US Soldier Found Guilty in Afghan Thrill-Killings

[BSB]

I'm sure you could give me a lot of stories, Sirs, but mine aren't stories. They're real.

BSB 

[sirs]

So are mine

[Michael Tee]

My problem with the issue in this thread began with the idea of a psycho killer vet (the subject of the original post in this thread) getting a Presidential pardon and then taken onto a police force.  I said that that would be the point, were I unfortunate enough to be a U.S. citizen, where I'd start to think about exercising my Second Amendment rights - - so the issue, or rather sub-issue, as I see it, is plane's response that I've somehow justified his long-held defence of that right.  What I really wanted to know was, recognizing that the first scenario was purely hypothetical, is there any reason in today's world, to arm oneself against potential police abuses?

plane raised Ruby Ridge as an example.  He felt that the victims "should have" shot the FBI agents instead of retreating or surrendering themselves.

Personally, I'd forgotten a lot of the Ruby Ridge story so I just refreshed my memory by reading the Wikipedia account of it.  IMHO, this whole tragedy could have been avoided had the Weaver family NOT availed themselves of their Second Amendment rights.  Or had they submitted to the bench warrant issued by the local judge on Randy's first no-show.   The entire Ruby Ridge story is a textbook example of why citizens should not be armed and even if armed, should not attempt to fight or disobey law enforcement.

This and the Branch Davidian story are both examples of "Fuck with the bull and you get the horn."  In a nation of laws, armed individuals are a threat to the state and when they begin to actualize the threat, that's when tragedy results. 

[sirs]

While a disarmed populace is then placed at the mercy of whatever oppressive fascist or communist regime wishes to take root.  Sorry, not going to happen here

[Michael Tee]

So far, no oppressive fascist or communist regime has appeared on the scene, but the death toll of armed citizens anxious to exercise their Second Amendment rights just keeps rising.  Go figure.

I guess the real issue is where do you want to live?  In the conservatives' fantasy world of oppressive fascist or communist American governments or the real world where there are no oppressive fascist or communist American governments but plenty of heavily armed law enforcement officers determined to enforce the law with deadly violence if necessary?

(Rhetorical question - - I know that conservatives try to avoid the real world like it was a plague planet.)

[BT]

...but plenty of heavily armed law enforcement officers determined to enforce the law with deadly violence if necessary?

Wouldn't that depend on who wrote the laws and wrote the checks that bought the loyalty of our heavily armed law enforcement?

[sirs]

So far, no oppressive fascist or communist regime has appeared on the scene

Due in large part, to the presence of both the 1s & 2nd amendments, thank you very much.  Such a regime would be stupid to try to set up camp here in America

[Michael Tee]

<<Wouldn't that depend on who wrote the laws and wrote the checks that bought the loyalty of our heavily armed law enforcement?>>

Of course it would.  However, and sticking with the real world, note that even today, when special interests obviously control both houses of the U.S. Congress, even the special interests so far have not demanded the kind of laws that would constitute a fascist or communist state.  My own and others' direst predictions notwithstanding, the state you live in in the real world is far from a typical fascist or communist state.

sirs would probably argue that this is BECAUSE the citizens have too much firepower for that to ever happen.  I would argue to the contrary that this is because of a strong tradition of Constitutional rights and government that is deeply engrained in the hearts and loyalties of the people, that transcends ideologies for the most part and despite abuses and incremental erosions, leaves most of the country with a strong sense of what they will and will not put up with in the way of governmental conduct.  Waco was a good example of how little the people's accumulated Second Amendment firepower actually means when a modern state determines that some individuals are trying to challenge its power.

[Plane]

I don't know about the rest of you guys , but I am putting this one on speed dial for future use.

So far, no oppressive fascist or communist regime has appeared on the scene, but the death toll of armed citizens anxious to exercise their Second Amendment rights just keeps rising.  Go figure.

I guess the real issue is where do you want to live?  In the conservatives' fantasy world of oppressive fascist or communist American governments or the real world where there are no oppressive fascist or communist American governments but plenty of heavily armed law enforcement officers determined to enforce the law with deadly violence if necessary?

(Rhetorical question - - I know that conservatives try to avoid the real world like it was a plague planet.)

[sirs]

sirs would probably argue that this is BECAUSE the citizens have too much firepower for that to ever happen.

You would be wrong, again.  We're armed, and rightfully so, but my sig sauer is no match for a military 50 caliber.  The point being a regime would be stupid to try, because of just how "messy" it would become.  Millions of deaths would be plausible under such an attempted take over by a Fascist or Communist regime......must take out those "enemies of the state", right?. 

So, would a regime dare risk such sympathies pouring out to the rest of the world, as millions die at the hands of some military take over, or should they keep trying to cook the frog in ever increasing boiling water, by demeaning the clear intent of the 2nd amendment, and keep adding layer after layer of gun control laws, so that any take over would be far less "eventful"?

Such a regime would definately focus on the latter until such weapons were completely banned, then whalaaaa, a disarmed populace, ripe for the picking, Mr Stalin

[Plane]

  When the nation was founded the population owned more wepons than the government did .

   What sort of problems did that situation cause?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think it caused any serious problems. People were spread out over a huge area. The government quelled the Whisky Rebellion, because the troops were more skilled and probably outgunned those particular rebels.

[Michael Tee]

<<We're armed, and rightfully so, but my sig sauer is no match for a military 50 caliber.  The point being a regime would be stupid to try, because of just how "messy" it would become.  Millions of deaths would be plausible under such an attempted take over by a Fascist or Communist regime>>

And yet another example of the right-wing tendency to move the circumstances under debate into Fantasyland once again.  The fact being that there is no such fascist or communist regime anywhere in the country ready or even willing to move the country into fascism or communism against the will of the people.

Consider that the special interests have already secured every goal that's important to them by the simple expedient of bribery - - the Zio-Nazis have their 100% pro-Israeli foreign policy, the War Party (military-industrial complex) has its "endless war" policy, Wall Street and the 1% have their tax breaks for the rich, no-regulation, bail-out policies and the insurance industry has privatized health care insurance with NO public option.  They love the government just as it is, although I'm sure they'd prefer legislators who are for sale at much less than current rates.

[BT]

So the owwies are just pissing in the wind because the game is fixed?
Shouldn't someone tell them that?

[sirs]

Really