News Stories

[MrTerrorist]

India's micro-finance suicide epidemic

I can't believe something that was meant to help the poor ends up making it worse.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

No, it's a culture problem with educators, students, and parents. Teachers who adopt a factory-style production line method of one-size fits all teaching rather than individualized attention; administrators going on power trips and going with unreasonable no-tolerance policies; students being disruptive and disrespectful jackasses, bullies, and gang members; parents who can't teach their kids respect or anything else but insist on banning books or teaching creationism; misplaced focus on sports, etc.



I support the the right to own weapons, but I have to point out that a gun will not protect someone from a government that has an army with tanks, jets, and missiles, unless ordinary citizens have the right to own those too.

The majority of people who are in the military though, would not go against their fellow man. That's one thing many people who are not in the military overlook.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

It is not irrelevant, but some things (interpretations) have to change.

Many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. They did not put a ban on slavery for fears of a split. Yet, eventually slavery was banned. So yeah, interpretations have changed through the ages.

That's a rather faulty analogy.

The constitution never said anything specifically about slavery. The closest thing was the fifth amendment saying anything about that was the 5th amendments "Nor deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". You might interpret the property bit as right to keep slaves, but that requires that the courts are willing to accept the interpretation that people can be property. And that them being property doesn't violate THEIR right to liberty.


How is this analogy applied to the 2nd amendment? The 2nd amendment specifically refers to the fact that people have a right to keep and bear arms. Are you suggesting that like slaves not being considered *property*, the government should not recognize firearms as *arms* and therefore use that as justification to bar people from owning them?


This doesn't mean that the 2nd amendment doesn't have restrictions (fire in a crowded theater). But I'd argue that you're going to far when you're not talking about machine guns or destructive devices as far as reasonable limitations go.

Also, Pen and Teller.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The majority of people who are in the military though, would not go against their fellow man. That's one thing many people who are not in the military overlook.

That might be what they say. However, in the case of insurrection, the government can declare the rebels to be criminals, terrorists, traitors, etc. Then the mindset becomes "us vs them" rather than "fellow man." There's also the results of the Milgram experiment to consider.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The majority of people who are in the military though, would not go against their fellow man. That's one thing many people who are not in the military overlook.

I think you are underestimating just how much "Following Orders" training can effect a person. How many soldiers have the guts to question a superior officer? The 20th century is fill with examples of soldiers blindly following orders because that is what they were train to do. Trust and follow the orders of a Superior officer.

[james0246]

Soldiers are trained to believe in the cause they fight for, that is why they follow orders.

That being said, this is now off topic to this thread. So please stop the 2nd amendment discussions...or start a new thread.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The majority of people who are in the military though, would not go against their fellow man. That's one thing many people who are not in the military overlook.

People are willing to do downright nasty shit they feel horrible about if they're ordered to do it by an authority figure. While some people have mentioned the milligram experiment, they also need to consider that the pressures to obey within a military environment are MUCH stronger than in that testing environment. The experimenter in milligram couldn't promise to punish the subject if he disobeyed. It also needs to be considered, that unless this is a truely general uprising, the soldiers probably feel bad about putting it down like the subjects in milgram felt bad about shocking the other person. If the soldiers think of his actions as defending the stability of his country from vile traitors, he'll willingly bayonet all of them.



I'll also note that in the event of a general uprising, angry citizens with rifles are the least of your worries. When things are socially bad enough that you have a genuine civil uprising, you're also looking at outright mutiny in military units. Now what do you think the government should fear more? A bunch of hill billies in the woods with their mini-14's, or a rebellious tank battalion driving into Washington DC? People need to remember that the Bastille wasn't stormed by an angry mob of French peasants with pitchforks. The Bastille was stormed by a regiment of angry soldiers armed with muskets and cannon, and shared similar concerns with the Parisians.

edit:Whoops, the Moderator has spoken. I'm shutting up on this issue now.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

That's a rather faulty analogy.

The constitution never said anything specifically about slavery. The closest thing was the fifth amendment saying anything about that was the 5th amendments "Nor deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". You might interpret the property bit as right to keep slaves, but that requires that the courts are willing to accept the interpretation that people can be property. And that them being property doesn't violate THEIR right to liberty.

The last clause in Article IV section 2: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

This is of course superseded by the amendment banning slavery.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

No, it's a culture problem with educators, students, and parents. Teachers who adopt a factory-style production line method of one-size fits all teaching rather than individualized attention; administrators going on power trips and going with unreasonable no-tolerance policies; students being disruptive and disrespectful jackasses, bullies, and gang members; parents who can't teach their kids respect or anything else but insist on banning books or teaching creationism; misplaced focus on sports, etc.

I agree there is a cultural component. But there's no denying the wasteful bureaucratic component either. The latter is the only one that can be shaped by policy, and hopefully nudge the former in the right direction.

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

I support the the right to own weapons, but I have to point out that a gun will not protect someone from a government that has an army with tanks, jets, and missiles, unless ordinary citizens have the right to own those too.

A gun doesn't make you invincible, but it is a means of protection several levels above having no gun.

[Vexx]

I've never denied the *spiritual* component of irrational belief is usually a good thing (because we are seething mess of hormones, brain chemistry, etc in addition to the simple logic we try use) but never had much truck with the doctrinal, power manipulation, and institutionalization of spirituality in religion.

Here's an interesting tidbit on the science of neurotheology:
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132078...cience-collide

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

A gun doesn't make you invincible, but it is a means of protection several levels above having no gun.

Of course. I just wanted to point out that the protection from government concept was false. Their forces can take any individual, gun or no gun. It's only effective for personal defense only.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I agree there is a cultural component. But there's no denying the wasteful bureaucratic component either. The latter is the only one that can be shaped by policy, and hopefully nudge the former in the right direction.

the culture component is imo the most important. you can fire every teacher in the US and replace them all with PHDs and give every student a laptop and none of it would matter until the parent stop complaining because the teacher use red ink to mark errors(true story) and start backing the teacher when their kids misbehave in class. Someone on another forum wrote that education is a 3-leg stool, Teacher/Parent/Student. So far all the pressure has been put on one leg, the Teachers. The other 2 leg needs step up as well or none of it matters.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Of course. I just wanted to point out that the protection from government concept was false. Their forces can take any individual, gun or no gun. It's only effective for personal defense only.

Really quite true. Just look at Iraq/Afghanistan. The number one means the insurgents produce casualties amongst US forces is with IED's. Actual direct combat, the insurgent combat elements are all placed around heavy machine guns, rockets and mortars.


Movies and video games MASSIVELY exaggerate how much casualty production is done with small arms.

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Really quite true. Just look at Iraq/Afghanistan. The number one means the insurgents produce casualties amongst US forces is with IED's. Actual direct combat, the insurgent combat elements are all placed around heavy machine guns, rockets and mortars.


Movies and video games MASSIVELY exaggerate how much casualty production is done with small arms.

thats mostly because trying to use small arms against people who have "big" arms, body armor, and considerable combat training, is hardly an effective way of protecting yourself.
never bring a knife to a gun fight, and never bring a gun to a tank fight.

you best protection against the government, is being born in a democracy.
failing that, moving TO a democracy is the next best thing.

[Ithekro]

In a revolution in the United States...

!. What possibly did the governement do to warrent said rebellion?

2. What stance does the military have on said reason for the rebellion?

3. How much of the reservists actually joins the rebellion to defend their homes and family rather than the government?

4. How orginized is the rebellion?

5. Does the rebellion actually have a shadow government to challenge the United States?

6. Are the States even united anymore?



This has happened before. In 1861. While the small arms used by the civilians was not all that much different from those used by the military, it was only a temporary messure until the rebels could gain control of military arms of their own...and fight a war for four years. They lost that war, but it was the bloodiest fighting in United States has ever seen....even if you only take a single side's causulties into consideration.

The trouble with American soldiers being asked to fight against their own is quite simply that...they are sworn to protect the Constitution against threats both foreign and domestic. They will be divided on to just what that threat to the Constitution is...the rebels, or the governement that got to the point where the people rebelled in large numbers.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by justsomeguy

Of course. I just wanted to point out that the protection from government concept was false. Their forces can take any individual, gun or no gun. It's only effective for personal defense only.

You're definitely not going to defeat a government army just because the populace is armed. But it certainly doesn't help them in the goal of controlling the populace, and can slow them down financially and logistically.

[Lost Cause]

There is one thing y''all forgot to mention; every soldier has the right to question his superiors orders if they feel that those orders are immoral, unlawful, or unsafe.
The question is how many would actually do just that?!

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This has happened before. In 1861. While the small arms used by the civilians was not all that much different from those used by the military, it was only a temporary messure until the rebels could gain control of military arms of their own...and fight a war for four years. They lost that war, but it was the bloodiest fighting in United States has ever seen....even if you only take a single side's causulties into consideration.

Of course allot of this has to do with the fact that at the time, the Federal army wasn't exactly all that big. Most of the military capacity at the time was actually vested in the states, in the form of the state militia. Being composed entirely of locals and under the command of the state governor, it's pretty obvious why when a state seceded they actually had a fair bit of immediate military muscle to back them up. So it really was more of a matter that there wasn't any actual Federal military presence that could realistically contend with the rebels.

This wouldn't happen today as easily, with the military maintaining much tighter and hierarchical control over all it's elements including the state national guard. Attempts to seize military arsenals would be much more difficult today, and in the end possibly futile. With a little organization your militia can quickly take advantage of all those muskets, powder and cannon you plundered. Trying to do that with todays highly complex weapon systems is another matter entirely. I'd like to see a bunch of technically unqualified civvies try to keep a tank battalion running.

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

thats mostly because trying to use small arms against people who have "big" arms, body armor, and considerable combat training, is hardly an effective way of protecting yourself.
never bring a knife to a gun fight, and never bring a gun to a tank fight.

Actually it's more that things like machine guns, rockets, artillery and bombs, despite being somewhat cumbersome...are a HELL of allot better at killing people than dinky little carbines. The professional rifleman is important, but his role is not that of killing. It's point defense, and having the tactical flexibility to pin the enemy in place so people with real firepower can actually kill the enemy.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

There is one thing y''all forgot to mention; every soldier has the right to question his superiors orders if they feel that those orders are immoral, unlawful, or unsafe.
The question is how many would actually do just that?!

Remember Hugh Thompson at My Lai? While he wasn't under Calley's command, he was actively interfering with the orders that a ranking officer had given to his men. In fact, he told his chopper door gunner to start shooting at Calley's men if they started firing on the villagers again.

Sorta makes you feel better about human beings...until you consider the blatant cover up of the massacre afterward, despite the helicopter crew reporting what happened. They even gave a distorted citation for him that cherry picked what happened while still depicting him in a favorable light.

[Ithekro]

That is actually why I mentioned the reservists....the weekend warriors who spend more time in the community than the regular military. Who's side will they fall in on? The government they see from the outside most of the time, or their own family?

It depends entirely on what the war is about. Just what caused the rebellion in the first place.

If it is only a single local matter, the results will probably be like the Branch Divideans in Waco in the 1990s. If it is more wide spread suppport, or has an actual shadow government like the State of Jefferson in 1941, it might actually work.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

In a revolution in the United States...

!. What possibly did the governement do to warrent said rebellion?

2. What stance does the military have on said reason for the rebellion?



The trouble with American soldiers being asked to fight against their own is quite simply that...they are sworn to protect the Constitution against threats both foreign and domestic. They will be divided on to just what that threat to the Constitution is...the rebels, or the governement that got to the point where the people rebelled in large numbers.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

There is one thing y''all forgot to mention; every soldier has the right to question his superiors orders if they feel that those orders are immoral, unlawful, or unsafe.
The question is how many would actually do just that?!

Bingo. Every single soldier, from every branch of the armed services, swears to defend the Constitution. Not just from foreign invaders, but also from internal enemies. Whether that could be some form of rebellion, home grown terrorism, or the Government itself. Show proof to the soldiers that the Government is out of control and/or completely disregarding the Constitution, and the Government will be powerless as the Military would not obey their commands. The vast majority of our soldiers are very Pro-American and very Pro-Constitution.