Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Pro-Gun / Hunting Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 51759"><p>OK2BC, </p><p>Actually people don't generally kill in mass quantites when acting as individuals but when they amass in large collectives you do get Dresdens, Holocausts, Vietnams, etc. Large collectives tend to breed imperialist attitudes especially when these collectives are national in scale supported and fed with nationalistic purposes. Smaller collectives based upon very small geographic areas made up mostly of neighbors will have their internal disputes but they rarely venture outside their area of influence. The risk of losing it all is greater as the total number of represented persons is far less than in a larger populated collective. It would be like asking if Vietnam would have happened had the US population been 10 times smaller at the time? The answer is no because the capacity to place a large enough army in the field and then have the ability with the folks left at home to financially support would be nearly impossible. </p><p> </p><p>This is also another reason the founding fathers had the 2nd amendment because they knew the country lacked the finacial ability to support a vast standing army nor did the new gov't have the authority under it's taxing and regulatory powers to raise the vast sums to support such. Men were already armed as a result of the needs to use the firearm in feeding families and the 2nd amendment basically just stated the obvious that the right of the people or in fact the need of the people to bare arms would not be infringed. Now here's the kicker most on the pro-gun side do not want to discuss but it is true. The 2nd amendment only forbades the federal gov't from using the police powers as it pertains to firearms but it did not prevent local or state govt's from doing so unless their State constitutions prohibited it. When Wyatt Earp for example prohibited the public display of firearms in Dodge City there was no US Constitutional violation at all. But here's the other dirty secret. 14th amendment changed all of that and granted the larger collective police powers in order to police citizen rights and actions. </p><p> </p><p>You don't like the war in Iraq? You don't like George Bush? You don't like the republicans screwing up this country? We geez, you can't have it both ways my friend. You either gut the size of the collective thus reducing the risk of what we see or you live with the risk like Germany and that we may at some point in our future elect a Hilter like leader. People are suckers for someone who will convince them that they are their savior. We do it every 4 years! </p><p> </p><p>Individuals don't kill, Collectives Do! </p><p>It takes a village you know.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 51759"] OK2BC, Actually people don't generally kill in mass quantites when acting as individuals but when they amass in large collectives you do get Dresdens, Holocausts, Vietnams, etc. Large collectives tend to breed imperialist attitudes especially when these collectives are national in scale supported and fed with nationalistic purposes. Smaller collectives based upon very small geographic areas made up mostly of neighbors will have their internal disputes but they rarely venture outside their area of influence. The risk of losing it all is greater as the total number of represented persons is far less than in a larger populated collective. It would be like asking if Vietnam would have happened had the US population been 10 times smaller at the time? The answer is no because the capacity to place a large enough army in the field and then have the ability with the folks left at home to financially support would be nearly impossible. This is also another reason the founding fathers had the 2nd amendment because they knew the country lacked the finacial ability to support a vast standing army nor did the new gov't have the authority under it's taxing and regulatory powers to raise the vast sums to support such. Men were already armed as a result of the needs to use the firearm in feeding families and the 2nd amendment basically just stated the obvious that the right of the people or in fact the need of the people to bare arms would not be infringed. Now here's the kicker most on the pro-gun side do not want to discuss but it is true. The 2nd amendment only forbades the federal gov't from using the police powers as it pertains to firearms but it did not prevent local or state govt's from doing so unless their State constitutions prohibited it. When Wyatt Earp for example prohibited the public display of firearms in Dodge City there was no US Constitutional violation at all. But here's the other dirty secret. 14th amendment changed all of that and granted the larger collective police powers in order to police citizen rights and actions. You don't like the war in Iraq? You don't like George Bush? You don't like the republicans screwing up this country? We geez, you can't have it both ways my friend. You either gut the size of the collective thus reducing the risk of what we see or you live with the risk like Germany and that we may at some point in our future elect a Hilter like leader. People are suckers for someone who will convince them that they are their savior. We do it every 4 years! Individuals don't kill, Collectives Do! It takes a village you know. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Pro-Gun / Hunting Thread
Top