Then explain why we've had such trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. Major militaries still haven't figured out how to deal with asymmetrical warfare. In addition, while some American service personnel would obey orders to attack Americans, many would not.
What would happen would be the kind of thing going on right now in Syria. There would be a lot of deaths on both sides, but increasingly, our troops and their commanders would defect to the cause of the people against the government. No one is saying that it wouldn't be ugly. The idea here is that the saturation of guns in this country makes this kind of civil war unlikely. Would-be tyrants have to face the reality that an attack on the people would not go well.
Anyone bemoaning the Deficit! OMG worst thing ever!!! Need only look at the 10 Trillion Dollars spent on War since 2001. The Deficit was Born and Raised in the Al Anbar Desert and Waziristan Mountains.
But, when the Guy in the White House has an R after his name it's not a problem. Now that it's a D well worst thing EVAR!!!!
This is one thing that pisses me off about Republicans to no end, and you hit it on the head. However, as Orlin points out, Democrats stopped complaining about the cost of the war once Obama was elected. They and he also stopped complaining about Gitmo, Torture, unilateral rewriting of the treatment of POW's, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, drones, etc. etc. etc.
Both sides do this. Both Sides should be called on it. And pointing out the other party's hypocrisy should not be a way to dodge the issue of your own party's responsibility.
As for the size of our military apparatus, how about we cut back from all of our interfering throughout the world and just help when we are needed, wanted, and can afford it; keep the planes and tanks we have; and work on transitioning from the massive war machine we can't afford to a small force that maintains planes, ships, and tanks, and an actual, well regulated militia to serve as a credible deterrent for anyone thinking of bothering us?
That's not exactly right. Don't you remember all that talk a year or so ago about Obama supporters who had become disillusioned? For a while there it looked bad for his re-election hopes there were so many speaking out about Guantanamo, and the never-ending wars.
I remember that, but it doesn't change what I said about the bulk of the party. There were also many Republican grass roots types who stopped supporting Bush for his wars, deficits, etc. Like the Democrats you cite, they didn't effect a change in party policy.
They were some of the people who organized the Tea Party protests before Sarah Palin and various other establishment Republicans joined the movement, co-opted it, and pretty much destroyed it. Believe it or not, at the early tea party protests I went to, there were lots of people still speaking out against Bush's torture policies, etc.
Similarly, those Democrats who were disillusioned didn't change Obama's policy. Yes, he's ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he has continued or expanded all of Bush's powers regarding detention, domestic spying, etc.
The problem with Mike B's position, as well as other progressive liberals, is that they are all for restraints on people who don't believe as they do. They are all about their "rights", but could give a tinker's damn about your "rights."
What they seem to forget, and it's been recorded all through history, is that after the "rights" of the so called dissidents are taken away, the next group of people's "rights" to be taken away are what Lenin used to call "the useful idiots."
Once the "useful idiots" have helped TPTB in their goal of totalitarian rule, they are not needed anymore and can be done away with just as the so called dissidents were.
Please note that I'm not insinuating that the owner of this blog or any of the posters aren't intelligent or don't have insightful things to say, just that history has taught us that once a person bent on totalitarian rule has reached their goal, the "useful idiots", the "intelligentsia" that allowed them to reach that goal are no longer useful and are a danger to the totalitarian ruler.
Why do you think Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, ect. had all those purges? It wasn't to imprison or kill the dissidents; they were already out of the picture. It was to get rid of the "useful idiots", the intelligentsia, who had served their purpose and were no longer needed.
Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.
G., I know you've got a lot invested in this bizarre comparison of Obama to Stalin and the rest, but it really is foolish. What you said in your first paragraph is not correct. I'm concerned with your rights too. I believe you should have to be qualified to own guns though, and if you prove to be irresponsible with them the right is revoked.
All right, Mikeb, tell us the nature of our right to own and carry guns, in your view. You always talk about the limitations. How about defining, as you see it, the actual right?
Good question. I believe you have a right to own a gun exactly the same way you have a right to own a toaster or a microwave. But, with the gun ownership comes big responsibility, so there are certain reasonable restrictions, as Scalia said.
This has nothing to do with the 2A, by the way. It's obsolete and irrelevant.
Mike B, as you and others have said...you're entitled to your opinions, but not the facts. History has repeatedly shown what happens when the citizens are disarmed. That is the ultimate goal of you and others of your crowd. EN, for example, who thinks that the state should have a monopoly on force. Haven't we seen many times where that leads?
I'll make you a deal...I'll give up my guns when Obama gives up his Secret Service protection. Oh, that's right...he just signed into law lifetime protection for himself, ( as well as George W. Bush...my how that must piss you off, eh?).
The "fact" that disarmed citizens have in the past become victims of tyranny doesn't necessarily mean that if there's an AWB tyranny is around the corner. It hasn't happened in Japan, Australia or the UK. It's a foolish argument.
Why would Bush being entitled to Secret Service protection piss me off. I think he belongs in Leavenworth, but since he's not and as he is a former president he needs that protection. I have no problem with it.
Thanks, Obama.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Then explain why we've had such trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. Major militaries still haven't figured out how to deal with asymmetrical warfare. In addition, while some American service personnel would obey orders to attack Americans, many would not.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen would be the kind of thing going on right now in Syria. There would be a lot of deaths on both sides, but increasingly, our troops and their commanders would defect to the cause of the people against the government. No one is saying that it wouldn't be ugly. The idea here is that the saturation of guns in this country makes this kind of civil war unlikely. Would-be tyrants have to face the reality that an attack on the people would not go well.
Anyone bemoaning the Deficit! OMG worst thing ever!!! Need only look at the 10 Trillion Dollars spent on War since 2001. The Deficit was Born and Raised in the Al Anbar Desert and Waziristan Mountains.
ReplyDeleteBut, when the Guy in the White House has an R after his name it's not a problem. Now that it's a D well worst thing EVAR!!!!
But, when the Guy in the White House has a D after his name it's not a problem, right brucie?
Deleteorlin sellers
Gene,
DeleteThis is one thing that pisses me off about Republicans to no end, and you hit it on the head. However, as Orlin points out, Democrats stopped complaining about the cost of the war once Obama was elected. They and he also stopped complaining about Gitmo, Torture, unilateral rewriting of the treatment of POW's, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, drones, etc. etc. etc.
Both sides do this. Both Sides should be called on it. And pointing out the other party's hypocrisy should not be a way to dodge the issue of your own party's responsibility.
As for the size of our military apparatus, how about we cut back from all of our interfering throughout the world and just help when we are needed, wanted, and can afford it; keep the planes and tanks we have; and work on transitioning from the massive war machine we can't afford to a small force that maintains planes, ships, and tanks, and an actual, well regulated militia to serve as a credible deterrent for anyone thinking of bothering us?
That's not exactly right. Don't you remember all that talk a year or so ago about Obama supporters who had become disillusioned? For a while there it looked bad for his re-election hopes there were so many speaking out about Guantanamo, and the never-ending wars.
DeleteSorry, Mikeb, but a few on the loony left never threatened Obama's re-election. His own mealy-mouthed fumbling did that.
DeleteMike,
DeleteI remember that, but it doesn't change what I said about the bulk of the party. There were also many Republican grass roots types who stopped supporting Bush for his wars, deficits, etc. Like the Democrats you cite, they didn't effect a change in party policy.
They were some of the people who organized the Tea Party protests before Sarah Palin and various other establishment Republicans joined the movement, co-opted it, and pretty much destroyed it. Believe it or not, at the early tea party protests I went to, there were lots of people still speaking out against Bush's torture policies, etc.
Similarly, those Democrats who were disillusioned didn't change Obama's policy. Yes, he's ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he has continued or expanded all of Bush's powers regarding detention, domestic spying, etc.
The problem with Mike B's position, as well as other progressive liberals, is that they are all for restraints on people who don't believe as they do. They are all about their "rights", but could give a tinker's damn about your "rights."
ReplyDeleteWhat they seem to forget, and it's been recorded all through history, is that after the "rights" of the so called dissidents are taken away, the next group of people's "rights" to be taken away are what Lenin used to call "the useful idiots."
Once the "useful idiots" have helped TPTB in their goal of totalitarian rule, they are not needed anymore and can be done away with just as the so called dissidents were.
Please note that I'm not insinuating that the owner of this blog or any of the posters aren't intelligent or don't have insightful things to say, just that history has taught us that once a person bent on totalitarian rule has reached their goal, the "useful idiots", the "intelligentsia" that allowed them to reach that goal are no longer useful and are a danger to the totalitarian ruler.
Why do you think Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, ect. had all those purges? It wasn't to imprison or kill the dissidents; they were already out of the picture. It was to get rid of the "useful idiots", the intelligentsia, who had served their purpose and were no longer needed.
Those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.
G., I know you've got a lot invested in this bizarre comparison of Obama to Stalin and the rest, but it really is foolish. What you said in your first paragraph is not correct. I'm concerned with your rights too. I believe you should have to be qualified to own guns though, and if you prove to be irresponsible with them the right is revoked.
DeleteAll right, Mikeb, tell us the nature of our right to own and carry guns, in your view. You always talk about the limitations. How about defining, as you see it, the actual right?
DeleteGood question. I believe you have a right to own a gun exactly the same way you have a right to own a toaster or a microwave. But, with the gun ownership comes big responsibility, so there are certain reasonable restrictions, as Scalia said.
DeleteThis has nothing to do with the 2A, by the way. It's obsolete and irrelevant.
Mike B, as you and others have said...you're entitled to your opinions, but not the facts. History has repeatedly shown what happens when the citizens are disarmed. That is the ultimate goal of you and others of your crowd. EN, for example, who thinks that the state should have a monopoly on force. Haven't we seen many times where that leads?
ReplyDeleteI'll make you a deal...I'll give up my guns when Obama gives up his Secret Service protection. Oh, that's right...he just signed into law lifetime protection for himself, ( as well as George W. Bush...my how that must piss you off, eh?).
The "fact" that disarmed citizens have in the past become victims of tyranny doesn't necessarily mean that if there's an AWB tyranny is around the corner. It hasn't happened in Japan, Australia or the UK. It's a foolish argument.
DeleteWhy would Bush being entitled to Secret Service protection piss me off. I think he belongs in Leavenworth, but since he's not and as he is a former president he needs that protection. I have no problem with it.
Delete