POTUS. I was referring more to Chango's statement that "...the Federal Government will defeat you ...". That's why I wondered if the allegiance of the Armed Forces is to the leadership or to the Constitution. A little off topic anyway. Yeah ... sounds like one for the Oathers thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #360 July 22, 2012 Quote All they have to do is approve UN or NATO troops onto our soil with no US troops involved. Welcome to the world of loopholes. They are us, for all intents and purposes (i.e., we have veto power). It's just not going to happen. It's nothing more than a tin-foil hat conspiracy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #361 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote All they have to do is approve UN or NATO troops onto our soil with no US troops involved. Welcome to the world of loopholes. They are us, for all intents and purposes (i.e., we have veto power). It's just not going to happen. It's nothing more than a tin-foil hat conspiracy. Yeah, like we have had any control of what our government does in the last 10yrs. You vote for the lesser of two evils and they do what they fucking want. When the time comes that is challenged it's going to get nasty here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #362 July 22, 2012 Quote Yeah, like we have had any control of what our government does in the last 10yrs. You vote for the lesser of two evils and they do what they fucking want. When the time comes that is challenged it's going to get nasty here. I must have missed the news in which we were informed that martial law has been declared and voting has been suspended. We poor Americans are so oppressed!Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #363 July 22, 2012 Quote Yeah, like we have had any control of what our government does It's hard to imagine what would cause the US government to wage a "Syrian style civil war" on it's own citizens and you have to think a certain portion of the US military would not want to wage war on their own country. But if the US government was to go rogue, it could very well be a UN lead affair. When was the last time the people of the USA ever had a say in anything that goes on in the UN? It's the US government not the US people who have the UN veto and lately the UN has made little sense in many things that they are doing. But I like to think that as long as the 2nd Amendment exists, North Americans can sleep easy knowing the likelihood of the US government going rogue is slim to nil. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #364 July 22, 2012 Quote Quote And the "Why" of "not now", seems to scare a few, lending to the larger contingent of internet tough talk, radical rants, and the rise firearms ownership. Reasonable measures are hard to argue against, some will, fearing it is the first step on the slippery slope to a completely disarmed society, then subjugated to the GOV. Fair enough, but it's nuts to argue about that in this thread unless somebody is suggesting this was all some sort of conspiracy set up to take guns away. Let's get real. Will the event be used as an argument that maybe some people shouldn't have access to guns? Certainly. Does that effort have anything to do with a systematic disarming of the citizenry so they can't rise up and over throw it? Gimme a fuckin' break. On the First point Agree, I don't think it is a "false flag operation" but wow! the net is heating up with that idea! To your second point, yes, but how do we limit those who are a "danger", with out limiting those who "aren't"? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #365 July 23, 2012 Quote It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops. I wouldn't be surprised if it is Academi troops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #366 July 23, 2012 Quote Quote China has strict gun laws. http://tinyurl.com/c4e7rr6 bladed weapons have long been the preferred weapon of choice. I've never heard of a person with a knife attacking and wounding 70 some odd people and killing more than a dozen with a short bladed knife in about a minute. The guy was definitely nuts and determined, but if you choose to ignore the weapons he used were a calculated decision, you're fooling yourself. The weapons he picked and their ease of use and availability are a huge factor is what made the high body count possible. Why does it need to be in a minute? 19 guys with short bladed knives managed to kill 3000 people about 11 years ago. Took a couple hours, but I doubt anyone gives a shit about the time differential. Seems as silly as campaigning to make sure people aren't killed with assault weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #367 July 23, 2012 Quote Quote I wonder if it is possible that over the course of the past 236 years the 2nd Amendment has already deterred potentially "adventurous" leaders from going "extraconstitutional". Perhaps prior to the Civil War, but after the Secret Service was formed it would become harder and harder with each bit of foolishness by nut jobs and the subsequent ratcheting up of Presidential security. I seriously doubt it's been much of a concern of any President since the mid-60s. They'll always have to worry about "lone wolf" nut cases, but I give an armed insurrection of the US government exactly zero chance of being carried out today. Good luck getting the Jews (JPFO) or the Black Panthers to trust on this. The latter certainly found their situation improving when they had the means to fire back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #368 July 23, 2012 Quote Seems as silly as campaigning to make sure people aren't killed with assault weapons. They may as well try outaw the ingredients to ANFO bombs while they're at it.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #369 July 23, 2012 Quote You can call me all the names you want. You can tell me you think I am full of shit, you can tell me that you believe guns should be banned. Why would I do that? I was talking about your argument not you personally. Also I shoot at least once a week so am far from anti guns. One problem is the insidious nature of a government attacking its own people. Look at the Jews in Germany, it was bit by bit a gradual erosion of liberty and rights. Who dragged the Jews into the gas chambers? Nobody they walked in expecting a shower or detention and then it was to late. When people disappeared in Argentina they were alone against many captors who took them, people are asked to report to a police station for questioning and then never seen again in some countries. People awoken at gunpoint in the middle of the night by state officials. In these circumstances a gun would often be as much use as a piece of paper, in fact often much less useful.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #370 July 23, 2012 Quote Quote Quote It's preposterous to assert that the Second Amendment is there for the purpose of allowing any well-armed citizen to decide which laws they will accept as legitimate through the force of arms. Agreed. Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Seems pretty clear. Yes it is. It applies to well-regulated militia. It doesn't apply to any schmuck who wants to arm himself to the hilt at the neighborhood Wal-Mart because he thinks that he may someday need to defend himself *against his own government*. I find it bizzare that the United State and its allies spend billions on tracking down people on the other side of the world who at some point went to a camp to learn how to shoot and use explosives yet are fine and dandy with such camps being run in their own country for the express purpose of training individuals to overthrow the US Government and kill its forces. F*@%ing bizarre indeed.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #371 July 23, 2012 Quote End result -Evil intent + training and preparation + any useful weapons = bad result in a free society. There fixed it for you. Without the evil intent the rest is simply no more than you'll find in most people at a range on any given day, the vast overwhelming 99.9% majority of whom will never cause a problem like this in their lifetime. Quote The best improvement in prevention here is in identifying the people, not the tools they might use. Bingo! But easier said than done.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #372 July 23, 2012 You keep talking about getting rid of what you describe as Assault Weapons, (Lets for the sake of argument just talk about the AR-15 he allegedly used). He also had a shotgun and a Glock, without doubt out of the three aforementioned weapons the shotgun would have done the most damage at close range in a packed theatre, are you suggesting that shotguns are banned?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #373 July 23, 2012 Sick people will always find a way. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/9/newsid_2543000/2543755.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/28/newsid_2527000/2527805.stm http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/unsolved/hammer_murders/2.htmlWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #374 July 23, 2012 Quote It won't be our own troops used against us. It will be U.N. troops. The UN troops couldn't stop Srebrinica happening under their own noses. Also as the US holds a seat on the UN security council how the hell would that ever happen? Seriously do you think that or are you on a wind up?When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #375 July 23, 2012 Quote Quote Quote China has strict gun laws. http://tinyurl.com/c4e7rr6 bladed weapons have long been the preferred weapon of choice. I've never heard of a person with a knife attacking and wounding 70 some odd people and killing more than a dozen with a short bladed knife in about a minute. The guy was definitely nuts and determined, but if you choose to ignore the weapons he used were a calculated decision, you're fooling yourself. The weapons he picked and their ease of use and availability are a huge factor is what made the high body count possible. Why does it need to be in a minute? 19 guys with short bladed knives managed to kill 3000 people about 11 years ago. Took a couple hours, but I doubt anyone gives a shit about the time differential. Seems as silly as campaigning to make sure people aren't killed with assault weapons. 500,000 people were murdered in Rwanda in 100 days mainly using machetes.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
