Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: Heller Ruling: One Year Later

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Pretty good column, Dave. I'm going to forward it to a couple fence sitters I know as it may help with their perspective.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    This is a battle that will never be over... the gun grabbers are the control freaks of the world... and they know that as long as we have our guns... they cannot control every single aspect of our lives. But they're doing a pretty good job at eating away our rights in every other aspect of our lives... we now today have the least Liberty we've had ever since slavery was abolished. We just have a new kind of slavery to which they call itcollectivism, or as others here have said... if you choose to live in society, you must accept less Liberty. To these morons, it is Anarchy or Socialism... there's no in between.

    In the immortal words of Patrick Henry (slightly reworded for modern consumption)"Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the Capitol and White house. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

    If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate the Constitution of this United States for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

    They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to take care of our own, that we must be regulated and controlled for our own good. But we are not children to be coddled? When will it be too much? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and whena Federalagent shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

    Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of naturehas placed in our power. Tens of millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

    The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard in the halls of the Capitol! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

    It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren have already fallen in the field at Ruby Ridge and Waco! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

    While we wait, more restrictions are being thought up on a daily basis to enslave us. Soon, we will be so preoccupied with just trying to pay our daily bills that we will no longer be a threat. Already, my tax burden is more than 50% of my total income (if you count every tax I pay including sales and property). This tax burden is my chains of slavery and I am a slave for more than 6 months of the year. My labor is confiscated from me upon the threat of death.

    I have guns, but the government uses death threats to coerce me into slavery. Allow me to elucidate: Say I refuse to pay a tax, the government fines me and tries to force me to pay, I still do not pay, they then charge me with tax evasion and try to bring me to court, I refuse to go, and resist, they then bring in the police to take me in and I resist them with arms, they kill me. And all because I refused to be a slave. What good do our guns do us if we are still slaves? Our government was started on the premise of Liberty, not on the premise of the cradle to grave nanny State that our enslavers are trying to construct.

    Dave, we have fought and won the little battles, but we're losing the war. What good did Perl Harbor do the Japanese in the end? We may have won the Heller case (barely), but we're losing the war. Case in point: the BATFE! All the restrictions on gun ownership and rights considering that the Constitution clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Unless somehow we are not people.... I don't see how that can be interpreted any other way. Oh yes, I know, collectivists do not recognize the right of the individual and never will. So who will compromise? I have never seen a collectivist compromise yet... we now have less individual rights than ever before. And our government has put us in debt to unfunded liabilities to the tune of 63 Trillion dollars.... an amount we will never be able to pay off.... effectively enslaving us forever.

    When will people tire of this? When will people realize they are being forced to pay taxes under threat of death? Harry Reid said that taxes are voluntary... but refused to define the terms... what is their game and how does our winning some insignificant battle on gun rights change the outcome of the war?

    Guns were meant to insure liberty and freedom.... I'd say that they've failed... or that we, the gun owners of America have failed. We got fat and happy and failed to keep our Liberty.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    We have not failed. The chains of slavery that you speak of, however, do exist.

    I believe that many of the chains are placed voluntarily around our own ankles and wrists. Those chains are primarily financial. Financial slavery comes in two forms, financial liability to municipalities (taxes) and financial liability to corporations (debt).

    Do whatever it takes to legally avoid tax liability. Move to an area in which a modestly paid, lower tax bracket job will suffice. Move to wherever the taxes on property are the lowest, and spend as little as you can on sales-taxable items.

    Get out of debt. Move to the least expensive house in the least expensive area that you can comfortably call home. Pay cash for your house, or, if you have an expensive house, sell it,close out the mortgage,and purchase a cheaper house cash with what you have left over. If not, then just pay off your mortgage as soon as possible.

    There is no such thing as prestige, there is no such thing as status through ownership. Own as little as you can to still live in a dignified way.

    Spend your money on education, shoes, glasses and food for your kids. Keep the rest.

    As far as guns are concerned, If they come for 'em, I say let them have 'em. As long as they are willing to take the bullets first.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    WheelGun wrote:
    We have not failed. The chains of slavery that you speak of, however, do exist.

    I believe that many of the chains are placed voluntarily around our own ankles and wrists. Those chains are primarily financial. Financial slavery comes in two forms, financial liability to municipalities (taxes) and financial liability to corporations (debt).

    'Scuse me....just how exactly was this alleged liability established VOLUNTARILY?

    *I* had/have no choice in the creation, collection, and subsequent distribution of this alleged financial liability....ergo, it is not VOLUNTARY.

    I've said it before and it bears repeating:

    If a group of people can gather in a ritualized setting, and by virtue of placing some words on a piece of paper lay claim to a portion of the fruits of my labor, then by virtue of those same actions they could lay claim to ALL of the fruits of my labor.

    Being a slave is like being pregnant; Either you ARE or you AREN'T....there is no in-between.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    WheelGun wrote:
    We have not failed. The chains of slavery that you speak of, however, do exist.

    I believe that many of the chains are placed voluntarily around our own ankles and wrists. Those chains are primarily financial. Financial slavery comes in two forms, financial liability to municipalities (taxes) and financial liability to corporations (debt).

    'Scuse me....just how exactly was this alleged liability established VOLUNTARILY?

    *I* had/have no choice in the creation, collection, and subsequent distribution of this alleged financial liability....ergo, it is not VOLUNTARY.

    I've said it before and it bears repeating:

    If a group of people can gather in a ritualized setting, and by virtue of placing some words on a piece of paper lay claim to a portion of the fruits of my labor, then by virtue of those same actions they could lay claim to ALL of the fruits of my labor.

    Being a slave is like being pregnant; Either you ARE or you AREN'T....there is no in-between.
    +1000

    QFT
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    I said many are voluntary, not all.

    There are steps you can take, not to eliminate your tax burden, but to mitigate it substantially. Financial slavery is not all or nothing, it is incremental. That's what makes it so nefarious. It is designed that way.

    Think of the way credit card debt sneaks up on most people. Think of the way school districts ratchet up the budgets year after year.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Hey, I paid cash for my home... I do not have a mortgage. I cover all of my own expenses, and my child will be either home schooled or sent to a private school of my choice... the force they use to extract money from me for their collectivist programs that I do not agree with are out of control and will bring this country to a civil war once again if we cannot rid ourselves of this burden peacefully. Oh, and the only debt I have is to family, not to banks or credit cards.

    I refuse to be chased into the wilderness just because the collectivists have taken over... I'd rather stand and fight. Don't accept their premise... fight it and take back lost ground. If we don't, we will end up slaves forever.


    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    Then we have to begin by eliminating the wasteful programs that suck up our tax dollars. Where is school funding in the constitution? Where are federal government handouts in the constitution?

    If you read the constitution from a financial perspective, they should be paying for the construction of roads linking post office to post office. And military salaries. Little else.

    Compare that to today.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    WheelGun wrote:

    ..... Financial slavery is not all or nothing.......
    Oh, but it IS.

    See...it doesn't matter if your alleged 'tax liability' is fifty cents or five billion dollars...if you 'owe' you are a slave. Just because you could pay an alleged fifty cent 'debt' by rummaging around in your sofa cushions doesn't make it any less evil than if the claim was for the fruit of your entire life's efforts.

    If it is not a truly VOLUNTARY debt, then it is SLAVERY.

  11. #11
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    Truth is, our Founding Fathers were very opposed to a "Standing Army" I have no doubt to the necessity of it now. But wonder IF the Founders would approve of what we have now.
    As to taxes, and the levying thereof. Even tho' we have a ??representative government those that represent us ARE NOT listening to US. For example, the phone lines to the House were overloaded and overwhelmed yesterday with MILLIONS of calls against the "Cap and TAX" bill. Yet they voted in favor of it anyhow.
    I SAY THROW the bums OUT. If this bill passes the senate and becomes law, we are doomed. The IDIOTS will have won.
    When is enough, enough ?
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    KansasMustang wrote:
    Truth is, our Founding Fathers were very opposed to a "Standing Army" I have no doubt to the necessity of it now.
    I have every doubt. I doubt very much that weed need more of a standing army than was needed by a country that just defeated Great Britain.

    What's your threat model? Terrorists? What good does a standing army do there?

    Or perhaps you seriously believe we'll be invaded, despite the "rifle behind every blade of grass"? By whom? North Korea? :quirky

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I have every doubt. I doubt very much that weed need more of a standing army than was needed by a country that just defeated Great Britain.

    What's your threat model? Terrorists? What good does a standing army do there?

    Or perhaps you seriously believe we'll be invaded, despite the "rifle behind every blade of grass"? By whom? North Korea? :quirky
    We do need a standing army now. Let's face it, the technology of warfare is significantly greater than it was back in the revolution. We can't expect people to be up to date instantly with a call to arms without training. We need people to maintain the weapons, equipment, andbases that we have, as well as to train people in their use should a need arise.

    That being said, I think it could and should bemuch smaller than what it is, with more focus on well trained reserves and less focus on playing world cop. Not to mention the tax dollars saved.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    We do need a standing army now. Let's face it, the technology of warfare is significantly greater than it was back in the revolution. We can't expect people to be up to date instantly with a call to arms without training. We need people to maintain the weapons, equipment, andbases that we have, as well as to train people in their use should a need arise.

    That being said, I think it could and should bemuch smaller than what it is, with more focus on well trained reserves and less focus on playing world cop. Not to mention the tax dollars saved.
    I agree to an extent. I'm of the belief that a small well trained military backed by an armed populace is more than enough to deter any conventional threat. The military should be more of a stand-by force. The militia (every American with a firearm) should be used in conjunction with the uniformed forces. Say the Chinese land in SF Bay there should be a call to arms and everyone with a stick that goes boom should be encouraged to inflict casualties on the invaders. While the militia harasses the enemy and thus slows their advance the military forces are called up to wipe the Chinese from the earth. All the militia needs to do is slow the invaders down until the Navy and Air Force can bring in the heavy firepower. A conventional war with large armies is practically suicide with modern air power.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    I have every doubt. I doubt very much that weed need more of a standing army than was needed by a country that just defeated Great Britain.

    What's your threat model? Terrorists? What good does a standing army do there?

    Or perhaps you seriously believe we'll be invaded, despite the "rifle behind every blade of grass"? By whom? North Korea? :quirky
    We do need a standing army now. Let's face it, the technology of warfare is significantly greater than it was back in the revolution. We can't expect people to be up to date instantly with a call to arms without training. We need people to maintain the weapons, equipment, andbases that we have, as well as to train people in their use should a need arise.

    That being said, I think it could and should bemuch smaller than what it is, with more focus on well trained reserves and less focus on playing world cop. Not to mention the tax dollars saved.
    We do not need a standing army... the Navy is the only Constitutional standing military we have and should ever have... hell, we don't even need an Air Force since the Navy Air Wing will do just fine. The Army and the Air Force are illegal and unconstitutional.

    Every armed American is all the standing army we need. Hell, the civilian population in the USis more armed than most armies in the rest of the world. We have our Navy to back us up on the technology... and the rest... well, no one will ever try and invade us... just won't happen.... oh, unless some idiot politicians think we don't need border security and we have a soft invasion that eventually populates the lower states with so many Hispanics that they secede from the Union to join Mexico... but that'll never happen...
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Washingtonian is exactly correct.

    Edit: Slight disclaimer... I'm not worried about the "soft invasion" part; American culture is too dominant and the border controls too inefficacious as it is for me to see much of a threat. Either way, he's right that it will never happen, or way or another.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Washingtonian is exactly correct.

    Edit: Slight disclaimer... I'm not worried about the "soft invasion" part; American culture is too dominant and the border controls too inefficacious as it is for me to see much of a threat. Either way, he's right that it will never happen, or way or another.
    I don't know how old you are marshaul, but back in the late 70s and early 80s, LA and San Francisco were very different than they are today. The dominant culture was American.... it isn't any longer.... while influence remains, Hispanic culture is becoming dominant.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Washingtonian is exactly correct.

    Edit: Slight disclaimer... I'm not worried about the "soft invasion" part; American culture is too dominant and the border controls too inefficacious as it is for me to see much of a threat. Either way, he's right that it will never happen, or way or another.
    I don't know how old you are marshaul, but back in the late 70s and early 80s, LA and San Francisco were very different than they are today. The dominant culture was American.... it isn't any longer.... while influence remains, Hispanic culture is becoming dominant.
    I'm not sure I agree with that. Granted I spend basically 0 time in LA (I can't stand the place). However, SF, while enjoying multicultural food etc, is still wholly American. There are hispanic neighborhoods, to be sure. But the city as a whole (and I get all over, trust me)... I would state the opposite: while Hispanic influence is apparent, American culture remains dominant. If anything, it's unfortunate that that a certain subculture of American society is becoming as dominant as it is: that being the so-called "urban" culture (what used to be "hip-hop" culture, back when it had redeeming qualities, and signified appreciation for music rather than acting like a walking stereotype). The "urban" culture dominates not just the hispanic culture, it competes with the mainstream American culture.

    I was in McDonald's the other day. I dropped a quarter, and when I went to go pick it up, some guy snatched it from right in from of my hand, exclaiming (to the girl he was trying to hit on), "I got to pick up my quarter!" I said, "Sorry, that's my quarter. I just dropped it, but thanks for picking it up though." To which he responds by throwing my quarter on the ground, and explaining (several times), that, "If it's not my quarter, why did I pick it up? Why did I pick up his @#$%ing quarter?"

    That basically sums up the urban culture for you. As long as that's a growing segment of society, hispanic culture seems pleasant.

    There are certainly plenty of illegals with no desire to assimilate. I don't dispute that (if anything it's more muslin fundamentalists than it is hispanics, though). Maybe it's just because I eat out a lot, but the vast majority of the illegals (hispanics, nearly without exception) I personally come into contact with are clearly in the process of assimilating into American culture. They may not get there all the way, but few first-generation immigrants do.

    As for the new immigrants (all first generation, of course), the poor labor market has shown a significant decrease in the amount of illegal immigration lately. While this is not likely to be permanent, it suggests that illegal immigration (migrant labor) is subject to the same forces of supply and demand that any labor market is. This suggests that it's a self-limiting problem (demand is never unlimited). In short, as long as illegals still have something to gain from coming here, we still have something to gain from their being here.

    That's my free-market analysis.

    Although, I just realized this is off-topic, so maybe we should avoid debate.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    I have every doubt. I doubt very much that weed need more of a standing army than was needed by a country that just defeated Great Britain.

    What's your threat model? Terrorists? What good does a standing army do there?

    Or perhaps you seriously believe we'll be invaded, despite the "rifle behind every blade of grass"? By whom? North Korea? :quirky
    We do need a standing army now. Let's face it, the technology of warfare is significantly greater than it was back in the revolution. We can't expect people to be up to date instantly with a call to arms without training. We need people to maintain the weapons, equipment, andbases that we have, as well as to train people in their use should a need arise.

    That being said, I think it could and should bemuch smaller than what it is, with more focus on well trained reserves and less focus on playing world cop. Not to mention the tax dollars saved.
    We do not need a standing army... the Navy is the only Constitutional standing military we have and should ever have... hell, we don't even need an Air Force since the Navy Air Wing will do just fine. The Army and the Air Force are illegal and unconstitutional.

    Every armed American is all the standing army we need. Hell, the civilian population in the USis more armed than most armies in the rest of the world. We have our Navy to back us up on the technology... and the rest... well, no one will ever try and invade us... just won't happen.... oh, unless some idiot politicians think we don't need border security and we have a soft invasion that eventually populates the lower states with so many Hispanics that they secede from the Union to join Mexico... but that'll never happen...
    Fine, we can call it the Navy if you prefer, and lump the standing army under their banner. I stand by the rest of my point, however.

  20. #20
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    KansasMustang wrote:
    Truth is, our Founding Fathers were very opposed to a "Standing Army" I have no doubt to the necessity of it now.
    I have every doubt. I doubt very much that weed need more of a standing army than was needed by a country that just defeated Great Britain.

    What's your threat model? Terrorists? What good does a standing army do there?

    Or perhaps you seriously believe we'll be invaded, despite the "rifle behind every blade of grass"? By whom? North Korea? :quirky
    Had it not been for "The Regulars" in WW2 and during the "Cold War" which if you remember was "won" because the Russians knew they couldn't defeat us in ground combat due to the swift defeat of their pieces of excrement tanks, which the turrets blew off every time they got hit by depleted uranium projectiles. THAT's why we need a standing army. IF you think that the threat from Russia is over, you're suckin down kool-aid. I served 25 years in both "Peace time" and Combat. I was, and STILL am loyal to the Constitution. Before any loyalty to the "Commander in Chief". We the people just need to ensure that our service members TOTALLY understand that they serve We THE PEOPLE, and the Constitution. WE do not have the luxury of calling up our volunteers to react to an attack as we did in the days of our forefathers. Todays combat moves swiftly and terribly as was shown in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom. I grant you your right to your opinion, no matter how disillusioned you are. You've obviously never served, nor do you understand modern warfare.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  21. #21
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    Fine, we can call it the Navy if you prefer, and lump the standing army under their banner. I stand by the rest of my point, however.
    Yeah, that's not good enough. We need to completely get rid of the Army and the Air Force... not just rename them. Sell all their equipment or scrap it. Allow State's guard units to take over some of the Equipment, but stand down any permanent military force (other than the ACTUAL Navy). Also, disband the Coast Guard and make all of its units a subset of the Navy... We don't need a military force of millions... we have a standing army force of millions... uphold the Constitution and allow for each citizen to be a part of the militia... in fact, you could keep very small units for training purposes only... and offer tobuy every militia member their gear which they keep at home... much like what happens in Switzerland, only... voluntary. And, let anyone aged 18 to 55 join up and get their gear with the caveat that once you join... you cannot get out... but that there is no obligation from you except in time of DECLARED war, so Iraq and Afghanistan would not count and we would not have to serve.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  22. #22
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    Fine, we can call it the Navy if you prefer, and lump the standing army under their banner. I stand by the rest of my point, however.
    Yeah, that's not good enough. We need to completely get rid of the Army and the Air Force... not just rename them. Sell all their equipment or scrap it. Allow State's guard units to take over some of the Equipment, but stand down any permanent military force (other than the ACTUAL Navy). Also, disband the Coast Guard and make all of its units a subset of the Navy... We don't need a military force of millions... we have a standing army force of millions... uphold the Constitution and allow for each citizen to be a part of the militia... in fact, you could keep very small units for training purposes only... and offer tobuy every militia member their gear which they keep at home... much like what happens in Switzerland, only... voluntary. And, let anyone aged 18 to 55 join up and get their gear with the caveat that once you join... you cannot get out... but that there is no obligation from you except in time of DECLARED war, so Iraq and Afghanistan would not count and we would not have to serve.
    Your ignorace of our military missions is truly amazing. The Navy has no clue about how to perform Coast Guard missions. Some units in the Coast Guard fall under the OPCON (Operational Command) of the Navy during the performance of some wartime missions. The Coast Guard is NOT under the Dept. of Defense for many reasons, chief among them is that they are a Federal Law Enforcement Agency and under the Department of Homeland Security (and previously under the Dept of Transportation from 1967 until becoming the nucleus of DHS when it was formed after 9/11/01).

    Perhaps you should do a Google search andlearn alittle more about Coast Guard missions before you spew any more silliness about things you know so little about... Check out:
    1. Aids to Navigation
    2. Search & Rescue
    3. National Defense
    4. Antiterrorism
    5. Maritime Safety
    6. Federal Law Enforcement
    7. Protection of Natural Resources

    No other organization is equipped or trained to do the above listed missions like the Coast Guard. They've been in business since 1790 and have actually trained the Navy in near-Coastal Warfare and Maritime Interdiction (boarding of other vessels).

    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  23. #23
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    NightOwl wrote:
    Fine, we can call it the Navy if you prefer, and lump the standing army under their banner. I stand by the rest of my point, however.
    Yeah, that's not good enough. We need to completely get rid of the Army and the Air Force... not just rename them. Sell all their equipment or scrap it. Allow State's guard units to take over some of the Equipment, but stand down any permanent military force (other than the ACTUAL Navy). Also, disband the Coast Guard and make all of its units a subset of the Navy... We don't need a military force of millions... we have a standing army force of millions... uphold the Constitution and allow for each citizen to be a part of the militia... in fact, you could keep very small units for training purposes only... and offer tobuy every militia member their gear which they keep at home... much like what happens in Switzerland, only... voluntary. And, let anyone aged 18 to 55 join up and get their gear with the caveat that once you join... you cannot get out... but that there is no obligation from you except in time of DECLARED war, so Iraq and Afghanistan would not count and we would not have to serve.
    Your ignorace of our military missions is truly amazing. The Navy has no clue about how to perform Coast Guard missions. Some units in the Coast Guard fall under the OPCON (Operational Command) of the Navy during the performance of some wartime missions. The Coast Guard is NOT under the Dept. of Defense for many reasons, chief among them is that they are a Federal Law Enforcement Agency and under the Department of Homeland Security (and previously under the Dept of Transportation from 1967 until becoming the nucleus of DHS when it was formed after 9/11/01).

    Perhaps you should do a Google search andlearn alittle more about Coast Guard missions before you spew any more silliness about things you know so little about... Check out:
    1. Aids to Navigation
    2. Search & Rescue
    3. National Defense
    4. Antiterrorism
    5. Maritime Safety
    6. Federal Law Enforcement
    7. Protection of Natural Resources

    No other organization is equipped or trained to do the above listed missions like the Coast Guard. They've been in business since 1790 and have actually trained the Navy in near-Coastal Warfare and Maritime Interdiction (boarding of other vessels).
    Your Ignorance ofour Constitution is Infuriating and disappointing.To hell with theCoast Guard... That's what we have a ConstitutionallyenumeratedNAVY for. And as for your beloved Department of Homeland Security... that house of cards is coming down one way or another. Either dismantled by a new Constitutionally CorrectCongress or by a civil conflict that will rip this country to shreds, andI hope for all our sakesit happens by Congress's hand.

    As for your pitiful list;

    1. Aids to Navigation - Navy... to hell with Coast Guard.
    2. Search & Rescue - Navy... see above.
    3. National Defense - Navy... what are you thinking?
    4. Antiterrorism - Navy... see above.
    5. Maritime Safety - Navy
    6. Federal Law Enforcement - unconstitutional... all Federal police are illegal and unconstitutional. The Federal Government has burst so far beyond the bounds of the Constitution that it may never be put back in line without a complete societal collapse.
    7. Protection of Natural Resources - from who? From US citizens? If you're talking about Japanese fisheries fishing US waters.... the Navy for foreigners or State Police for citizens.

    The Coast Guard has no justification in the Constitution and therefore is illegitimate. But don't worry your little head... once this country becomes insolvent... we won't be able to have a Navy let alone a Coast Guard... thanks to people like you blindly believing the unconstitutional crap those in DC shovel our way, our country is headed for destruction much sooner than anyone seems to be suspecting.

    Only the Navy is legitimate as a standing military/protection force... you claim the coast guard has been in action since 1790... BULL CRAP!!! That was the Navy. They make claims they have no business making claims to. The Coast Guard illegally started in 1915 and should have been a subset of the US Navy... but a bunch of morons decided they'd ignore the Constitution. I'm tired of people ignoring the Constitution so they can do anything the hell they please... We have only two legitimate Military forces... the Navy and the Militia which can only be called up in times of legally declared war.... which we have not had since World War 2.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  24. #24
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    The Navy includes the Marine Corps. The mission of the Coast Guard has been politicized and re-invented several times since WWII. It has stuggled for funding ever since. As a 20+ year Naval Aviationvet... ALL of the services are necessary and even tho to the layman, their functions seem to overlap or duplicate each other... they are unique to the support of the mission. The Armed Forces of the Unted States have one purpose: To fight the nations wars and WIN!' The civilian idiots who seek to use the military for other purposes fritter away resources and prolong those wars. We should not be in the business of using the military for nation building. That's not their job. Their job is to break things and kill people. You break enough of the enemy's things... kill and attritt his combat effectives while terrorizing the civilian populace to a point where theywill no longer support the government or 'entity'war effort. In short...conduct war to the point where the enemy has nothing left to fight with... or for. No 'lights at the end of the tunnel'. You kill him... and keep on killing him until he gives up. You do this as swiftly and efficiently as possible in the shortest amount of time with overwhelming firepower and combat resouces brought to bear. It's all about focus... and the national will to WIN.You win wars when you've run out of targets and occupy and control the enemy's stuff.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    other than the Navy... a permanently standing army is illegal and unconstitutional.... we do NOT need all the services if we're not going around fighting a ton of illegal undeclared wars now do we?

    Congress should declare war or disband both the army and the air force... and have the Navy absorb the Coast Guard and have the Coast Guard answer to the Secretary of the Navy. That would make the Coast Guard legit... but keeping it separate is illegal and must be stopped.

    Respect for the Constitution is of utmost importance... because once that is gone forever, we will only have to count the days until a full scale revolution/civil war starts. Without the promise of our Constitution and the respect for it from our Representatives... we have nothing but the guarantee ofa new bloody conflict for our Liberty some time in our not too distant future.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •