Is it 'ok' to be a republican, NRA member, Christian who eats LOTS of meat and own a Prius?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 14 2007, 08:21 AM) [snapback]441538[/snapback]</div>

I guess that you believe all politicans when they speak. Just put all things in their proper context. If it sounds to good to be true, it probally is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 14 2007, 08:21 AM) [snapback]441538[/snapback]</div>

That's the official motto of the Bush White House!

 

The idea of firearm ownership is not for personal defense, although doing whatever you need to do to survive is an unalienable right you possess, it is for preventing tyranny. It is so the government fears the population.

There is a distinct reason evil dictatorships oppose private firearms use, and like Nazi Germany, get rid of that ability. It is not over safety. It is about control. Otherwise, private swimming pools would be the target of bannings, as they kill more children under 5 than anything other than automobile accidents.

Think of it as the reset button for the government. A state-ran military can only do so much against an armed population that is against the government.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 14 2007, 08:36 AM) [snapback]441546[/snapback]</div>

You have the word "Army" in your name- you are aware that the United States HAS one, right? Do you seriously believe that the government, in the 21st century, fears an "armed populace". The idea of citizen militias as a hedge against tyranny of the federal government, especially when that government was unproven, made sense in colonial times. But not in an era of nuclear weapons. If these groups of people out in Montana who play paintball and start their own armies were ever deemed a serious threat to the nation, you can bet that they would be put down immediately.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 14 2007, 10:07 AM) [snapback]441595[/snapback]</div>

Actually, I am quite aware of the limitations of the military against an armed population. If we don't have the stones to drop nuclear weapons on people who don't look like us, don't think like us, and want to do us harm, why would you think the government would use that kind of force on it's own civilians? Even if you accept the possibility that some twisted, sick person would order such an attack, I don't know of any service member who would carry it out.

Don't equate people who have firearms to those in Montana who believe the race war is coming, and I won't assume you are some eco-terrorist would just as soon slash my throat because I am in the military, own a dog and in addition to my soon to be Prius, own a pickup truck. Deal?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 14 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]441618[/snapback]</div>

Kent State, Ohio, 1970.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 14 2007, 10:44 AM) [snapback]441618[/snapback]</div>

Deal. I have no problem with people who have a legitimate need for firearms. And I am a former military officer (and a former small-arms instructor). My concern is with people who have weapons because they think that they are going to take part in an armed conflict with our government. I'm not including you in that category; I was responding to your comparison of gun control to Nazi Germany, and the intent to disarm the populace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 14 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]441622[/snapback]</div>

So, you have proof that the government ordered those shootings, and it was not just nervous, inadequately trained National Guardsmen reacting to a threatening situation? If so, please provide same (and don't bother mentioning the Strubbe tape, no new information there). If not, then the Kent State reference does not refute Army's statement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 14 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]441622[/snapback]</div>

Good thing those students weren't armed huh?

I don't hunt, and I don't carry all the time. The ability to own firearms is to prevent things like Kent State from happening on a large scale. It is the same reason all the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights are limitations on the government.

I am prior enlisted going through officer training, so I do support my goverment, but I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution first. My oath doesn't even mention supporting the government, and in fact mentions domestic threats to the Consitution.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 14 2007, 07:44 AM) [snapback]441618[/snapback]</div>

What does being eco-oriented have to do with hating men in the military? That is such a common and overused generalization that environmentalists hate those in the armed forces. I can't even think of one person in any of my environmental classes, activities, or clubs that feels that way. Now hating our government.... Well that is another story. lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May 14 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]441638[/snapback]</div>

I have said the same thing many times myself, and while I am no longer a naval officer I still take my oath to defend the Constitution seriously. Too bad our current administration doesn't!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May, 08:15 AM) [snapback]441638[/snapback]</div>

Then why aren't you out shooting up our government right now?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 5 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]436082[/snapback]</div>

Typical Republican. Great at insulting Japanese *and* Arab people in one sentence!

Great job.

Dave
Seattle, WA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ May 14 2007, 11:22 AM) [snapback]441646[/snapback]</div>

Probably the same reason you aren't, and continue to live in the US. We both think this is the best thing going, and that we still have our rights. You are not afraid of criticizing the government on the internet, because there is almost no chance that anybody will show up at your house and arrest you.

The Constitution is still very much intact, with very few exceptions. The problem is most people are ignorant about what the Constitution really says. Civics was never a strong point of our educational system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 14 2007, 09:21 AM) [snapback]441538[/snapback]</div>

As cliche as it sounds, the saying that "there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics" is true. And it has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative to say that (and I am a fellow conservative). The fact is that statistics are often misused and even more often misunderstood. Granted there are some checks that minimize egregious errors from researchers, but misuse does happen. There are a lot of people that don't understand research design and probably a lot more that don't understand statistical tests. All of this to say that a person that wants to prove a point with statistics can make them look anyway they want to prove their point, especially in the media.

It doesn't mean that all stats should be thrown out, but rather that people should be cautions about blindly accepting any stat they hear, whether it is for or against their position.

Oh, and insulting people just for the sake of insulting is not a prerequisite for being a Christian or a conservative, please don't make it appear that way.

 

Be careful when mentioning Kent State as an example of "evil government at work". Be sure that you are aware of the situation in Kent prior to the shooting; a quickie-review of Wikipedia won't do it.

For once... let facts guide conclusions - not the other way around.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tom 6850 @ May 14 2007, 08:28 AM) [snapback]441541[/snapback]</div>

Let me try another way. one politicaian says "I want to increase your $10.00 per capita tax by only another $10.00 to $20.00 per year". Doesn't sound to bad. His opponent says " My opponent wants to raise your per capita tax by 100%". Without knowing want is happening, this really sounds terrible. The bottom line is get your facts straight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ May, 08:36 AM) [snapback]441656[/snapback]</div>

No, I'm a pacifist. I don't think it's the best thing going or that I still have my rights. There is a lot that I have wanted to say but held back on, on these very forums, for fear of being monitored. I and my family all had our passports renewed last summer and began plans for moving if the trend didn't change. Thankfully, the trend did change at the November elections and our hope was restored.

I don't believe any of the crap about our citizens needing to carry arms in order to protect them from an oppressive government. If there was ever a time to use such a power, it would have been over the past 6 years. Yet most of the people carrying the arms didn't recognize what was happening to their country.

And I agree with your statement that people are ignorant about the Constitution. The people I spoke of above seem to think the only right that means anything is the so-called right to carry arms. And they are brainwashed into thinking their government is protecting them, when in fact it is the exact opposite.

Even with all the scandals coming to light in the past few months there still exist people who defend the current administration. I find that staggering.