• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Political Quiz Q8

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security

  • Agree

    Votes: 14 73.7%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 4 21.1%

  • Total voters
    19
Don, I totally see your point and maybe there is a little more information to be had on the subject. What you have described is the typical, "the man is holding me down" attitude.. I truely hope it doesnt come across as racist, but my point is simply that the playing feild has been leveled for those who chose to accept it.. There are far more blacks in high possitions of every level of the workfoce than ever before.. The worst thing that I see happening is the automatic race card being pulled on so many ocasions(this in itself creates racisim, thank you Jesse Jackson and crew:pat: ).. Anyone in this country can succede if they choose to, I dont believe they have no way out..

I dont see these particular people in NO, that the media focused on, as being black. I see them as being human beings who were in a terible situation. Rather than take any responsibility for where they are and how it effected them, they blame it on other people that have been taking care of them for years not being there and telling them what to do.

I just resent (although I wasnt effected this time) the way that so much money was dedicated to NO because of the way the media played it.. A large amount of this money was wasted... While the many others in this country on the Gulf Coast and Florida were mostly ignored... I must admit that I can only speak of what I saw on the Atlanta news channels, FOX and CNN. It may have been different on local news elseware..
 
HGM said:
Anyone in this country can succede if they choose to, I dont believe they have no way out..

I overheard some of my lower level employees talking about how the "towelheads" are horrible people, taking over all the small stores, sleeping in the backroom, taking jobs away from 'real' Americans, etc. I grabbed my managers and had a major ass ripping session over that because immigrants are doing what many others are not willing to do . . . that is they are willing to work hard to create their own success. Be they Asian, Mexican or whatever, most come here to work toward success. Is that a stereotype, sure it is! No more so than the stereotype about the inner city N.O. residents. But it is just as accurate in its generalization.

I too agree that anyone in this country can be successful if they make their own opportunities. But don't expect someone to hand you the winning lottery ticket. You have to make your own successes.
 
Vin, you are correct not EVERYone. But ANYone with desire and drive and ambition who is willing to work. ANYone who has those qualities can be a success in America. But most people are not willing to work 12 hour days to get ahead, most people are not willing to put themselves at risk for a greater reward. Its pretty damn sad that many simply sit an bitch about others who "take" jobs away them. Who "steal" their opportunities. The reality is that the opportunities exist for ALL and that nobody stole it. Its a damn same that so many people are lazy, have the victim mentality, and would rather bitch about their lot in life than do anything about it.
 
B_Skurka said:
Vin, you are correct not EVERYone. But ANYone with desire and drive and ambition who is willing to work. ANYone who has those qualities can be a success in America. But most people are not willing to work 12 hour days to get ahead, most people are not willing to put themselves at risk for a greater reward.

On $5.15 an hour. I would like to see you try, people who make statments like this are niave.
You are starting to sound like the pollies who say they can live on x dollars for a week or two

You have 12% of the Population living below the poverty line. there must be a reason better than your explaination.
 
OkeeDon said:
Who else?

The key is first deciding whether it's worth doing or not. If it is, then seek the best way to do it. Leaving it to the states might mean that people in, say, Oklahoma are treated differently than Colorado, when there is no other difference between them than the accident of a border on a map.

I've never quite seen the allure of states' rights. What it means to me is that the people of State "A" are not educated as well as the people in State "B", and that leads to the people in State "A" having to pay for their education system and help pay to keep the State "B" dummies in jail, bcause "B" can't afford it on their own, and "A" doesn't want the dummies crossing their border and causing problems.

If you're an American, your treatment should not depend on whether you are a Pennsylvanian or Floridian.

You should go back and read some American history - the only reason we even have a Bill of Rights is because back in the Revolutionary era the states were sovereign over the Federal goverment and insisted upon the Bill of Rights. The founders of this country were loyal to their state of origin before they were loyal to the country as a whole - this sentiment was still around at the time of the Civil War - which is why we had one. After the Union won the Civil War the power of the Federal goverment over states rights was pretty much solidified - and it has been downhill ever since.
 
daedong said:
On $5.15 an hour. I would like to see you try, people who make statments like this are niave.
You are starting to sound like the pollies who say they can live on x dollars for a week or two

You have 12% of the Population living below the poverty line. there must be a reason better than your explaination.

When I was younger and before I had experience it was harder to get a job I could survive on. I am now in my early 40's and make an OK living. The only people I know at this point who are having a hard time making ends meet are frankly idiots who run up their credit cards and have no discipline in their lives. I know there are people out there who have a hard time making ends meet but I truly believe ( and this comes from personal experience) that if you want a decent life in this country you can have one if you work. You may not be able to afford the big screen plasma TV and a McMansion but you will have a decent life.
 
daedong said:
On $5.15 an hour. I would like to see you try, people who make statments like this are niave.
You are starting to sound like the pollies who say they can live on x dollars for a week or two

You have 12% of the Population living below the poverty line. there must be a reason better than your explaination.
Vin, the amazing FACT is that many of the people who start their own businesses and become successful here in the US start out making less than minimum wage because they can't afford to pay themselves that much money. All the people who believe that the minimum wage is the key to eliminating poverty are niave and out of touch with the human will to strive to succeed. Those who would suffer along at minimum wage have no desire to help themselves.
 
B_Skurka said:
Vin, the amazing FACT is that many of the people who start their own businesses and become successful here in the US start out making less than minimum wage because they can't afford to pay themselves that much money.
And how many don't make it in business and end up backrupt trying.

B_Skurka said:
All the people who believe that the minimum wage is the key to eliminating poverty are niave and out of touch with the human will to strive to succeed. Those who would suffer along at minimum wage have no desire to help themselves.
Yes i would agree with that, and I don't know anyone myself that beleive that. The reason is simple there are many reasons for poverty but the biggest single reason is lack of money in the western world.

You try to make it so black and white when it is so complex why people stuggle in life. The desire to succeed in life is note the only ingredient need, there are numourous other factors. In your country and no different here many people struggle from one week to the next for reasons beyond there control. These people need handouts not handups as you call it.
 
daedong said:
And how many don't make it in business and end up backrupt trying.

You try to make it so black and white when it is so complex why people stuggle in life.

Yes, for the sake of these debates we do have to simplify things. I will agree that things are more complex. But when it is boiled down to the meat of the issue, my points are valid.

And for reference, I know people who started businesses and failed, they chose not to file bankruptcy even when they could have easily done it but they were too proud to do that and knew that with hard work they could pay off their creditors and still turn their lives around. Its hard, but its the right thing to do. I have one lady who works for me now, she perfectly fits the description of what you described. I have several relatives who that description also fits. All could have filed bankruptcy, all chose not to, most are still in debt to former creditors but they are digging out of their holes, and they have a decent, although not great, life right now. And it gets better daily. Most have managed to buy houses again, one is still renting but is house shopping.

daedong said:
The reason is simple there are many reasons for poverty but the biggest single reason is lack of money in the western world.
HUH?!? There is plenty of money, and it is not divided up like a finite pie where if one person gets more then it takes it away from others. Money is created by the free market through innovation, wealth can shrink or grow but there is no lack of money in the western world.
 
jdwilson44 said:
Y...The founders of this country were loyal to their state of origin before they were loyal to the country as a whole - this sentiment was still around at the time of the Civil War - which is why we had one.
Let me get this straight -- you're saying this was a good thing? I should hope that the system has changed -- and I don't exactly see it as "downhill."
 
Originally Posted by daedong
The reason is simple there are many reasons for poverty but the biggest single reason is lack of money in the western world.

B_Skurka said:
HUH?!? There is plenty of money, and it is not divided up like a finite pie where if one person gets more then it takes it away from others. Money is created by the free market through innovation, wealth can shrink or grow but there is no lack of money in the western world.
I used the Queens engish badly here, I should have said, in the western world the reason is simple, there are many reasons for poverty but the biggest single reason is lack of money

Bob I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on most political issues. In my view governments are the controlling bodies of communities. For sure the private sector stimulate and drive the wealth of countries. No disagreement here. But I will never see how business churches and charities have an obligation to provide safety nets to the underprivileged, whether it be through fault of there own or not. People in this country are first and foremost Australian citizens irrespective of race or creed. Generally most are exemplary citizens. We have an expectation of Government to protect or rights, our safety on the road, our safety from criminals hence government funded jails, and may I add at huge tax payers expense, this list goes on and on.
I guess what I am trying to imply is with your basic belief of business and charities taking care of social welfare we also hand over these other government funded agencies to them as well.
I wish I could write like you Don.
 
daedong said:
I guess what I am trying to imply is with your basic belief of business and charities taking care of social welfare we also hand over these other government funded agencies to them as well.
I wish I could write like you Don.
Careful, my head swells easily. But, what I think Vin is saying (and very well, Vin, don't sell yourself short) is that: Where do we draw the line? If family and church are to help the sick, and charity to help the poor, and government should not be involved, then why have any government at all? Why not have private militias, like the warloards in Afhanistan, to handle defense and police issues? From the problems we're having while trying to tame them, they seem to be very effective.

And, why not let charities handle the jails? Or, better yet, since so many people are supporting home schooling, why not home jailing? If you see someone breaking a law, make a citizen's arrest, bring them home, lock them in the garage, and feed them, yourself. Why should government have to do it?

If you're going to cut spending, why stop at 50%? If you want a road, build it yourself, or get a group of neighbors together. If you aren't capable of building your own road, you can walk. If you spend your own money on the road, of course, you can charge everyone else a toll for using it.

While we're at it, what a waste of government money it is to have national parks, etc. Let's let all of them go; government shouldn't be involved. If you want to preserve something, buy it yourself.

Of course, if you can't afford any of these things, you can always band together with a few neighbors, split up the costs among them all and pool your resources. Since government is a bad word, you can call your group a local cobelagung (the accent is on the second syllable, co-bel-a-gung).

If there are some problems that are too big for your local cobelagung, you could band some of them together, assess the costs fairly and call it a State Cobelagung. Finally, if you want to get rid of the tolls and tariff barriers every 80 feet that were set by individuals, and if you want to do some basic things like protect the fishing waters around your land mass, you could create a Federation of State Cobelagungs (or the F. of S.C).

Once you get these marvelous new structures set up, however, you will soon find a number of people saying that the Cobelagung is too big, and we should take individual responsibility for our well being. And, thus, the cycle starts over.
 
HGM said:
Don, I totally see your point and maybe there is a little more information to be had on the subject. What you have described is the typical, "the man is holding me down" attitude.. I truely hope it doesnt come across as racist, but my point is simply that the playing feild has been leveled for those who chose to accept it.. There are far more blacks in high possitions of every level of the workfoce than ever before.. The worst thing that I see happening is the automatic race card being pulled on so many ocasions(this in itself creates racisim, thank you Jesse Jackson and crew:pat: ).. Anyone in this country can succede if they choose to, I dont believe they have no way out..

I dont see these particular people in NO, that the media focused on, as being black. I see them as being human beings who were in a terible situation. Rather than take any responsibility for where they are and how it effected them, they blame it on other people that have been taking care of them for years not being there and telling them what to do.

I just resent (although I wasnt effected this time) the way that so much money was dedicated to NO because of the way the media played it.. A large amount of this money was wasted... While the many others in this country on the Gulf Coast and Florida were mostly ignored... I must admit that I can only speak of what I saw on the Atlanta news channels, FOX and CNN. It may have been different on local news elseware..


It does seem as if the media and certain leaders in our political and civil sectors made more out of the fact that the majority of the people were black than most of the people I know personally were making out of it in their own minds. This is my own personal opinion - but I believe it is shared by a large majority of people - I believe that the black community as a whole has reached the point where it is it's own worst enemy. Certain prominent blacks - like Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman, have come out and so much as said so and received hell for it. Shelby Steele (who is black) has pointed out that whites now get assumed to be racist simply because they are white:

http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/newsletter/03042/steele.html

http://www.vdare.com/francis/shelby_steele.htm

http://www.uncommonknowledge.org/00fall/535.html

http://www.hooverdigest.org/991/steele.html

And there were at least some people in New Orleans - who were black - who did take the initiative. There was a story that was pretty prominent about a young (black) kid who commandeered a bus (when everbody in the city govt had their head up their ass) and then filled the bus up with people and under his own initiative drove the people to Houston. There were lots of stories of people (most of whom were black) who stayed behind after the storm to protect and defend their property - only to have the city, state and federal goverments come and confiscate their weapons and kick them out of the city.
 
OkeeDon said:
Careful, my head swells easily. But, what I think Vin is saying (and very well, Vin, don't sell yourself short) is that: Where do we draw the line? If family and church are to help the sick, and charity to help the poor, and government should not be involved, then why have any government at all? Why not have private militias, like the warloards in Afhanistan, to handle defense and police issues? From the problems we're having while trying to tame them, they seem to be very effective.

And, why not let charities handle the jails? Or, better yet, since so many people are supporting home schooling, why not home jailing? If you see someone breaking a law, make a citizen's arrest, bring them home, lock them in the garage, and feed them, yourself. Why should government have to do it?

If you're going to cut spending, why stop at 50%? If you want a road, build it yourself, or get a group of neighbors together. If you aren't capable of building your own road, you can walk. If you spend your own money on the road, of course, you can charge everyone else a toll for using it.

While we're at it, what a waste of government money it is to have national parks, etc. Let's let all of them go; government shouldn't be involved. If you want to preserve something, buy it yourself.

Of course, if you can't afford any of these things, you can always band together with a few neighbors, split up the costs among them all and pool your resources. Since government is a bad word, you can call your group a local cobelagung (the accent is on the second syllable, co-bel-a-gung).

If there are some problems that are too big for your local cobelagung, you could band some of them together, assess the costs fairly and call it a State Cobelagung. Finally, if you want to get rid of the tolls and tariff barriers every 80 feet that were set by individuals, and if you want to do some basic things like protect the fishing waters around your land mass, you could create a Federation of State Cobelagungs (or the F. of S.C).

Once you get these marvelous new structures set up, however, you will soon find a number of people saying that the Cobelagung is too big, and we should take individual responsibility for our well being. And, thus, the cycle starts over.

Don is now making it very plain that he is a liberal.

The problem with big goverment is that it flies in the very face of human nature and in many cases the laws that our current federal goverment enacts are unconstitutional. Liberals in general seem to forget that the United States constitution was written to protect the country against unconstrained growth of big goverment and that the founding fathers were not stupid - they knew damn well and were intimately familiar with the excesses of big goverment. The British had one of the biggest empires on the planet at the time so you cannot say that there was not intimate familiarity with the goverment excesses and the drawbacks of big goverment.

To me the test of whether help should be available locally or federally is extremely simple - who would you expect to love your children more?, who would you expect to love your family more?, who would you expect to love your pets more? - would that be you and yours or some family 2000 miles away on the other side of the country that you have never met? If you answer the family 2000 miles away then obviously your family is probably much better off without you - if you answer you and yours then how can you possibly want to justify a huge federal bureacracy that will "help" us over local and home grown groups that know who you are and have a loyalty to you personally?

But the truth does seem to be seeping into Don's head - apparently the thought that we should not have a goverment at all has crossed his mind. If you need a further push then I suggest you read some libertarian writings for a little mind expansion - yes, the question is why do we need the goverment at all?

Vin Suprynowicz
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz-arch.html

The Founding Fathers said that the federal goverment is there to do the things the states and local goverments cannot do - like defend the country as a whole. People are using home schooling because they vehemently disagree with the socialist crap that is taught in many of our public schools, here in a local town - the birthplace of the revolution - Lexington, a local man was arrested because he objected to what the local schools were trying to teach his elementary school child:

Look at the David Parker articles:
http://www.article8.org/

There was another story in the Boston Globe yesterday about another mother in Lexington who is now objecting to the same thing that is being taught to her 2nd grader - I thought this was entirely appropriate that it came out on April 19th.

Why not home jailing? Or at least local jailing - don't you think that offenders would be treated better by locals ( and probably rehabilitated) than being shuttled off to SuperMax prisons like so much human waste?

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution specifically spells out the right to bear arms for the militia - furthermore US Govt Code spells out that the militia is able bodied males between 17 and 45:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

so yes- the founders of this country most definitely intended that there be militias. Furthermore if you really wanted to DEFEND this country the best possible military option is huge amounts of militia. The Japanese during WWII knew this and were hesitant to invade California because they knew there were huge amounts of armed citizens. Apparently the Army and Navy did not intimidate them. The Swiss have known this military fact for a long time - and again during WWII - the Swiss kept out the Nazis.

You and I have agreed on many things Don - but you seem to be displaying a profound misunderstanding of the roots of your country and strengths that have made it what it is. And I am not talking about the Federal Goverment.

Here is one more thing to think about - because it ties right in with something that you and I have agreed upon ( opposition to the Iraq war) - do you really think that if the Federal goverment was not so powerful and had control over every aspect of our lives - that the United States would even be in Iraq? By arguing for big goverment you are arguing FOR the Iraq war. In a country ruled more by local and state goverments where Army and Navy were used purely to DEFEND this country we in all likelihood would not even be involved in Iraq. By arguing and supporting big goverment you are helping to create the very monster that got us involved in this mess in the first place.
 
From the mouths of very wise men:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46


"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" -- Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.


"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750, August 17, 1789.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"--Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888).


"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects,
and Abuses [London, 1774-1775].


Yes - there should be militias - that is the way it was intended.


"Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke




"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only


exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest
civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this
sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great
courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance
to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From
dependence back into bondage."

~Alexander Fraser Tytler (later Lord Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee), in "The
Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic," published 1776.




Yes - we should rely more on local goverments, ourselves and charities - putting all of you hope into a federal goverment is giving that goverment power over you, your family and your freedom. It can only turn out badly ( and has only ever turned out badly all down thru history) - in the end.​


 
jdwilson44 said:
By arguing for big goverment...
You are egregiously guilty of putting words in my mouth. I never argued for "big" government; I merely pointed out that there is a realistic limit to how much government you can eliminate. My remarks indicated that in many cases, by banding together and pooling our resources, we are more effective and more efficient than we can be indivudually.

Take my comments on "home jailing", for example. You ask why not? Well, do you really want to depend on your neighbor's ability to keep his prisoners as secure as you keep yours? I certainly wouldn't. That's enough to prove that your question is just silly, as are most of the more radical proclamations of extreme Libertarians.

As for the militia, see my comments in another thread about real militias and silly popguns. I thought I had put this matter to rest when I saw your machine gun and raised you a battlefield nuke. I guess you missed the point.
 
jdwilson44 said:
Furthermore if you really wanted to DEFEND this country the best possible military option is huge amounts of militia. The Japanese during WWII knew this and were hesitant to invade California because they knew there were huge amounts of armed citizens. Apparently the Army and Navy did not intimidate them. The Swiss have known this military fact for a long time - and again during WWII - the Swiss kept out the Nazis.
:yum::yum::yum::yum::yum::yum::yum::yum::yum::yum:

CRAP
 
OkeeDon said:
You are egregiously guilty of putting words in my mouth. I never argued for "big" government; I merely pointed out that there is a realistic limit to how much government you can eliminate. My remarks indicated that in many cases, by banding together and pooling our resources, we are more effective and more efficient than we can be indivudually.

Take my comments on "home jailing", for example. You ask why not? Well, do you really want to depend on your neighbor's ability to keep his prisoners as secure as you keep yours? I certainly wouldn't. That's enough to prove that your question is just silly, as are most of the more radical proclamations of extreme Libertarians.

As for the militia, see my comments in another thread about real militias and silly popguns. I thought I had put this matter to rest when I saw your machine gun and raised you a battlefield nuke. I guess you missed the point.

I will agree with you that there is a limit to how much goverment we can eliminate but we are not even close to being at that point yet in this country. This country got along just fine with a fraction of the goverment we have now for the first 100 years or so of this country's existence. We fought the most devastating wars this continent has ever seen (Civil War) with a political system that gave the states much more power than the current Federal Goverment allows them to have now. If I am guilty putting words in your mouth then you are guilty of not even bothering to read mine - as far as the "home jailing" comment I think I explained my point pretty clearly but since it didn't come across well I will say it again.

Who do you think would have more interest in rehabilitating a prisoner? A Federal Prison system where that prisoner is just another number or maybe a more locally based system where that prisoner is connected to the community and can feel some connection to the people he has hurt - and the people who may care for that prisoner are available locally to help him - or her - to get rehabilitated?

I can think back to my childhood when I used to watch old 50 and 60's TV shows - and typically a small town jail is going to have some local drunk or some local burglar locked up in it's cell. The "criminal" and the local police may even be a first name basis. In todays world - and on todays TV shows - the typical prisoner being locked up is treated like a piece of meat and is threatened with going to some big bad prison to get him to "talk". This is an oversimplification I know but I think it is a good example of how large goverment does absolutely nothing to help it's citizens. Don't we now have the largest prison population in the world? In your previous replies you ask how cutting down the goverment is going to "help" people - maybe it would mean we would have less people in jail - or do you really think that we have that much of the population that are truly criminals.
 
daedong said:

I can at least back up my response with more than a one word answer:

From the following page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_US

"Those contrary dispute these ideas, arguing that the US's two neighbors, Mexico and Canada, are unlikely ever to invade, although recent incursions across the border by Mexican troops protecting drug traffickers weaken this argument significantly [26]. During the Pacific War, Japan rejected the idea of invading the West Coast of the United States, and one reason was the presence of millions of armed civilians who regularly competed in state markmenship matches. As noted after the war by one Japanese Admiral, "We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." [27] "

and from the this page:
http://www.realfighting.com/0102/rational.htm

" The Japanese Empire certainly understood it as it drafted plans to invade the mainland United States. In 1960, Robert Menard was a Commander aboard the USS Constellation when he was part of a meeting between United States Navy personnel and their counterparts in the Japanese Defense Forces. Fifteen years had passed since VJ day, most of those at the meeting were WWII veterans, and men who had fought each other to the death at sea were now comrades in battle who could confide in one another.

Someone at the table asked a Japanese admiral why, with the Pacific Fleet devastated at Pearl Harbor and the mainland US forces in what Japan had to know was a pathetic state of unreadiness, Japan had not simply invaded the West Coast.

Menard would never forget the crafty look on the Japanese commander’s face as he frankly answered the question. You are right, he told the Americans. We did indeed know much about your preparedness. We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand. "



- and yes - the Swiss being armed most defintely did have an effect on the Nazis intentions on invading Switzerland,

from the following page:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/halbrook.html

Tom Bower's Nazi Gold requires a historical reality check ("What happened to all that money?"). The thesis of this tabloid-level book is that Switzerland was an ally of the Nazis when, in fact, this small neutral country was the only European country Hitler was afraid to invade.

Winston Churchill wrote in 1944: "Of all the neutrals Switzerland has the greatest right to distinction...She has been a democratic State, standing for freedom in self-defense among her mountains, and in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side."

That is why the Nazis despised Switzerland. Joseph Goebbels called Switzerland "this stinking little state" where "sentiment has turned very much against us." Adolf Hitler decided that "all the rubbish of small nations still existing in Europe must be liquidated," even if it meant he would later "be attacked as the 'Butcher of the Swiss.'"

The 1940 Nazi invasion plan, Operation Tannenbaum, was not executed, and SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot. This did not stop the Gestapo from preparing lists of Swiss to be liquidated once the Nazis overran the country.

The other European nations were easily toppled and had little means to wage a partisan war against the occupation. Once their standing armies were defeated, the governments capitulated and the populaces were defenseless.

Only in Switzerland was the entire populace armed and prepared to wage a relentless guerrilla war against an invader. When the war began in 1939, Switzerland mobilized 435,000 citizen soldiers out of a population of 4.2 million. Production figures for Swiss service rifles, which had firepower equal to those of the Germans, demonstrate an ample supply of small arms. Swiss militiamen were instructed to disregard any alleged "official" surrender as enemy propaganda and, if necessary, to fight individually. This meant that a nation of sharpshooters would be sniping at German soldiers at long ranges from every mountain.

While neutral, Switzerland was prepared to fight a Nazi invasion to the end. The celebrated Swiss Gen. Henri Guisan developed the strategy known as defense du reduit--an initial opposition followed by a retreat into the Alps, where a relentless war to the death would be waged. Most Swiss strongly opposed Nazism. Death sentences were issued for fifth-column activities, and proclamations against anti-Semitism were passed at various official levels. There was no Holocaust on Swiss soil, something that can not be said for France, the Netherlands, Poland or most of Europe.

Every Allied country and every neutral country had deplorable policies that turned away refugees. The Swiss government, like the U.S. government, accepted some Jews fleeing the Holocaust and, unfortunately, expelled others.
For 700 years, Switzerland has stood for the ideals of democracy, federalism, and neutrality. These traditions were put to the supreme test in World War II and were vindicated.

 
"As noted after the war by one Japanese Admiral, "We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."

Interesting articles by the gun lobby. Where is the name of this famous Japanese admiral and when and where did he say this? Not one of these articles is validated. Have you ever heard of an "urban myth"?

This thread definately questions the subject, unfortunately it too can't be validated, just like yours.
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000354;p=1
 
jd, sorry, but you're just living up to the stereotype of a Conservative, looking to the past and thinking it's good enough for the present, let alone the future. Times have changed. What was good enough 65 years ago to keep the Japanese from invading, and the other examples you give, have no bearing on today's arms. Our fight is against terrorists, and all the popguns in the world didn't stop them from knocking down two of the world's largest office buildings and killing nearly 3,000 people in a matter of minutes.

In fact, you cite those same insurgents as being able to stop a superpower, like in Fallujah. You're correct -- as long as that so-called superpower is willing to fight the battle with one arm a leg tied behind their back. Do you really think the insurgents would have a chance if anyone with real power decided to wipe them out? The same thing is true of your self-defense delusion.
 
OkeeDon said:
jd, sorry, but you're just living up to the stereotype of a Conservative, looking to the past and thinking it's good enough for the present, let alone the future. Times have changed. What was good enough 65 years ago to keep the Japanese from invading, and the other examples you give, have no bearing on today's arms. Our fight is against terrorists, and all the popguns in the world didn't stop them from knocking down two of the world's largest office buildings and killing nearly 3,000 people in a matter of minutes.

In fact, you cite those same insurgents as being able to stop a superpower, like in Fallujah. You're correct -- as long as that so-called superpower is willing to fight the battle with one arm a leg tied behind their back. Do you really think the insurgents would have a chance if anyone with real power decided to wipe them out? The same thing is true of your self-defense delusion.

Yes Don - but you are living up to the stereotype of a liberal who keeps coming up with grand ideas that never seem to work out the way they were intended to instead of sticking with the tried and tested philosophies and ways of doing things that have proven themselves to work down thru history. You forget that socialist goverments killed 10's of millions of their own citizens in the 20th century trying to get their schemes to work out the way the theories predicted. In the end human nature will triumph over any social theories or fantasies about the way things "should be".

As far as Sept 11 goes if the authorities in this country weren't so stupid about security on airplanes we would could have had locked airplane cockpit doors and possibly armed pilots and/or trained in flight security. El Al at one point armed their pilots and from what I can find out stopped doing that and instead has other security measures. The major drawback to any sort of armed pilot or security person appears to be that some countries ban handguns so as soon as you land you are in violation of the law of that country. Even a simple locked airplane cockpit door would have prevented 9/11. I have heard proposals from some pro-gun persons that armed passengers would have prevented 9/11 - that frankly is something I disagree with. If you start letting armed passengers on the planes sooner or later you are going to have an armed hijacker.

Our CURRENT fight is with terrorists. In the past we have had fights with other enemies that were necessarily "terrorists". The 2nd amendment was not put into the Constitution just as a way to defend against foreign threats - it was also put there to defend the people against their own goverment. Sooner or later in the course of history our goverment will do something go against it's own citizens. It already has during WWII when it put Americans citizens of Japanese ancestry into camps, when blacks were denied the right to own firearms in the south after the Civil War (and therefore denied to right to protect themselves against lynchings and other violence) , when American citizens were killed at Ruby Ridge and at Waco during the 90's.

The types of weapons that so called the liberals and anti gun zealots want to ban mostly are the very types of weapons that would make an average citizen just as well armed as the average soldier from any country across the globe. AR-15's are the semi auto civilian legal version of the military M-16, SigArms 556 is a semi auto version of a Swiss military fully automatic assault rifle, AK47's are available in semi auto versions only to civilians. etc. Any one of the above three weapons if available to a civilian would make that person as well armed as the typical soldier. Prior to 1934 American civilians were able to arm themselves with fully automatic weapons, machine guns, mortars, grenades, etc. Where are the historical accounts of law abiding citizens going beserk and killing their fellow citizens simply because they were allowed to own military comparable weapons? To this day pretty much every Swiss home has a fully automatic capable military assault rifle in it - along with a sizable amount of ammunition. The ammunition is kept in a sealed box - but if the very presence of the weapon is enough to make somebody go beserk and start killing people then what is a simple seal on a box going to do to stop them?

The point here is not to make this into a battle about weapons - it is about a very simple principle I learned when I was probably in elementary school. If you are a scrawny little kid and the school bully is a muscular oversize brute then you better either start lifting weights or stick together with your friends. If the bully picks up a rock you better pick one up too. If the bully carries a knife then you had better carry one too. If you intend on keeping your freedoms from goverment infringement than the citizens damn well be as well armed as the goverment is. The typical liberal response to my above example is that the bully should get therapy so he can get more in touch with his inner anger and therefore will be able to express himself in more constructive ways. My personal experience is that this is a big bunch of crap - all bullies understand is fear. When they think they can't get away with bullying people any more because they will suffer themselves they stop or are at least kept in check. I used to do a lot of running - when you run you inevitably have dogs chase after you. All the advice I got was to stop running - be calm , talk nice to the dog and it wont hurt you. Well guess what - that doesnt work. The one way I found that works each and every time is when a dog starts chasing you is to turn around and go right after that dog just as if you meant to do it harm. From then on I never had a problem with any dogs that this method was applied to, they would sit in their yards and bark like crazy but all I had to do to get a yelp out of them was to turn around and start coming towards them. When all of the citizens are disarmed the goverment will no longer have any reason to fear them. This is a simple principle of human nature. I do not fear my fellow law abiding citizens - I do fear and mistrust the goverment. If the goverment has weapons then the citizens need to have comparable weapons - in the end this is the only thing that will keep your rights.

I have put this reference in some of my posts before but you have never responded that you actually read it:

Jews for Preservation of Firearms ownership:

www.jpfo.org

They have a powerful message - I would like to hear you discount what they have to say.
 
daedong said:
"As noted after the war by one Japanese Admiral, "We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand."

Interesting articles by the gun lobby. Where is the name of this famous Japanese admiral and when and where did he say this? Not one of these articles is validated. Have you ever heard of an "urban myth"?

This thread definately questions the subject, unfortunately it too can't be validated, just like yours.
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000354;p=1


Even if that one example cannot be validated I can still come up with more that can. You did not reply to my example of the Swiss. And I have more - from the following page:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OpEds/D-Day-was-almost-a-German-holiday.htm

As we celebrate the British and American invasion of Europe to roll back tyranny, we should remember that during WWII, Britain and the U.S. carne close to being invaded themselves. Looking back at the dark history of 1940-42, when the Allies were losing the war, teaches us some important lessons for today.
June 4, 1940: 338.,226 British and French troops are evacuated from Dunkirk beach just before the Nazis capture it. Hitler will soon finish off France and Western Europe. Invasion of Great Britain appears imminent. Winston Churchi1l vows 'We shall fight on the beaches ... we shall never surrender!' but despite Churchill's brave words, much of Britain's military weaponry was left behind at Dunkirk. And while Britain frantically tries to train a civilian Horne Guard, the trainees have to practice with canes. umbrellas, spears and pikes.
The British Home Guard has no guns because restrictive gun controls enacted in 1921 have disarmed the public. The British gun laws were enacted because the government did not trust the people, and was afraid of a Bolshevik revolution. But the disarmed British people now lack the means to protect their government.
Expecting a German landing within weeks, the British government has ads placed in American newspapers, begging Americans to send Britons "pistols, rifles, revolvers and shotguns." "British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes" implore the ads.
In the U.S., the National Rifle Association leads and delivers.
Hitler, for reasons still unknown. decides to bomb Britain mercilessly, but not to invade. The next year, the war comes to America.
December 7, 1941: While Pearl Harbor burns, Americans worry about a Japanese landing on the West coast, or in Hawaii. In subsequent months, American troops and the National Guard are shipped off to Manila and beyond to try (unsuccessfully) to bold back the Japanese tide. No uniformed army is left to defend American shores.
So almost immediately after Pearl Harbor, Hawaii's Governor calls for citizens and their guns to man checkpoints and patrol beaches against an expected Japanese invasion.
In early 1942, the Japanese begin sending explosive balloons to bomb the West Coast. The Japanese army captures two Alaskan islands and a Japanese submarine shells a Los Angeles oil refinery .
The Governors of Oregon, Washington, and other states reactivate their state militias: civilians and their personal arms (the Second Amendment's "well regulated militia'). These militias will provide the only defense if Japanese troops land.
January 13, 1942: Nazi U-Boats begin operation Paukenschlag (Drum Roll). sinking ships off the U.S. East Coast at will. Although Germany, unlike Japan, lacks the naval capacity for a full-scale invasion of the U.S., the Nazi submarines could easily discharge commando raiders to attack strategic East coast targets.
March 10, 1942: Maryland Governor Herbert R. O'Conner broadcasts a call for 'Maryland Minute Men" who will be expected to furnish their own weapons to defend state shores against commando landings and saboteur attacks staged from prowling U-Boats. Fifteen thousand men respond, and begin guarding strategic locations. Virginia also reactivates its militia.
While state militias guard the beaches, the federal government begins training civilians for guerilla warfare. The War Department recommends civilians keep easily concealable guerilla warfare weapons like hand guns. Altogether, about 600,000 men (and some women) perform patrol duties for the next 18 months of the war.
Even in non-coastal states, citizens arm themselves heavily; some even begin to manufacture their own ammunition at borne ("handloading") since the commercial manufacturers are so busy with military needs.
The Axis powers decide not to invade, and by late 1943, the. tide of war bas turned, and Germany and Japan are on the defensive.
There were many good reasons for the Axis not invading in 1942, including the difficulty (but not the impossibility) of supplying a large invasion force across an ocean. On other reason that America (despite its vast natural and industrial treasures) turned out not to be a good invasion target is that invaders would have had to contend with guerrilla resistance from a heavily armed populace that was familiar with guns.
In France, Yugoslavia, and Russia, partisans were already tying down large portions of the German army. Chinese guerillas were doing the same to the Japanese in Manchuria and elsewhere. The prospect of equally fierce resistance from the better-armed Americans must have seemed daunting.
Today, there is no threat of armed foreign invasion of the U.S. But as the 20th century teaches us, world politics can change. more rapidly than anyone can expect.
It's true that guns are important to protect modem Americans against the attacks of today' s home-grown violent criminals. But as the authors of the Second Amendment made clear, the main benefit of civilian gun ownership is protecting the people against a tyrannical government. When armed British and American civilians helped prevent their countries against tyrannical invasion in 1940 through 1943, the wisdom and foresight of the Founding Fathers was once again confirmed



Furthermore even if you believe that the military should be the only ones that defend a country there is a huge benefit to having armed civilians. The best soldiers don't come into the military fresh off of video games and potato chips. A trained population of civilians is the best source of recruits for a well trained military:

Audie Murphy was an expert with a .22 rifle by his 9th birthday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy


Civilian Marksmanship Program:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program

The CMP was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act. The original purpose was to provide civilians an opportunity to learn and practice marksmanship skills so they would be skilled marksmen if later called on to serve in the U.S. military. Over the years the emphasis of the program shifted to focus on youth development through marksmanship. From 1916 until 1996 the CMP was administered by the U.S. Army



Civilians who are familiar with firearms make for soldiers that are familiar with firearms. By eviscerating all firearms knowledge from your civilian population you are degrading the military talent pool.


 
jdwilson44 said:
Yes Don - but you are living up to the stereotype of a liberal who keeps coming up with grand ideas that never seem to work out the way they were intended to instead of sticking with the tried and tested philosophies and ways of doing things that have proven themselves to work down thru history.
You forget that socialist goverments killed 10's of millions of their own citizens in the 20th century trying to get their schemes to work out the way the theories predicted.
Not guilty. I have not proposed any ideas, grand or otherwise. I play devils advocate and shoot things down. My purpose is not to show that I'm right, but that you're wrong. So, there is very little, if anything, that I have advocated.

You and many others persist in the error that if I find fault with your Conservative thinking, then I must be a Liberal (with a capital "L"). You're partially correct; I am a social liberal on many issues. But, I'm a fiscal conservative in the old-fashioned sense that we should pay our bills and not be in debt. Trying to connect me with any form of socialism is simply wrong. I won't let you do that. You should be ashamed of that attempt without any basis.

The folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco came out of the same stripe as the folks who blew up the Oklahoma City building. They deserved to be brought under control. If their own resistance to law enforcement activities resulted in their death, then they asked for it. Their end proves my point about privately owned weapons; you'll never have enough and can never beat the government if the government is determined.
I have put this reference in some of my posts before but you have never responded that you actually read it:

Jews for Preservation of Firearms ownership:

www.jpfo.org

They have a powerful message - I would like to hear you discount what they have to say.
I don't recall seeing the link before. I clicked on it now. What I saw was a typical whacko site by some bullshit macho guy who happens to be Jewish. He's as delusional as the rest.
 
jdwilson44 said:
Civilians who are familiar with firearms make for soldiers that are familiar with firearms. By eviscerating all firearms knowledge from your civilian population you are degrading the military talent pool.
You're absolutely correct. But, no one is advocating "eviscerating all firearms knowledge from our civilian population." Bring it back to reality, not imagination.
 
OkeeDon said:
Not guilty. I have not proposed any ideas, grand or otherwise. I play devils advocate and shoot things down. My purpose is not to show that I'm right, but that you're wrong. So, there is very little, if anything, that I have advocated.

You and many others persist in the error that if I find fault with your Conservative thinking, then I must be a Liberal (with a capital "L"). You're partially correct; I am a social liberal on many issues. But, I'm a fiscal conservative in the old-fashioned sense that we should pay our bills and not be in debt. Trying to connect me with any form of socialism is simply wrong. I won't let you do that. You should be ashamed of that attempt without any basis.

The folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco came out of the same stripe as the folks who blew up the Oklahoma City building. They deserved to be brought under control. If their own resistance to law enforcement activities resulted in their death, then they asked for it. Their end proves my point about privately owned weapons; you'll never have enough and can never beat the government if the government is determined.
I don't recall seeing the link before. I clicked on it now. What I saw was a typical whacko site by some bullshit macho guy who happens to be Jewish. He's as delusional as the rest.


If your goal is to show that I am wrong I think you are doing a pretty poor job of it. From where I sit you are just making my point for me. Let me get this straight - you are actually condoning the killing of a defenseless mother who is holding an infant in her arms by goverment agents? And you are condoning the killing of 74 innocent people - including women and children - by goverment agents for no violent offenses - the only laws I believe they MAY have broken were firearms laws. Oh - and those people were killed by being gassed and then burned alive - excellent way to go - I hope the goverment is as nice to me if I ever forget to pay my income tax or some such thing.

from
http://www.davekopel.com/Waco/LawRev/warrant.htm

The BATF investigation of Koresh quickly led to Henry McMahon, doing business as Hewitt Handguns, Koresh's favorite gun dealer. The lead BATF agent on the Koresh case, Davy Aguilera, listed in his affidavit for the search and arrest warrants all of the relatively recent purchases by Koresh, including flare launchers, over one hundred rifles, an M-76 grenade launcher, various kits, cardboard tubes, blackpowder, and practice grenades. [43] All of those items may be lawfully owned without the government's permission. [44] Accordingly, the purchases, while listed in the affidavit, did not in themselves establish probable cause that Koresh or his followers had violated or were planning to violate any federal law.

You seem to be extremely liberal on the issue of human rights - let me ask you - are you against the death penalty? From your answer I would guess not since you don't seem to have a qualm against killing innocent people so there should be no qualms about killing convicted criminals.

As far as JPFO goes you need to read about the Warsaw uprising and partisans during WWII:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/Warsaw.html#The%20Ghetto%20Uprising

750 Jews with 9 rifles, 59 pistols and a couple of grenades:

Not all Jews were found by the Nazis by May 16 and intermittent fighting lasted until June 1943. About 50 ghetto fighters were saved by the Polish "People’s Guard" and formed their own partisan group, named after Anielewicz. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising empowered Jews throughout Poland and resulted in armed resistance in other ghettos. After the ghetto was liquidated, Jewish leaders continued to work underground on the "Aryan" side by hiding Jews and issuing forged documents. Many Jews became active in the Polish underground of Greater Warsaw.

Why do you think that Israelis are the way they are? They learned their lessons well during WWII - going along and surrender do not work - they only lead to your death. You are advocating relying on the good heartedness of the goverment - please show me some examples of when that has ever worked out. I am sure there are thousands up thousands of people affected by Katrina who would have something to say about relying on the goverment to save their asses.

I don't know where you get that the people at Waco and Ruby Ridge were of the same stripe as the people who blew up the Murrah Building. Last time I checked citizens are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country - if you are arguing for a police state and unlimited goverment powers then once again you are making my point for me that citizens need to be able to defend themselves with weapons equivalent to what the goverment has.

"You can never have enough and will never beat the goverment if they are determined?" Um - let me see - what day was April 19th anyway? Was it the celebration of a few hundred years of British rule in the Americas? Maybe it was a celebration of a few hundred years of rule of the French in the Americas? Damn I don't know what happened on that day - it's just another stupid goverment holiday that doesn't mean anything.

I don't think you have refuted a single thing I have said - if anything you have reinforced it with your comments about Waco and Ruby Ridge. I am sorry Don but wanting to defend myself is not a macho fantasy. Knowing what the Second Amendment says and the purposes behind it is not a macho fantasy but simple historical knowledge. You have failed to provide any real world examples of how I am wrong and have simply fallen back to calling it a macho fantasy and making one sentence excuses and over generalizing. I am willing to listen to thought out and backed up arguments - what I am not willing to deal with is generalized hysterics.
 
Top