Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I don't know if Rand Paul truly feels that way, or if his dad promised him a spanking if he even thought about voting yes. Either way, glad to see him there on the pitiful list of 7.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
http://www.militaryeducation.org/military-equipment/

I wonder if we stopped our military spending, if we can have free public tertiary education for the brightest kids in the country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
No "superpower" is ever going to remain a viable nation as long as it spends nearly as much on the military as the rest of the world combined does.

We could cut our defense budget by half and still spend more on defense than any other nation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Are you ready to turn in half your guns?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Are you ready to turn in half your guns?"

Hello,

I'd do this in a heartbeat if the government would agree to a similar degree of disarmament.

It seems foolish that they should wish to disarm the militia, though. We are the cheapest branch of Defense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

We could cut our defense budget by half and still spend more on defense than any other nation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
You only need half your guns if you were twice as nice to your neighbors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
What makes a superpower is not ability to defend. Its ability to project force.

Since World War 2 the general peace of the world has been maintained by the United States ability and apparent willingness to project force across the entire world in defense of our allies and national interests. Up until World War 2 the historical trend was for larger and more destructive conflicts covering ever expanding portions of the world. We have reversed this trend by making the United States a factor in any nation's military calculations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Are you ready to turn in half your guns?"

Hello,

I'd do this in a heartbeat if the government would agree to a similar degree of disarmament.

It seems foolish that they should wish to disarm the militia, though. We are the cheapest branch of Defense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The military are coming for YOU

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Bah, no one is EVER going to invade us - culture shock alone would drive them into writhing balls of misery, clawing at their eyes screaming "oh gawd, make it stop!", not to mention as soon as they started impinging on the "turf" of inner city collectives, be they citizen, druglord or street gang, they'd get chopped to fekkin pieces, and the rural rednecks would have a field day, scream yee-haa and dig up all that shit they buried in anticipation of the BATFE finally gettin around to them and put it to good use.

Seriously, I'd lay money on it - you take a fully equipped North Korean BATALLION, with FULL fuckin TO&E and drop them wholesale into EITHER podunksville, or an inner city ghetto, they will become combat ineffective within eight hours, and be utterly destroyed in twenty four.
And the immediate and primary casualties will be psychological.(1)

Frankly, the biggest danger to us is our so-called protectors and their fuckin protection racket which doesn't protect us.

The gravest danger to our national security, *IS* our "National Security".

-Frem
(1) - Turn on every TV set in the whole place, as loud as it'll go and shove it up to a window, then set it on our most awful programming possible, infomercials, talkshows, reality tv, whatever...
TRUST me, you'll cause pyschological casualties in droves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Are you ready to turn in half your guns?"

Hello,

I'd do this in a heartbeat if the government would agree to a similar degree of disarmament.

It seems foolish that they should wish to disarm the militia, though. We are the cheapest branch of Defense.

---

Seems an odd calculation to me, Pizmo, that you seem to want to be sure that the military always outguns the populace. It's almost as if you think the government has something to fear from its people. Ironically, this is pretty much the antithesis of what the founders envisioned (a militia made up of the general population, and no standing armies).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Bah, no one is EVER going to invade us - culture shock alone would drive them into writhing balls of misery, clawing at their eyes screaming "oh gawd, make it stop!", not to mention as soon as they started impinging on the "turf" of inner city collectives, be they citizen, druglord or street gang, they'd get chopped to fekkin pieces, and the rural rednecks would have a field day, scream yee-haa and dig up all that shit they buried in anticipation of the BATFE finally gettin around to them and put it to good use.

Seriously, I'd lay money on it - you take a fully equipped North Korean BATALLION, with FULL fuckin TO&E and drop them wholesale into EITHER podunksville, or an inner city ghetto, they will become combat ineffective within eight hours, and be utterly destroyed in twenty four.
And the immediate and primary casualties will be psychological.(1)

Frankly, the biggest danger to us is our so-called protectors and their fuckin protection racket which doesn't protect us.

The gravest danger to our national security, *IS* our "National Security".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Are you afraid of your government? "

Hello,

I am. Aren't you?

"do you really think it's even remotely possible for the populace to out gun their military??"

Of course not. Surely you are familiar with asymmetrical warfare.

---

Quote:

---

I was thinking more along the lines of pelting them with McNuggets, KFC's Failure Bowls, McRibs, and Snuggies and Sham-Wows, but yes, point taken. :)

---

Quote:

---

Btw - do you really think it's even remotely possible for the populace to out gun their military?? Is that your goal? Are you afraid of your government?

---

Quote:

---

I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American; but suspicions have gone forth — suspicions of my integrity — publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country? I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country. I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger. But, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless. But, sir, suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: should it fall on me, I am contented: conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust there are many who think my professions for the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides. There are many on the other side, who possibly may have been persuaded to the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
Patrick Henry, June 5th 1788

---

Quote:

---

I don't think we have to go backwards for guidance, our world is a very different one from theirs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Are you ready to turn in half your guns?"

Hello,

I'd do this in a heartbeat if the government would agree to a similar degree of disarmament.

It seems foolish that they should wish to disarm the militia, though. We are the cheapest branch of Defense.

---

Seems an odd calculation to me, Pizmo, that you seem to want to be sure that the military always outguns the populace. It's almost as if you think the government has something to fear from its people. Ironically, this is pretty much the antithesis of what the founders envisioned (a militia made up of the general population, and no standing armies).

---

You have me confused with someone else - I have repeatedly posted how much I hate the military over spending, I've even posted graphics detailing the imbalance. Btw - do you really think it's even remotely possible for the populace to out gun their military?? Is that your goal? Are you afraid of your government?

---

Quote:

---

As far as The Founders - they also envisioned slavery and blood letting for health care - I don't think we have to go backwards for guidance, our world is a very different one from theirs.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think the military give up their guns any more than you do. They'll find a bunch of reasons we need them to be armed to the teeth. "We have been making so many enemies over the last 20 years with our Peace Missions that every one wants to get us - so now more than ever we need a strong military!"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Are you afraid of your government? "

Hello,

I am. Aren't you?

"do you really think it's even remotely possible for the populace to out gun their military??"

Of course not. Surely you are familiar with asymmetrical warfare.

---

I am in the minority - I am not as afraid of our government doing things to it's citizens with malice as most people who post here are. I am more worried about what they do and don't do because of ego and incompetence, the things that we all struggle with.

"asymmetrical warfare" - maybe not in how you mean it or in this context - please enlighten.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


Hello,

Did I misspell it? It's when a violent conflict develops between a formal military and an informal, poorly-equipped, but elusive opponent.

In the case of the U.S. citizenry, the poorly-equipped and elusive opponent is literally everywhere. They don't outgun you, but they outnumber you. By droves.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

1) Yes, I actually do think it's possible for a population to outgun its government. In fact, when this country was founded, that was exactly how it was, and this was done by design and quite on purpose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
2) Is that my goal? No more than it's your goal to disarm the populace. You seem to be trying to create a false dichotomy here, an invalid comparison. You've been doing it since you asked if I would give up half my guns - which *I* paid for - in order to get the military to give up half its guns - which I *also* paid for. It's simply not a serious comparison or choice. If you want to make if a valid comparison, first you'd have to agree to make the military personnel pay for all their own weaponry and ammunition, as I do all mine. Nobody gives this stuff to me, and it's for damn sure that your tax money isn't paying for my guns and ammo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
3) Am I afraid of my government? Of course. Anyone in this country who isn't at least a little concerned is an idiot. When your own Senate is voting 93-7 to allow the military to hold U.S. citizens forever without any charges ever being filed or reason being given, only an idiot wouldn't be at least a little afraid of his government.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

As far as The Founders - they also envisioned slavery and blood letting for health care - I don't think we have to go backwards for guidance, our world is a very different one from theirs.

---

So you would agree with the proposition that there's not really any "freedom of the press" in this country, unless you actually own and operate a manual printing press, right? After all, that's what they envisioned, not computers and cameras...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, the bit about the founders envisioning slavery - how'd that work out? And perhaps more importantly, how'd it end?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
If you want people to give up their guns, there's a constitutional process we can undertake to make that happen. All you really need is an Amendment which overturns the Second Amendment to the Constitution. If you can get that passed and ratified, then I'll turn in all my guns, because the Constitution would then say that I have to do so. I have my doubts that such a thing will happen, though.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And yes, I get your concept, but where to go with it is the important part, I think, localising power as much as possible is both wise and in keeping with our intended structure of government - having decisions made by those actually directly affected by the results, instead of a pack of feckless petty curs a thousand miles away from any real consequence of their actions.

---

Quote:

---

You love your guns and don't want to give them up, the military loves their weapons and doesn't want to give them up. If you don't want to see the similarities in the American male pysche in both, I can't make you. It's actually part of the mentality, so par for the course.

---

Quote:

---

Right. They did not envision the Internet so things they didn't write about it don't apply.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I still like my exploding collars idea...

"I'm going to vote against this, even though 90% of my constituents are demand... KERBLAMMM!"

-F

---