Bush moves toward Martial Law


This would have course literally sets aside Constitutional rights
During the night of October 27, President George W. Bush has signed a bill into law that changes the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335). Public Law 109-364 allows the president to declare a state of emergency anywhere at any time and move United States troops to suppress any public disorder. It also allows the president to take control of any state troops, forces, or National Guard.

Why do you suppose he has made this move?

Bush moves toward Martial Law


This would of course literally sets aside Constitutional rights
During the night of October 27, President George W. Bush has signed a bill into law that changes the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335). Public Law 109-364 allows the president to declare a state of emergency anywhere at any time and move United States troops to suppress any public disorder. It also allows the president to take control of any state troops, forces, or National Guard.

Why do you suppose he has made this move?

Because both the House (398-23) and Senate (unanimous) voted for changes to the original act in late September of 2006.

One passage was changed.

The original wording of the act which was worded thusly:

.. . insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.. .

Was changed to include the following:

.. . natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how this changes much of anything in regards to Presidential powers.

Because both the House (398-23) and Senate (unanimous) voted for changes to the original act in late September of 2006.

One passage was changed.

The original wording of the act which was worded thusly:

. . .insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. . .

Was changed to include the following:

. . .natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how this changes much of anything in regards to Presidential powers.
Incident, or other condition are darn Vague

Yes, there is always a order that allows that, just as governors have power to bring out the national guard in emergencys. Nothing new, just updating old orders

Yes, there is always a order that allows that, just as governors have power to bring out the national guard in emergencys. Nothing new, just updating old orders
This gives the president and not the Governor power over National Guard

Because both the House (398-23) and Senate (unanimous) voted for changes to the original act in late September of 2006.

One passage was changed.

The original wording of the act which was worded thusly:

. . .insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy. . .

Was changed to include the following:

. . .natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition.

Frankly, I'm not seeing how this changes much of anything in regards to Presidential powers.
Public Law 109-364 allows the president to declare a state of emergency anywhere at any time and move United States troops to suppress any public disorder. It also allows the president to take control of any state troops, forces, or national guard.

This gives the president and not the Governor power over National Guard

The President has had the power to take control of the National Guard from State Governors under the Insurrection Act since 1807.

Hello DC:

You were laughing at me earlier when I spoke about the makeup of the troops and the arming of Americans. I wondered whether they would point their guns at Americans... THIS is why I said that, and who do you think the troops he can call out are going to be pointing their guns at??

excon

PS> Well, at lest you're going to be safe in Mexico.

Public Law 109-364 allows the president to declare a state of emergency anywhere at any time and move United States troops to suppress any public disorder. It also allows the president to take control of any state troops, forces, or national guard.

Right, just as it has since it's passage and ratification about 200 years ago.

Hello DC:

You were laughing at me earlier when I spoke about the makeup of the troops and the arming of Americans. I wondered whether or not they would point their guns at Americans...... THIS is why I said that, and who do you think the troops he can call out are gonna be pointing their guns at???

excon

PS> Well, at lest you're gonna be safe in Mexico.
What people fail to recognize is that not only this President, but ones to come can implement martial law when they want; America has been established as a war zone.
One major attack and martial law can be declared; even though there is a car bombing at a military base in Virginal, troops can be policing the streets of San Diego.

The President is instilling fear almost every day in his comments; when the terrorist cannot possible do the harm Russia could have during the cold war.

Mexico, I have more freedom here than I had in the US since the 60s; and guess what, I can walk down the street with a cigarette with-out worrying about some whacko screeching for me to stop killing her kids.

Right, just as it has since it's passage and ratification about 200 years ago.
Right, the law was changed but not really changed, because congress needed the experience.:D

So a President can have an extensive number of soldiers under his command... thus, no need to institute a draft??

So a President can have an extensive number of soldiers under his command...thus, no need to institute a draft????
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) spoke out vehemently against the provision, as part of an overall defense of the National Guard as a body, which is best employed locally, by the Governor of the state in which the Guard is stationed, and not siphoned off as an auxiliary national force by the White House and Pentagon.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) spoke out vehemently against the provision, as part of an overall defense of the National Guard as a body, which is best employed locally, by the Governor of the state in which the Guard is stationed, and not siphoned off as an auxiliary national force by the White House and Pentagon.

And yet it passed unanimously in the very same body Leahy is a member of.

Go figger.

And yet it passed unanimously in the very same body Leahy is a member of.

Go figger.
Yes, for that moment even congress succumbed to fear by the Profit of Doom- but that was because of the administration's poor response to the Hurricane Katrina.

Yes, for that moment even congress succumbed to fear by the Profit of Doom- but that was because of the administration's poor response to the Hurricane Katrina.

You're really a piece of work, DC.

I'd sure hate to live my life seeing bogeymen under every bed and behind every curtain as you seem to do.

I'm sure everyone remembers during Katrina that President Bush had to inform the Gov of Louisiana ;Gov. Blanco that under Posse Comitatus it was the responsibility of the Gov. to request the use of Federal forces in the state before he could order them there . This in my view contributed to the over-all poor response . The same did not happen in Mississippi .Governor Haley Barbour requested fed. Assistance on Saturday . Blanco did not request fed. Assistance until the Wed. after the storm .

The U.S. military has intervened in domestic affairs some 167 times since the founding of the Republic dating back to President Jefferson .But only when President Bush signs bills to update the provisions are conspiracies of intent concocted .

But I agree with DC and Excon somewhat in that I would tread on restrictions of military use for domestic reasons lightly . Excon hit on the key reason on another posting. I have already seen the Clintonoids with their hands on military power for domestic use. They fire bombed the Branch Davidian's complex at Waco .

You're really a piece of work, DC.

I'd sure hate to live my life seeing bogeymen under every bed and behind every curtain as you seem to do.
I don’t understand, I don’t see bogeymen under every bed and behind every curtain….Bush seems to.

You know I remember the cold war quite well, especially that in all those years we never had a Patriot Act.

Whatever the case, your comment does not fit with what I have said.

Someone touched on the vote, so here it is...

Jun 22, 2006: This bill passed in the Senate (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122) by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

House: (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-510) Ayes: 398 (92%) Nays: 23 (5%) No Vote: 12

Why does Bush get the blame when there were only 23 votes against the measure between both houses?

I'm sure everyone remembers during Katrina that President Bush had to inform the Gov of Louisiana ;Gov. Blanco that under Posse Comitatus it was the responsiblity of the Gov. to request the use of Federal forces in the state before he could order them there . This in my view contributed to the over-all poor response . The same did not happen in Mississippi .Governor Haley Barbour requested fed. assistance on Saturday . Blanco did not request fed. assistance until the Wed. after the storm .

The U.S. military has intervened in domestic affairs some 167 times since the founding of the Republic dating back to President Jefferson .But only when President Bush signs bills to update the provisions are conspiracies of intent concocted .

But I agree with DC and Excon somewhat in that I would tread on restrictions of military use for domestic reasons lightly . Excon hit on the key reason on another posting. I have already seen the Clintonoids with their hands on military power for domestic use. They fire bombed the Branch Davidian's complex at Waco .
I’m reminded by an event discussed just a few days ago; one of the States just recently removed from law the crime of inter-racial marriage.

Once a law is passed, it only seldom is repealed, but most dangerous of all, is that it can be used as a precedent for getting another law passed; laws are stepping stones to more laws.

On the other side of the isle there was Kent State too; Some of the students who were shot were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. However, other students who were shot were merely walking nearby or observing the protest at a distance.

And then came a student strike of eight million students across the country.

When the National Guard are Policing in our streets, there will always be some evil that occurs, but to have our armed forces police the streets will even be worse.

DC

I generally agree with that. Often Federal Troops were used to enforce fugitive slave laws ,but on the other side of the coin ,Posse Comitatus passage derailed Reconstruction and gave rise to a century of lost progress in civil rights.

Was it wrong after that for Kennedy to use Federal troops in Little Rock ? Not as cut and dried a question as it appears .

Someone touched on the vote, so here it is...

Jun 22, 2006: This bill passed in the Senate (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5122) by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

House: (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-510) Ayes: 398 (92%) Nays: 23 (5%) No Vote: 12

Why does Bush get the blame when there were only 23 votes against the measure between both houses?
Because he could have vetoed it; because he did not make a public stand against it.

Interestingly enough, the bill that went in to committee came out completely different than when it went in. My guess, they should have waited a sufficient time until their emotions settled. They were all too quick because they wanted to seize the moment with the voters.

Hello:

We get hung up too much on WHO did it. I care more about WHAT we did. We get into trouble when we make laws reactively. You'd think we'd stop doing that. Nope.

excon

DC,

Assuming your catagorization of Bush's move toward martial law is true (and I question that), would you care to revisit your position on the right to bear arms and it's purpose as a deterrant to the type of martial law that you so obviously fear?

In truth, though, it seems clear to me that the change in the law just makes it easier to declare a state of emergency and take control of military assets in case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Imagine if Bush had been able to decalre a state of emergency in New Orleans after Huricane Katrina without having to wait 3 days for the Governor of Louisiana to declare it? Might that not have helped prevent the "failed" response that everyone seems to blame Bush for? That's what this change in law accomplishes. It expands the president's ability to declare a state of emergency in cases where one exists and take control of local assets without having to wait for local authorities to act.

I really don't see how this is a bad thing. But if you do, aren't you happy there is a right to bear arms to prevent the tyranny you fear?

Elliot

Excon

I think what was more important in my replies is why it was done . As I mentioned there were reasons that Fed. Troops were used that were wrong and reasons I believe were justified. The bigger issue I think is that there is not a Constitutional prohibition against it. I also find it curious that when new laws are considered or old laws revised under President Bush it is treated as some kind of outrageous exception to our history .

The laws regarding the use of troops for domestic reasons have been modified from time to time since Jefferson wanted to use troops against Aaron Burr. Revising and reviewing laws is a function of the respective branches of government .

One more thing: This move by Bush keeps getting called a "stealth maneuver" that Bush did in the "dead of night". But if that is what it was, it wasn't very stealthy. Both the House and the Senate approved the bill after extensive debate. Ted Kennedy was in agreement with the bill (I think I'm going to shoot myself... I actually am in agreement with Ted Kennedy), while Pat Leahy disagreed. The Senate vote was UNANIMOUS and the House vote was with an overwhelming majority. So this was hardly a "stealth maneuver" at all.

DC,

Assuming your catagorization of Bush's move toward martial law is true (and I question that), would you care to revisit your position on the right to bear arms and it's purpose as a deterrant to the type of martial law that you so obviously fear?

In truth, though, it seems clear to me that the change in the law just makes it easier to declare a state of emergency and take control of military assets in case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack.

Imagine if Bush had been able to decalre a state of emergency in New Orleans after Huricane Katrina without having to wait 3 days for the Governor of Louisiana to declare it? Might that not have helped prevent the "failed" response that everyone seems to blame Bush for? That's what this change in law accomplishes. It expands the president's ability to declare a state of emergency in cases where one exists and take control of local assets without having to wait for local authorities to act.

I really don't see how this is a bad thing. But if you do, aren't you happy there is a right to bear arms to prevent the tyranny you fear?

ElliotIf you believe that my OP subject is another way of saying, “Bush is engaged it a plot to declare Martial Law,” you are sadly mistaken.

The right to bear arms will do nothing against tanks, fire bombs and hand held rockets. What it will do is help the citizen-soldier who has been pushed into secluded mountainous areas, and that would be a long struggle…as Castro and many others can attest to.

But why rely on that as a last defense rather than limiting government power as a first defense.

That we need an army in the streets to respond to terrorist or a major event is just silly, given we have National Guard units.

Are we to give-up all state rights to a National Democratic State.

I am tiring from the elevated security alerts, vague warnings of imminent terrorist attacks? Patrick Henry did not say, Give me absolute safety or give me death.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Because he could have vetoed it; because he did not make a public stand against it.

Interestingly enough, the bill that went in to committee came out completely different than when it went in. My guess, they should have waited a sufficient time until their emotions settled. They were all too quick because they wanted to seize the moment with the voters.

I see, in spite of what anyone else does, Bush should be blamed not only for what he does, but what he doesn't do? Sorry, but this blame Bush game is just getting more ridiculous (if that's possible). What exactly do these changes mean anyway? Here is the troubling section:


`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(I) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
←→

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
←→

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
←→

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
←→

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'

Sounds to me like the primary function of this law is to protect the US and our constitutional rights. I could be wrong... but then again as Elliot keeps pointing out, one of those rights is the right to keep and bear arms.

I see, in spite of what anyone else does, Bush should be blamed not only for what he does, but what he doesn't do? Sorry, but this blame Bush game is just getting more ridiculous (if that's possible).

What! You don’t believe a person should not be blamed for what they don’t do?

Amazing, isn’t it? How many times have I heard Clinton blamed for not getting Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance; more than anyone could possibly count.

Why don’t you just fess-up, your ‘Fuehrer’ can do no wrong in your book.

What! You don’t believe a person should not be blamed for what they don’t do?

Amazing, isn’t it? How many times have I heard Clinton blamed for not getting Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance; more than anyone could possibly count.

Why don’t you just fess-up, your ‘Fuehrer’ can do no wrong in your book.

LOL, your use of the word "Fuerhrer" for Bush helps make my point. There's nothing to "fess-up" on this end, I'm more interested in the reality of things than conspiracies.

Absolutely, Clinton was dogged and still is at times, but the hatred for this president among Americans has to be unprecedented, and surely even you have to admit that Bush gets blamed for everything. Everything he does, everything he doesn't do, and a lot of things that other people do. There were hundreds of other names accountable for this legislation, it's just typical that Bush gets all the blame - in spite of I believe a veto-proof passage.

It seems to me Bush caught all kinds of hell for not getting the National Guard in after Katrina, which was Gov. Blanco's responsibility to request, so it seems this gives the president authority to bypass incompetent governors and get help to where it's needed - something congress apparently felt was necessary. So what's the guy to do, veto it and risk another disaster and catch hell for that, or sign it and catch hell for it anyway?

Helps you make what point; the point of referring to him as “Your Fuehrer” was simply that in your adoration of him as one who can do no wrong flies against all reason.

The right to bear arms will do nothing against tanks, fire bombs and hand held rockets.

Certainly not if you don't have 'em.


What it will do is help the citizen-soldier who has been pushed into secluded mountainous areas, and that would be a long struggle…as Castro and many others can attest to.

ALL wars are long struggles. Nothing new there. The Revolutionary War lasted close to a decade. But there are things that can be done to fight against tanks and such.


But why rely on that as a last defense rather than limiting government power as a first defense.

No disagreement there. But having one doesn't preclude having the other as well. And once the government has taken tyrannical power, all that's left is our ability to defend ourselves... the 2nd Amendment.


need an army in the streets to respond to terrorist or a major event is just silly, given we have National Guard units.

Agreed. Nevertheless, if we had US Army S&R teams available to us in the wake of Katrina, should Bush not have used them?


to give-up all state rights to a National Democratic State.

Nope. Just the ones provided for the Federal Government in the Constitution... including the power "to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States" (Constitution, Article I Section 8).


I am tiring from the elevated security alerts, vague warnings of imminent terrorist attacks? Patrick Henry did not say, Give me absolute safety or give me death.

I'm tired of them too. We should just bomb the hell out of them and be done with it. Barring that, what other options do we have.


Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Yes, he did. But notice the wording: "ESSENTIAL liberty" and "A LITTLE TEMPORARY safety". I see nothing "essential" that we are being asked to give up. Not do I see what Bush is trying to accomplish as "little" or "temporary". I see us giving up pretty much NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE for a WHOLE LOT of PERMANENT safety. And I think that's a bargain that Ben Franklin would have approved of.

Elliot

Certainly not if you don't have 'em.



ALL wars are long struggles. Nothing new there. The Revolutionary War lasted close to a decade. But there are things that can be done to fight against tanks and such.



No disagreement there. But having one doesn't preclude having the other as well. And once the government has taken tyrannical power, all that's left is our ability to defend ourselves... the 2nd Amendment.



Agreed. Nevertheless, if we had US Army S&R teams available to us in the wake of Katrina, should Bush not have used them?

Nope. Just the ones provided for the Federal Government in the Constitution... including the power "to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States" (Constitution, Article I Section 8).



I'm tired of them too. We should just bomb the hell out of them and be done with it. Barring that, what other options do we have.



Yes, he did. But notice the wording: "ESSENTIAL liberty" and "A LITTLE TEMPORARY safety". I see nothing "essential" that we are being asked to give up. Not do I see what Bush is trying to accomplish as "little" or "temporary". I see us giving up pretty much NOTHING OF CONSEQUENCE for a WHOLE LOT of PERMANENT safety. And I think that's a bargain that Ben Franklin would have approved of.

Elliot
Elliot

You appear to be as obsessed with The Right to bear arms, as anti-Semites are with Zionism…you never pass-up the chance to bring it up no matter how irrelevant.

I find it illogical that you break down my argument into particulars so that the intended context of the whole is lost to separate particular contexts.

I will charitably mark it down to you occupation rather than simple argumentative dishonesty.

Helps you make what point; the point of referring to him as “Your Fuehrer” was simply that in your adoration of him as one who can do no wrong flies against all reason.

Dark, assumptions do not become you. I'm not going to spend another minute trying to convince people I'm not a blind follower of the president, nor do I "adore" him. Feel free to think whatever the hell you want to think, I know who I am and I know the facts don't warrant your insult... just like that asinine David Duke remark.

Dark, assumptions do not become you. I'm not going to spend another minute trying to convince people I'm not a blind follower of the president, nor do I "adore" him. Feel free to think whatever the hell you want to think, I know who I am and I know the facts don't warrant your insult...just like that asinine David Duke remark.
Aww c'mon, you have such a thin-skin all I need to do is prod you a tiny bit and you go to pieces, and your arguments are awful, your conclusions almost never follow from your premises. I apologized for a comment you should have apologized for over your feeling insulted.. And you accepted my apology like you were doing me a favor, I still wonder if you understand you had no legitimate right to feel insulted.

Anyway, you're a well meaning kid and I like you even though your not much on abstract thought, yet anyway.

BTW. There is no thinking without making assumptions, by anyone at anytime. :p

Aww c’mon, you have such a thin-skin all I need to do is prod you a tiny bit and you go to pieces, and your arguments are awful, your conclusions almost never follow from your premises. I apologized for a comment you should have apologized for over your feeling insulted.. And you accepted my apology like you were doing me a favor, I still wonder if you understand you had no legitimate right to feel insulted.

Anyway, you’re a well meaning kid and I like you even though your not much on abstract thought, yet anyway.

BTW. There is no thinking without making assumptions, by anyone at anytime. :p

Dark, my skin's jut fine. I take it if someone related you to David Duke and said something about "your Fuehrer" you'd be fine with that? No big deal, they're just associating you with the former Grand Wizard of the KKK and a man responsible for the deaths of some 6 million Jews, right? I can't imagine why anyone should take offense, can you?

When someone makes it personal is it a surprise when it comes right back at you? Come on DC, you're smarter than that, and you should understand why the "Red Neck Crackers" remarks were offensive. Replace "Red Neck Crackers" with some other pejorative like faggots, niggers, dikes, kikes and tell us how it sounds. It sounds like something that Al Sharpton, GLAAD and/or the ADL would consider "hate speech." Yet, for my coming to the defense of white southerners, and African-Americans being patronized by Democratic candidates I should apologize? I guess I really do need to work on my "awful" arguments and abstract thought.

With that said, do you have any more criticism or can we just move on, now?

Dark, my skin's jut fine. I take it if someone related you to David Duke and said something about "your Fuehrer" you'd be fine with that? No big deal, they're just associating you with the former Grand Wizard of the KKK and a man responsible for the deaths of some 6 million Jews, right? I can't imagine why anyone should take offense, can you?

When someone makes it personal is it a surprise when it comes right back at you? Come on DC, you're smarter than that, and you should understand why the "Red Neck Crackers" remarks were offensive. Replace "Red Neck Crackers" with some other pejorative like faggots, niggers, dikes, kikes and tell us how it sounds. It sounds like something that Al Sharpton, GLAAD and/or the ADL would consider "hate speech." Yet, for my coming to the defense of white southerners, and African-Americans being patronized by Democratic candidates I should apologize? I guess I really do need to work on my "awful" arguments and abstract thought.

With that said, do you have any more criticism or can we just move on, now?
What a selective memory you have…remember when I suggested you must come from a Recluse family because you were somehow ignorant of racism when you grew-up, and did not know it existed around you, even though Texas had just intergraded the large city school systems and had a long history of violent racism.

So far as the comment about sounding like David Duke, that was directed at your…you right, saying, “Red Neck Crackers", not me, I never called you that.

So you see, I was right in both instances and you do owe me an apology for getting up-tight over a perceived insult that did not take place.

I can only conclude that you are blinded by your own far right extremism.

I don't think the issue of 2nd amendment rights is irrelevant at all. If you believe that Bush is taking steps toward martial law, then you should be happy at the ability to protect yourself from the tyranical government he's creating. It's a pretty easy connection to make.

Elliot

I don't think the issue of 2nd amendment rights is irrelevant at all. If you believe that Bush is taking steps toward martial law, then you should be happy at the ability to protect yourself from the tyranical government he's creating. It's a pretty easy connection to make.

Elliot
This is a curious argument, the entire rationale of an individual right to keep and bear arms is to defend against a tyrannical central government; the militia, or National Guard as it is now called is that defense. But somehow, you see nothing wrong with turning control of the National Guard to that supposed tyrannical government.

The milita had a broader meaning than that . That argument has been used many times by those who would restrict individual gun ownership.

But if as you say the militia or National Guard's role is defense against the gvt. Then the US has freely turned them into the sword of the government many times before President Bush( Which also happens to fits in nicely with my premise on this posting ) .

The militia was used extensively in the Mexican American war ;the early civil war and the Spanish-American war and 40% of the AEF in WWI and in all subsequent wars of the 20th century . I would have to say that if they are the protection against the tyrannical central gvt. We are up the creek .

we are up the creek .
That's what I'm talking about, if there was a military attempt at take-over... I know it's been a long time since the last one... but blindly assuming it won't happen flies against history.

This is a curious argument, the entire rationale of an individual right to keep and bear arms is to defend against a tyrannical central government; the militia, or National Guard as it is now called is that defense. But somehow, you see nothing wrong with turning control of the National Guard to that supposed tyrannical government.

That's right. Because once the population, who outnumber the national guard on the order of several hundred to one, are armed, the national guard is no longer a tyranical threat. Even if the government decided to use them against the population, the population would still be the stronger force. So if we are all armed, why would I be worried about anything the government does with the national guard, or even the whole Armed Forces of the United States? That is the entire point of the 2nd Amendment.

Elliot

That's right. Because once the population, who outnumber the national guard on the order of several hundred to one, are armed, the national guard is no longer a tyranical threat. Even if the government decided to use them against the population, the population would still be the stronger force. So if we are all armed, why would I be worried about anything the government does with the national guard, or even the whole Armed Forces of the United States? That is the entire point of the 2nd Amendment.

Elliot
Ohhh Mr. Wolverine, how you go on, as young as I am I know 1 trained, and 1 untrained only comes out equal on the adding machine, problem is, that is only on paper. ;)

What a selective memory you have…remember when I suggested you must come from a Recluse family because you were somehow ignorant of racism when you grew-up, and did not know it existed around you, even though Texas had just intergraded the large city school systems and had a long history of violent racism.

Good grief Charlie Brown, my memory is fine, too. How is yours? You're still under the impression that we were "ignorant" of racism, apparently having led an overly sheltered life which was never my point. Plain and simple DC, I grew up integrated into a predominantly Hispanic community and race was never an issue for us. We all got along just fine, a beautiful brown, black and white rainbow of friends. That's not "reclusive," it was (dare I say it) "progressive."


So far as the comment about sounding like David Duke, that was directed at your…you right, saying, “Red Neck Crackers", not me, I never called you that.

So you see, I was right in both instances and you do owe me an apology for getting up-tight over a perceived insult that did not take place.

I can only conclude that you are blinded by your own far right extremism.

For someone that just said my "arguments are awful" you aren't making much sense. Do I really have to spell it out? They were questions, asking you to put yourself in my shoes. The only thing pointing at you was that "you should understand why the "Red Neck Crackers" remarks were offensive" - not assigning blame to you.

When I have something to apologize for I will do so, I'm a bigger man than to ignore my missteps. But in this case the only thing I may need to even marginally apologize for is not kissing your feet over accepting your apology, apparently "fair enough" and a smile wasn't good enough. Meanwhile, you've since criticized my arguments, the way I think and accused me of being a blind far right extremist. I guess I should apologize for taking offense at that as well?

Good grief Charlie Brown, my memory is fine, too. How is yours? You're still under the impression that we were "ignorant" of racism, apparently having led an overly sheltered life which was never my point. Plain and simple DC, I grew up integrated into a predominantly Hispanic community and race was never an issue for us. We all got along just fine, a beautiful brown, black and white rainbow of friends. That's not "reclusive," it was (dare I say it) "progressive."



For someone that just said my "arguments are awful" you aren't making much sense. Do I really have to spell it out? They were questions, asking you to put yourself in my shoes. The only thing pointing at you was that "you should understand why the "Red Neck Crackers" remarks were offensive" - not assigning blame to you.

When I have something to apologize for I will do so, I'm a bigger man than to ignore my missteps. But in this case the only thing I may need to even marginally apologize for is not kissing your feet over accepting your apology, apparently "fair enough" and a smile wasn't good enough. Meanwhile, you've since criticized my arguments, the way I think and accused me of being a blind far right extremist. I guess I should apologize for taking offense at that as well?
Ohhh Mr. Speechless, how you go on. But don’t let me put you off, I don’t know anything about politics; but my Auntie told me I learned fast. So you just go on doing whatever it is you people do and don’t pay any attention to me, I’ll just tag along and see what I can pick-up.

Ohhh Mr. Speechless, how you go on. But don’t let me put you off, I don’t know anything about politics; but my Auntie told me I learned fast. So you just go on doing whatever it is you people do and don’t pay any attention to me, I’ll just tag along and see what I can pick-up.

Dark, isn't this getting a little silly? Yes it is, and I appreciate your contributions to the discussion of the real issues here, so can we just get past the personal stuff?