Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I heard a rumor that starting in January every time you log into Dakka you'll pay a Dakka tax. 5 cents for every post that you post.

But then the person I heard it from isn't too reliable so I wouldn't trust them. Doh, I heard it from Jon Stewart.

BaronIveagh wrote:God, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Fateweaver, but his interpretation of the second amendment is, basically, correct. Technically, a lot of gun laws on the books now are unconstitutional, however, as far as I know, few challenges to them have made it to the supreme court.

Most speech laws are also unconstitutional. The document is not iron-clad.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And at that time, baring arms did require that you owned them.

But context isn't allowed, only liberals use context.

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:God, I can't believe I'm agreeing with Fateweaver, but his interpretation of the second amendment is, basically, correct. Technically, a lot of gun laws on the books now are unconstitutional, however, as far as I know, few challenges to them have made it to the supreme court.

Most speech laws are also unconstitutional. The document is not iron-clad.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And at that time, baring arms did require that you owned them.

But context isn't allowed, only liberals use context.

Dogma, and belive me when I say that this is deeply ironic, as a champion of sanity, there's very little room to argue on this one. It's a simply written rule, adn not really open to much intpretation. I'm actually surprised at how much people try to claim RAI was that they meant only the government could carry weapons. That was a very English idea at the time, and something that the founding fathers fought against... hell, George III took it so far as to order all points be ground off all knives in the Empire....

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
BTW, taxes in this country are ridiculous, we need a consumption tax.

You're too young to remember when taxes were really ridiculous.

Wait, so am I. The problem must not be related to memory, but reading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:
The citizens of the US themselves are considered a militia. Every man, woman and child old enough to use and carry a gun is part of a nationwide militia. It was declared so 200+ years ago and that has not changed.

No, wrong. Glaringly, and painfully wrong.

Fateweaver wrote:
The Constitution is not RAI for liberals to tear down, it is RAW.

Oddly enough, intent is nominally a conservative bastion.

Fateweaver wrote:
2nd Amendment says I have the right to own a gun.

Nope, it says you have the right to bear arms. That does not make a comment on ownership by necessity.

Fateweaver wrote:
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

Wrong rules.

The possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms. I cannot bear arms if I cannot own them. I have to obviously be in possession of a firearm to bear it.

You are all misinterpreting the law, obviously.



There is no clearer interpretation, and I want bear arms.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
BTW, taxes in this country are ridiculous, we need a consumption tax.

You're too young to remember when taxes were really ridiculous.

Wait, so am I. The problem must not be related to memory, but reading.


[size=9]

I know that I am too young to worry about taxes, but someone has to pay for a $14 Trillion Deficit, along with about $103 Trillion lump of unfunded liability. The amount of Taxes I pay now is too damn much. Far too much for a free society but, we haven't been that since the 1910's.

The real problem with Unconsitutional Laws is who gets to interpret whether they are Unconstitutional or not. It's all based on perception unfortunately, not objective views of laws.

As for the right to bear arms (or those who view it as radical), I give thee this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE

A perfect explanation of what the hell the Amendment was written for.

BaronIveagh wrote:Walter realized that the American public of the time would be too horrified at what it takes to win in that sort of war.

To win a war against insurgents, I mean, really win, not declare victory and pull out, or palm it off on someone else, you have to be willing to kill whole towns down to the last man, woman, child, goat, dog, cat, and chicken.

At least in a tactical situation like Vietnam.

The other way is to put a rifle squad on every street corner, and flood the country with millions of men. Every time a man is killed, you kill everyone on that block.

No, that’s pretty much the exact opposite of how you actually defeat an insurgency. To defeat an insurgency you need to remove the insurgents from the population. This can be through making alliance with you preferable to alliance with them. It can be through physically moving the civilian population, separating them from the geographic region the insurgents are operating in.

But the use of utter brutality has a really poor track record, because the maths is simple. Everytime you kill a person in response to insurgent actions, you don’t have one less insurgent, you have five more.



In other news, I can’t believed that fateweaver’s random rants about the liberal scheme to ban guns has gotten a reaction, again.

Also, the Gun control laws in Washington DC was finally overturned for being Unconstitutional. I don't see how making people keep their long guns locked and unloaded inside their houses keep anyone any safer. Does that keep a criminal from acquiring a gun illegally? Hell no!

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

According to every court ruling I've found, 'to keep' implies that private individuals may own their own, personal, weapons. This derives from British common law remit for self defense.

I'll further point out that most early drafts read something like this:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, what they were aiming for, RAI, was also to arm the citizens, rather then create a national guard. Which is pretty much what they wrote RAW as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Walter realized that the American public of the time would be too horrified at what it takes to win in that sort of war.

To win a war against insurgents, I mean, really win, not declare victory and pull out, or palm it off on someone else, you have to be willing to kill whole towns down to the last man, woman, child, goat, dog, cat, and chicken.

At least in a tactical situation like Vietnam.

The other way is to put a rifle squad on every street corner, and flood the country with millions of men. Every time a man is killed, you kill everyone on that block.

No, that’s pretty much the exact opposite of how you actually defeat an insurgency. To defeat an insurgency you need to remove the insurgents from the population. This can be through making alliance with you preferable to alliance with them. It can be through physically moving the civilian population, separating them from the geographic region the insurgents are operating in.

But the use of utter brutality has a really poor track record, because the maths is simple. Everytime you kill a person in response to insurgent actions, you don’t have one less insurgent, you have five more.

Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.

One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?

All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.

BaronIveagh wrote:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

According to every court ruling I've found, 'to keep' implies that private individuals may own their own, personal, weapons. This derives from British common law remit for self defense.

I'll further point out that most early drafts read something like this:

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So, what they were aiming for, RAI, was also to arm the citizens, rather then create a national guard. Which is pretty much what they wrote RAW as well.

I think the creation of the National Guard was one of neccessity, not want. To have a militia of guys who all have different caliber weapons creates a hellacious problem with logistics. Plus, if you have a militia that is led by a farmer with no concept of tactics. It will be definitely sub-standard to a unit led by a retired member of the military.

However, if a militia is need the defication has hit the ocillation.

Not really. civilians are everywhere, something the military can't really do.

Heck, look at 9/11. It wasn't the armed forces that heroically gave their lives to stop the terrorists on flight 93. It was everyday people.

The first line of defense of any nation is it's people.

BaronIveagh wrote:Not really. civilians are everywhere, something the military can't really do.

Heck, look at 9/11. It wasn't the armed forces that heroically gave their lives to stop the terrorists on flight 93. It was everyday people.

The first line of defense of any nation is it's people.

True that, I always refer to combat situations in the context of a conventional war. Which we might never see again.

BTW, you are dead on about insurgency, the only way to beat them is to utterly annhinlate them and everything around them. Cruel it may be, but it is damn effective.

One thing that occurs to me: lately there has been a lot of noise about revoking the citizenship of US citizens who serve other nations militarizes.

This is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

(Technically, so is Arizona's new immigration law, if the US born children of Illegal immigrants are deported, it violates section 1)

BaronIveagh wrote:One thing that occurs to me: lately there has been a lot of noise about revoking the citizenship of US citizens who serve other nations militarizes.

This is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

(Technically, so is Arizona's new immigration law, if the US born children of Illegal immigrants are deported, it violates section 1)

What's bad is the law passed in Arizona is a version of the Federal law that doesn't get enforced enough.

I can see the reasaon for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in it's historical context. 1868, all the US born slaves didn't count as citizens, there's an Amnedment made so that the recently freed slaves can now enjoy the benefits of citizenship accross the board. Now, it's purpose is corrupted. The intention was not for "anchor babies". What's even worse is that when these anchor babies become legal adults, they can bring in up to 17 family members from abroad. Inevitably, when some amnesty bill comes around, those people will all become citizens, radically changing the demographics of the nation in a very short time.

I have no problem with immigration, just illegal immigration.

I'm still baffled as to how the 2nd is misinterpreted. The comma between people and State means 2 separate ideas in one sentence. It's not just a pause to catch your breath.

Stormrider wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:One thing that occurs to me: lately there has been a lot of noise about revoking the citizenship of US citizens who serve other nations militarizes.

This is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

(Technically, so is Arizona's new immigration law, if the US born children of Illegal immigrants are deported, it violates section 1)

What's bad is the law passed in Arizona is a version of the Federal law that doesn't get enforced enough.

I can see the reasaon for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in it's historical context. 1868, all the US born slaves didn't count as citizens, there's an Amendment made so that the recently freed slaves can now enjoy the benefits of citizenship accross the board. Now, it's purpose is corrupted.

Granted, they hadn't thought of illegal immigrants at the time, however, the point was to ensure that you couldn't be stripped of your rights as a citizen by the government's convenience.

Example: You're arrested for speaking out against the actions of an elected official, under the first amendment, you have that right. Now we strip you off your citizenship! Oops! Now you don't have that right and can be tried in secret by a military tribunal!

See how that works?

I approve of a measure that says that if you commit crimes against the US and you are a citizen of the US you lose your citizenship status.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:One thing that occurs to me: lately there has been a lot of noise about revoking the citizenship of US citizens who serve other nations militarizes.

This is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

(Technically, so is Arizona's new immigration law, if the US born children of Illegal immigrants are deported, it violates section 1)

What's bad is the law passed in Arizona is a version of the Federal law that doesn't get enforced enough.

I can see the reasaon for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in it's historical context. 1868, all the US born slaves didn't count as citizens, there's an Amendment made so that the recently freed slaves can now enjoy the benefits of citizenship accross the board. Now, it's purpose is corrupted.

Granted, they hadn't thought of illegal immigrants at the time, however, the point was to ensure that you couldn't be stripped of your rights as a citizen by the government's convenience.

Example: You're arrested for speaking out against the actions of an elected official, under the first amendment, you have that right. Now we strip you off your citizenship! Oops! Now you don't have that right and can be tried in secret by a military tribunal!

See how that works?

Yeah, that's Sedition. Woodrow Wilson was a big fan of that during WWI. He had his goons go around the US and arrest people against the war for thier speech.

BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.

One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?

All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.

I did not realize we were in the business of breaking the will of entire nations... hmm.

Drop a nuke, problem solved. Your concept is weak, and needs larger explosives to work. Hundreds does not compare to thousands, hence you need to kill millions.

DUH!

Fateweaver wrote:I approve of a measure that says that if you commit crimes against the US and you are a citizen of the US you lose your citizenship status.

No. Because what's to stop them from then expanding what a 'crime against the US' is?

Fateweaver wrote:I approve of a measure that says that if you commit crimes against the US and you are a citizen of the US you lose your citizenship status.

That'll teach people to hunt off season! This is a brilliant idea.

No. Because what's to stop them from then expanding what a 'crime against the US' is?

Well they would have to determine what is one in the first place. It's not like theres a series of laws pertaining to what "crimes against the U.S." are.

I'm talking about terrorists Shuma.

Nice attempt at flamebaiting. It sucks for you I have nothing to say to you on the matter.

No camping permit for a national park?

YOU AIN'T NO AMURICAN, NO MORE!

Fateweaver wrote:I'm talking about terrorists Shuma.

Nice attempt at flamebaiting. It sucks for you I have nothing to say to you on the matter.

No, you're talking about "crimes against the U.S.". You know why all court cases have the phrase "The case of (name) vs the state of (state)"? It's because ALL CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST U.S. LAW ARE CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It's not flamebaiting, you're just being confusingly ignorant of the actual laws and practices of your home country.

Wrexasaur wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.

One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?

All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.

I did not realize we were in the business of breaking the will of entire nations... hmm.

Drop a nuke, problem solved. Your concept is weak, and needs larger explosives to work. Hundreds does not compare to thousands, hence you need to kill millions.

DUH!

The problem with dropping a nuke is that you have no idea where to drop it. That's the same problem we ran into when the idea was fielded in 'nam. And nukes just don't have the same effect psychologically as a pyramid of severed heads.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Um, actually, brutality worked all through the middle ages, and the twentieth century throughout most of the world where it was used. I might point out that separating them has failed miserably every time we've done it, I draw your attention to the Villes.

One thing people don't get: you don't kill one person. You kill five hundred. You make them far more afraid of you then they ever could be of the other side. We came into the villages and vaccinated people. They came in after we left and chopped the arms off all the children that had needle marks. Who won again?

All wars are won or lost in the will of the people fighting them. If you can break them, they will fall.

I did not realize we were in the business of breaking the will of entire nations... hmm.

Drop a nuke, problem solved. Your concept is weak, and needs larger explosives to work. Hundreds does not compare to thousands, hence you need to kill millions.

DUH!

The problem with dropping a nuke is that you have no idea where to drop it. That's the same problem we ran into when the idea was fielded in 'nam. And nukes just don't have the same effect psychologically as a pyramid of severed heads.

Pol Pot tactics indeed.

BaronIveagh wrote:The problem with dropping a nuke is that you have no idea where to drop it. That's the same problem we ran into when the idea was fielded in 'nam. And nukes just don't have the same effect psychologically as a pyramid of severed heads.

Hogwash, blow them into pieces and forget the psychological warfare. That is the obvious way to solve any problem, so just support the nuke, and take your fancy-pants psychology elsewhere!

I'm sorry if I need to spell out the fact I meant terrorists. Acts of terrorism are referred to as crimes against the country. I have NEVER heard a DNR official use the phrase "you committed a crime against the country" when arresting someone for poaching.

I know what I was talking about, I just didn't think someone with an IQ above 20 would need it spelled out and drawn in crayon.

Keep it up Shuma and I might just give Frazz a reason to give you a vacation.

You KNOW what I meant with my post. You are just attacking it to get a rise out of me.

Stormrider wrote:

Pol Pot tactics indeed.

Say what you will, but it worked.

Stormrider wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:Not really. civilians are everywhere, something the military can't really do.

Heck, look at 9/11. It wasn't the armed forces that heroically gave their lives to stop the terrorists on flight 93. It was everyday people.

The first line of defense of any nation is it's people.

True that, I always refer to combat situations in the context of a conventional war. Which we might never see again.

BTW, you are dead on about insurgency, the only way to beat them is to utterly annhinlate them and everything around them. Cruel it may be, but it is damn effective.

Not really. It's far too easy to strike at the armed forces of an occupying nation for that to work any more. Back when the best they could hope for is to stab someone it worked just great, people were easily quelled by their own inability to act. Roadside bombs and suicide tactics changed the nature of the war. There are no front lines, and to be brutal against the millions in the nation in which you're fighting a terrorist insurgency of thousands that draws it's recruitment from disenfranchised and oppressed people only strengthens that insurgency. Through massive might of arms you can quell a population, but not defeat an insurgency. At your best you can force them into hiding until you run out of money, then the moment you leave they come back stronger than ever, with their support reinforced by your own measures.