User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 7:45:48 AM EDT
[#1]
Boy are you ever WRONG garandman.
Waging war on ONLY women and children is WRONG!! It is the stuff of cowards.....so I am shocked that you promote it...ok so maybe shocked is to strong of a word. You better take a second look at your post. Its REALLY F'd Up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 7:48:19 AM EDT
[#2]
Storm, he has a certain point though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 7:50:56 AM EDT
[#3]
Oh I never said that he did not have a point....
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone is entitled to be WRONG.. He is just proving both of my points. I do not think that your "founding fathers" were exactly advocating blowing up 4 year old girls....Do you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 7:52:57 AM EDT
[#4]
Our government does not recognize us as "the militia."
We are not "well regulated", nor do we enjoy the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution. That is why civilans are not legitimate military targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 7:53:38 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Waging war on ONLY women and children is WRONG!! It is the stuff of cowards.....so I am shocked that you promote it...ok so maybe shocked is to strong of a word. You better take a second look at your post. Its REALLY F'd Up. Did I say "only women and children??" No, I DID NOT. I said "those of military AGE and ABILITY." I said MOST civilians. Your reading and comprehension skills are lacking. But then, what would a Canuck know of the American Bill of Rights??? Prolly only what the media and "pubblick skools" tell him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 7:55:01 AM EDT
[#6]
No, I don't believe he does have a point. By international laws of war, if I am not a part of an active military force and am not wearing a uniform, if I am not taking part in the fighting then I am a noncombatant. If I AM taking part in the fighting I am either a spy or an illegal combatant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:00:29 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: But then, what would a Canuck know of the American Bill of Rights??? Prolly only what the media and "pubblick skools" tell him. G-man, I'm unpleasantly surprised at the way you make this a personal attack. [V] I reread his post and it is well executed, using proper King's english, with proper spelling/grammar (okay, two minor violations), and even left out the "bad word" by abbreviation. Then you go straight for the "kick to the nuts." Again, [V] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:01:43 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Our government does not recognize us as "the militia." We are not "well regulated", nor do we enjoy the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution. That is why civilans are not legitimate military targets. Ahhh, I see. So since the gov't does not "regard" us as the militia, therefore we are NOT the militia, and have no rights under teh Second Amendment. Please turn YOUR guns in to the local authorities. if the gov't decides NOt to punish murderes. is murder OK??? No, of course not. YES, teh gov't, specifically the states, have abdicated their responsibility to "regulate" us, and the fed gov't has inded encroached on my Second Amendment rights. This is IRRELEVANT. I am still teh militia, still charged with the responsibility to arm myself, and get my training from SOMEWHERE, for teh defense of my state, and my nation. I am para-military, with ALL the rights and DUTIES implied. My point is you can't have it both ways - all the rights with none of the duties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:08:01 AM EDT
[#9]
G-man, to address your topic, you seem to be overlooking the huge difference between a true war (declared or undeclared, as seems to be in vogue for the last 50 years) and a time of civil strife, where political concerns are addressed illegally through terror tactics by "freedom fighters." Suicide bombs, car bombs, other bombs, shootings, all of which are specifically aimed at civilians, often school children and teens at social functions, weddings, etc. are abhorrent and barbaric and not a legitimate use of military tactics by anyone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:08:48 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: But then, what would a Canuck know of the American Bill of Rights??? Prolly only what the media and "pubblick skools" tell him. G-man, I'm unpleasantly surprised at the way you make this a personal attack. [V] I reread his post and it is well executed, using proper King's english, with proper spelling/grammar (okay, two minor violations), and even left out the "bad word" by abbreviation. Then you go straight for the "kick to the nuts." Again, [V] Sorry beekeep - I just get tired of "non-family members weighing in on what essentially is a "family discussion" as pertains to the Second Amendment. Perhaps i went a bit overboard. However, I regard a "kick to the nuts" to be proper for someone who fires the INITIAL barrage with inflammatory words like "coward" and charachterize others posts as "F'd up." NOT the "king's English" as you say. And I could CARE LESS that he abbreviates the F word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:17:27 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Boy are you ever WRONG garandman. Waging war on ONLY women and children is WRONG!! It is the stuff of cowards.....so I am shocked that you promote it...ok so maybe shocked is to strong of a word. You better take a second look at your post. Its REALLY F'd Up. Here it is again. I too think "Waging war on ONLY women and children is WRONG!! It is the stuff of cowards....." How could anyone disagree with that? It is hardly inflammatory. If he intrepreted your thread to mean you support that, I believe that is the point he was making. You did say "most civilians" but it took a very careful reading and insight to discern you were not including women and children. Of course, most women are capable of bearing arms too. My most ladylike and feminine wife is a sterling example of this. She is absolutely deadly, as well as cool, calm, and collected when killing a deer, and I suspect she would be the same when facing a human target. Let's hope we do not reach that point here in this country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:18:12 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: THEOREM: For those who beleive in the concept of a "citizen militia," ALL persons capable of bearing arms are "legitimate" targets. FACT:Under the laws of armed conflict, only combatants may be fired upon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:21:36 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: G-man, to address your topic, you seem to be overlooking the huge difference between a true war (declared or undeclared, as seems to be in vogue for the last 50 years) and a time of civil strife..... OK, legitimate counterpoint. But keep in mind, my fundamental point is regarding an Israeli - Arab type scenario, with its thousands of years of history, and all teh related nuances. NOT an American scenario, where gunfire and bombs and rockets have NEVER been exchanged between hostile nations on this continent (save the War for Independence, and maybe the Mexican War.) In israel, warfare is a way of life. In America it is rare. Does ANYONE really need some gov't paid hack official to "officially" call it a war, for us to know there is a war going on over there? Beyond that, my point is that israeli attacks on civilians are UNIVERSALLY EXCUSED, even applauded around the world, because there were terrorists nearby, but an Arab attack on civilians is damnable even when there were soldiers nearby. Its a contradiction, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:25:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: I just get tired of "non-family members weighing in on what essentially is a "family discussion" as pertains to the Second Amendment. One more thing, then I'll leave you in peace. Perhaps I should not have weighed in on this thread either. BUT, if you did not wish "non-family members" to weight in, why did you make a thread in a public forum? You could have done this with ETH via e-mail, or have a duel or something. Stormbringer is "family" as much as anyone. The fact that he lives in another country means nothing to me. Perhaps I'm wrong, but he, Striker, Tuuka, PaoloAR15, HunterfromArgentina, [i]et al[/i] are equals here in my book, and would definitely count as "family." I really didn't see this thread as a discussion of the American second amendment, but rather, more a conceptual discussion of terrorists and their targeting of civilians, with our (American) concept of "militia" being brought into it. With this I leave you, friends as always. [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:33:58 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Boy are you ever WRONG garandman. Waging war on ONLY women and children is WRONG!! It is the stuff of cowards.....so I am shocked that you promote it...ok so maybe shocked is to strong of a word. You better take a second look at your post. Its REALLY F'd Up. You might try reading "garandman's" original post. I didn't find where he mentions "Waging war on ONLY women and children." Maybe I missed something ? [X] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:37:07 AM EDT
[#16]
This might be a stupid question, but what happened to the right of the "individual" to keep and bear arms?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 8:38:47 AM EDT
[#17]
beekeep -
My wife IS part of the citzen militia. If it ever gets that bad in this country, she WILL be shouldering a rifle right next to me. If women are NOT part of the citizen militia, then the antis have a VALID point that they have no protection under the Second Amendment, and therefore no right to keep and bear arms. The Second does NOT say "the right of teh men" - it says "the right of the people." Women ARE people, right??? [}:D] Thus , it would be naieve of me to think that an invading force would not fire back at her when she is shooting at them. Which does NOT preclude me from raining hellfire on them if they try. Thus, as part of the citizen militia, with the ability and DUTY to kill an invader, she is, unfortunately, a legitimate military target. Which is NOt to say I'll do EVERYTHING I can to avoid that situation. re: stormbringers post - He threw out the word "coward" at me FIRST. I clearly, TWO TIMES, used the phrase "of military age and ability." I used MOST right in the psot title. It becomes HIS duty to search for my defintion of "most." He didn't. He emoted, without thinking or reading. How much clearer am I supposed to make it???? He misread my post, called me a coward and dismissed my post as "F'd up." So YES, this will receive a verbal "kick in the nutz" to use your parlance. And now a piece of wisdom others have imparted to me - Allow others to fight their own battles. If he regards my response as unwarranted, he'll let me know, I'm QUITE sure. [:D] If he realizes he misspoke and wrongly charachterized me and my post, then you are tilting windmills. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:00:39 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: re: stormbringers post - He threw out the word "coward" at me FIRST. I clearly, TWO TIMES, used the phrase "of military age and ability." He misread my post, called me a coward He most certainly did NOT call you a coward. You misread his post. He called the targeting of women and children the act of a coward. He clearly did not refer to you. And now a piece of wisdom others have imparted to me - Allow others to fight their own battles. If he regards my response as unwarranted, he'll let me know, I'm QUITE sure. [:D] If he realizes he misspoke and wrongly charachterized me and my post, then you are tilting windmills. [:D] As you wish, now and in the future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:07:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Garandman came looking for a fight and I think he’s going to get one! I however, just can’t think too highly of a mans self-proclaimed intelligence that cannot spell the words “probably” and “the”.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:10:53 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Thus , it would be naieve of me to think that an invading force would not fire back at her when she is shooting at them. but if she has not taken a shot at them, and is going about her daily life, is it fair for the enemy, whoever that may be, to target her for initial acts of war? combatant or no, i think we all agree that anyone firing at us is a fair target for return fire. but do you think, as your post seems to suggest, that a bomb or missile aimed at a large gathering of CIVILIANS is a fair target simply because, by definition, they make up a civilian militia, even if these civilians have shown no hostilities towards the other side, have shown no evidience of possessing firearms, and for all intents and purposes are just being people? you think it is okay to target people because they MIGHT be something? Thus, as part of the citizen militia, with the ability and DUTY to kill an invader, she is, unfortunately, a legitimate military target. likewise, all people of any nation have a right to defend their homeland, regardless of their status as civilian or military. should anyone take up arms to do so, he or she must weigh the facts that he or she will likely be targeted for hostilities now. but again, i ask, would you still consider her an acceptable target were she to let the invaders in and not oppose them at all? re: stormbringers post - He threw out the word "coward" at me FIRST. How much clearer am I supposed to make it???? He misread my post, called me a coward and dismissed my post as "F'd up." and you apparently misread his post too. i believe he was calling those who would target only women and children as cowards. not you. [blue]"Waging war on ONLY women and children is WRONG!! It is the stuff of cowards....."[/blue] "IT" refers to "waging war on ONLY women and children." not you. it ain't about you. And now a piece of wisdom others have imparted to me - Allow others to fight their own battles. yeah, like you never step in on someone else's behalf or stay out of something that isn't your business. this wasn't about fighting battles. this was about setting the record straight. he didn't like your opinion. you obviously didn't like his. but he did NOT call you a coward. besides, you've been called worse. how about just turning that other cheek, letting it slide off you like water off a duck's back, and the rest of the cliche phrases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:15:41 AM EDT
[#21]
We are speaking about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, yes?
Terrorism. The Palestinian suicide bombers do not TARGET only civilians that are "capable of bearing arms". They choose their targets randomly, or to be specific, they wish to kill as many people as possible. They don't aim for "combatants", they aim for ISRAELIS. There were many people who died in the WTC attack, who were reservists. That does not make the attack any less of an atrocity. garandman, I wish I were surprised at you. I'm not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:27:25 AM EDT
[#22]
If you indiscriminately fire a rifle into a crowd of people, and hit no one, you are guilty of a crime.
If you indiscriminately fire a rifle into a crowd of people, and hit a wanted terrorist, you are guilty of a crime. If you indiscriminately fire a rifle into a crowd of people, and kill an innocent child, you are guilty of a crime. If you are a Palestinian, and indiscriminately fire a rifle into a crowd of people, hoping only to kill as many as possible, you are guilty of a crime. EVEN IF, BY CHANCE, YOU HIT A SOLDIER. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:28:10 AM EDT
[#23]
It seems to me that Garandman"s post also implicitly justifies Ruby Ridge, the Siege and Storming of Waco, and the Oklahoma City Bombing, as well.
It that where you want to go with this Garandman? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:28:51 AM EDT
[#24]
shoe shine mister? Anyone need a shine? I shine shoes? Ok, you need shoe shine.
GRENADE!!! BOOM!!! Never under estimate the enemy! Even when their women, children, dogs, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:42:23 AM EDT
[#25]
I don't see how bombing a market, bus, restaurant, or night club is legitimate. Granted you may kill men and women of military age and some may even be in the military but what about children, elderly, infirmed. I know innocent people are killed in wars but most countries make an attempt not to kill non-combatants. These tactics are not designed to kill people able to bear arms they are designed to terrorize. The target listed above are easier to hit and they get more coverage in the press. What makes "better news" Palestinian bomber kill 20 teenagers at nightclub or Palestinian bomber kills 20 Israeli soldiers? Would you consider Dan Pearl (sp) a legitimate target. I can understand if he was killed while covering combat but to kidnap someone, hold them hostage, and then kill him when you don't get what you want, is not a legitimate military action. Most countries would consider this a war crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:50:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Jesus G-man you really PROBABLY should have that chip on your shoulder looked at by a doctor. I am certain that it does effect your life in more ways than you would think.
As for your ever so cheap shots at us Canadians. Actually we do know quite a bit about the USA. You see in our schools ( oh and I went to a Private one) they teach us about the rest of the world including the Great nation to the south of us. Not to mention our airwaves are innundated with American Programming. I personally learned quite a bit from the School House Rocks programs..... You remember....Conjuction Junction Whats your Funciton.....and A Bill becomes a law?? They were BIG HITS!! Now to the point in question...... It is one thing as has been pointed out to kill a "civilian" actively engaged in conflict. It is quite another to blow up a group of peaceful people exiting their place of worship!! The carpet bombing of civilian targets is one that I have always struggled with. I have come to the conclusion that is can only be acceptable as a defensive measure in a "TOTAL WAR" senario. Blowing up women children and old men because they are the only targets you could hope to stand up against...is as I pointed out earlier COWARDLY!! The Israeli army does not make a habbit of blowing up just any little house that catches their fancy....they destroy those homes from which the terrorists have used as bases or as firing points. A striclty Tit for Tat situation. Oh BTW I did not say that YOU were F'd up NOR did I call you a coward. My point was and IS that your POST was and IS F'd up. As I intimated I had expected better of you......guess I was wrong. Oh and with regard to the Family issue......... Just which family are we talking about? If your neighbour is kicking the shit out of the kids and dog....would you step in and perhaps show him the error of his ways??? Cheers from the great white north.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:56:17 AM EDT
[#27]
Stormbringer, it's about time you wandered back to clarify. [:D]
I am glad I read your post the way you intended it. Take care, my friend. [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 9:59:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Since targeting non-combatants is evil, I propose that we hunt down our men who dropped the A-bomb on Japan and bring them to trial as terrorists.
Anyone care to explain exactly how Nagasaki was any different? That was a blatant act of terror...I'm sure all of you can justify the hell out of it though. I think I have bigots figured out. It goes something like this. Me = good Anything I don't like = evil |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:05:21 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: It seems to me that Garandman"s post also implicitly justifies Ruby Ridge, the Siege and Storming of Waco, and the Oklahoma City Bombing, as well. It that where you want to go with this Garandman? No. That would be a gov't attacking it OWN citizens. I'm referencing hostilities between the forces of individual sovereign nations. Britain vs. 13 colonies, Israel vs. Arabs. etc etc World-o-difference, there, raf. 1gunrunner - "Prolly" for "probably" is intentional. Kinda in jest, ya know??? "teh" for "the" is a situation where I do it so often, I can't fix 'em all. Maybe I'm careless. Or maybe I'm dyslexic. But go ahead and make fun of that, if you wish. [:D] Besides, I ALONE am the grammar Nazi, and can critique other peoples spelling.[:D] Too bad you chose THAT route instead of an intelligent critique of my original post. [}:D] My loss, I suppose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:08:35 AM EDT
[#30]
Graves....The A-bombs were not terrorist activities...well at least to me they were not.
As I stated above...in a Total war senario strategic methods are somewhat acceptable. The USA did not start the war, and Japan did not seem to keen to end it. America was facing a much greater slaughter of its own men not to mention Japanese dead should an invasion of the mainland be required. For me it was a no brainer. It is only revisionists that now want America to feel guilty for it. Similar attempts occur here in Canada in which they try to make our pilots feel guilty for the night bombing of Germany and the firestorms in general. They are BOTH WRONG! There is NO co-relation between the PLO or IRA tactics and Strategic bombing campains. Now the bombing of Gunerica was an example of a terrorist bombing campain...... It can be a very fine line indeed but the line is there and should be observed. Oh Beekeeper....sorry wife had car troubles.......anyone know how to change a serpentine belt on a 97 Taurus?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:10:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that Garandman"s post also implicitly justifies Ruby Ridge, the Siege and Storming of Waco, and the Oklahoma City Bombing, as well. It that where you want to go with this Garandman? No. That would be a gov't attacking it OWN citizens. I'm referencing hostilities between the forces of individual sovereign nations. Britain vs. 13 colonies, Israel vs. Arabs. etc etc World-o-difference, there, raf. Sorry, Garandman, using your "logic", they would seem to be legitimate targets for law-enforcement. The analogy holds, I believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:16:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Garandman you do know that there has NEVER EVER EVER been an Arab Palestinian Nation. Well not that I know of anyway.
Oh and with regard to the Ireland situation..... How do you feel about the bombing of the Catholic School girls?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:17:16 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Oh I never said that he did not have a point.... Everyone is entitled to an opinion and everyone is entitled to be WRONG.. He is just proving both of my points. I do not think that your "founding fathers" were exactly advocating blowing up 4 year old girls....Do you? No but they sure as hell killed a hell of a lot of Native American men woman and children. By having them starve or freeze to death or place a bullet in them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:17:18 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: by garandman: re: stormbringers post - He threw out the word "coward" at me FIRST. How much clearer am I supposed to make it???? He misread my post, called me a coward and dismissed my post as "F'd up." and you apparently misread his post too. i believe he was calling those who would target only women and children as cowards. not you. [blue]"Waging war on ONLY women and children is WRONG!! It is the stuff of cowards....."[/blue] "IT" refers to "waging war on ONLY women and children." not you. it ain't about you. Yes, he called targeting ONLY women and children cowardly. Then, he claimed that I "promote" such behavior (when I OBVIOUSLY do not) The logical conclusion is that anyone who "promotes" the actions of cowards must himself be cowardly. I wouldn't think I'd have to explain this to you or to beekeep. Its Logic 101. Stormbringers verbage is that of someone who wishes to call someone else a coward, but cleverly couches it in a thin veil. Enuf to fool you two I suppuse. He also called my idea "F'd up." If I beleive what I posted (FYI, I do) then if my idea is "F'd up" I must by defintion be also "F'd up" since I beleive in what I posted. And to the rest of y'all - ARLady is about the ONLY one who addressed the issue from a BOR perspective. The rest of y'all are too locked into peripheral issues. I'll ask again, if you are part of the citizen militia, with the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then don't you also have the [size=6] DUTY [/size=6] to accept you role as a legitimate military target?????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:30:07 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Yes, he called targeting ONLY women and children cowardly. Then, he claimed that I "promote" such behavior (when I OBVIOUSLY do not) The logical conclusion is that anyone who "promotes" the actions of cowards must himself be cowardly. it's a stretch. but then, you've always been really good at making stretches to connect dots that have no business being connected. He also called my idea "F'd up." If I beleive what I posted (FYI, I do) then if my idea is "F'd up" I must by defintion be also "F'd up" since I beleive in what I posted. wrong. one idea does not an entire person/character make. you of all people should realize this. we are all prone to lapses in judgements. that hardly makes us rotten to the core. and for what it's worth, i think your idea, as you worded it in your original post is full of the stinky stuff too. but i don't think you are full of the stinky stuff because of that. (i think you're full of the stinky stuff for a bunch of other reasons, but not for that. [:D]) I'll ask again, if you are part of the citizen militia, with the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then don't you also have the [size=6] DUTY [/size=6] to accept you role as a legitimate military target?????? hmmm. i think you almost gave me a compliment. but since it was coming from you and directed towards me, i must have been mistaken. anyhow. if you had posted in your original post what you just wrote above, i don't think anyone would argue with you. but the difference between what you just wrote and what you originally wrote is the difference between actually taking an active role in defense, regardless of military status, and simply being capapble (because of age, training, etc) to do so. your first post made it sound like any and all civilians were acceptable targets because they [b]could[/b] comprise the militia. we like to think that all abled-bodied men comprise the militia. but let's face it. there are plenty of able-bodied men who don't. being in the civilian militia is more than just being able to physically handle it (and having a firearm). it requires a mentality of wanting to do it, a desire to protect the homeland, a sense of responsibility. you can't tell me that all able-bodied men have this also. buy by your logic, it's okay for the enemy to take a shot at them because they theoretically could be in the militia. bullshit. now, if you want to stand by your latest statement, i'll agree. but your original post is screwed up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:33:34 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It seems to me that Garandman"s post also implicitly justifies Ruby Ridge, the Siege and Storming of Waco, and the Oklahoma City Bombing, as well. It that where you want to go with this Garandman? No. That would be a gov't attacking it OWN citizens. I'm referencing hostilities between the forces of individual sovereign nations. Britain vs. 13 colonies, Israel vs. Arabs. etc etc World-o-difference, there, raf. Sorry, Garandman, using your "logic", they would seem to be legitimate targets for law-enforcement. The analogy holds, I believe. Ahh, FINALLY some good on-point debate. I suppose if my gov't, and more specifically the specific agencies and INDIVIDUALS who committed the specific acts of war in these instances, wishes to bring war to me in the fashion they did at Ruby Ridge, etc etc etc..... then YES I accept myself as a legitimate military target, as my gov't has in those specific instances become both my enemy, and the enemy of the Constitution. (Anyone know a good lawyer so i can appropriately qualify these statements?? [:D] ) So yes, they can play that game if they want. But then, my choice of targets also has a W-I-D-E range of legitimacy. [}:D] Is that what you meant???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:39:22 AM EDT
[#37]
When China invaded Tibet....
...was it OK for them to kill unarmed Pacifist Monks, because they could comprise of a "militia"? If it's not OK to shoot unarmed MILITARY prisoners, or surrendering troops..... Why is it OK to kill unarmed civilians? Your logic is flawed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:42:29 AM EDT
[#38]
I, personally, have never been in a war, just a couple of bar fights, tussles at school,
and a 'throw-down' at Ft. Benning.[:D] Having said that, I find it somewhat ludicrous to speak of 'laws', 'legal', 'legitimate', and other civilized words when discussing the most uncivilized activities of war. How does one interact with the other? Can there be a 'civil' war? (no pun intended) Could any of our veterans on this board answer my questions? While waiting for the experts to give their answer, I'll give my opinion... when involved in a war, there is no civility. If there were, it would not be a war, just discussion. I am not speaking of semantics, do not think that the Korean Conflict was not a war, or Vietnam. War is defined by 'significant' armed conflict, not a formal declaration by an august body of elder statesmen far removed from any fighting. I am not justifying any actions taken by the combatants in the Middle East, just commenting on the moral outrage dispayed by some on this board. There are no rules in war and there is no such thing as a fair fight. If you want/need rules to govern a war, then do not get involved in one, or do not be shocked when you are the only combatant observing the 'rules' BTW, non-Israelis and non-Palestinians arguing over this conflict, anywhere in the world, is analogous to the National Association of Mayors commenting on U.S Foreign policy. It is simply outside our scope of understanding or responsibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:51:17 AM EDT
[#39]
Originally by ARlady: by garandman: I'll ask again, if you are part of the citizen militia, with the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, then don't you also have the [size=6] DUTY [/size=6] to accept you role as a legitimate military target?????? hmmm. i think you almost gave me a compliment. but since it was coming from you and directed towards me, i must have been mistaken. anyhow. if you had posted in your original post what you just wrote above, i don't think anyone would argue with you. but the difference between what you just wrote and what you originally wrote is the difference between actually taking an active role in defense, regardless of military status, and simply being capapble (because of age, training, etc) to do so. your first post made it sound like any and all civilians were acceptable targets because they [b]could[/b] comprise the militia. we like to think that all abled-bodied men comprise the militia. but let's face it. there are plenty of able-bodied men who don't. being in the civilian militia is more than just being able to physically handle it (and having a firearm). it requires a mentality of wanting to do it, a desire to protect the homeland, a sense of responsibility. you can't tell me that all able-bodied men have this also. buy by your logic, it's okay for the enemy to take a shot at them because they theoretically could be in the militia. bullshit. now, if you want to stand by your latest statement, i'll agree. but your original post is screwed up. OK, so by your logic, under the Second Amendment, only the people meeting ALL of your requirements above have the right to keep and bear arms. REMEMBER, the justification under 2A for the PEOPLE bearing arms is that the militia is necessary for a free state. Hence, using ONLY 2A as our justification, if you are not part of the militia, NO RKBA. Your standards were: 1. Only able bodied men. (Women and wimpy guys are disqualified) 2. Those with the appropriate mentality. (Hopefully, we'll always have sufficient "old blood and guts" able bodied men to fight) 3. Those with a desire to defend their homeland. (I can see it now - Thom. Jefferson sending out the OPTIONAL call to defend against teh Red Coats [}:D] ) 4. Those with teh appropriate sense of responsibility (whatever the (pardon my French) hell that means [:D] ) I'd say you have a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding of who EXACTLY the unorganized militia is . Its ALL able bodied persons (yes, women too - that's why the Second describes it as the "right of the PEOPLE" - not just the men) whether they like it or not. RKBA - Its a DUTY, NOT JUST a right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 10:54:41 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: So yes, they can play that game if they want. But then, my choice of targets also has a W-I-D-E range of legitimacy. [}:D] Is that what you meant???? No, not quite. But, here, again, your logic is flawed. Under certain curcumstances, in some of which, you might be unarmed, a police officer would be perfectly within his rights in killing you. You, however, if armed would be instantly guilty of further legal violations should you defend yourself against a police officer legitimately performing his duty in shooting at you. Thus, your range of legitimate targets is not necessarily broadened, at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:09:09 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Quoted: So yes, they can play that game if they want. But then, my choice of targets also has a W-I-D-E range of legitimacy. [}:D] Is that what you meant???? No, not quite. But, here, again, your logic is flawed. Under certain curcumstances, in some of which, you might be unarmed, a police officer would be perfectly within his rights in killing you. You, however, if armed would be instantly guilty of further legal violations should you defend yourself against a police officer legitimately performing his duty in shooting at you. Thus, your range of legitimate targets is not necessarily broadened, at all. raf- You are going a bit far afield here. I said it before, but I will repeat myself, since I think you're cool....[:D] Hey, you gots a M1 in your pic [:D] My original post was pertaining to war-like situations where the terms of the conflict are well-defined. (Again, my illustratiosn were Israel vs Arabs, Britain vs, 13 colonies) You are taking an isolated, undefined incident where a cop begins shooting at you out of the blue. Or, a fugitive after the commission of a crime is NOT relevant to this discussion. I'm taking about well-known widespread use of full auto firearms, tanks, mortars - in a word, WAR. Your policeman situation DOES NOT apply. Not comparable at all. Obviously, what I'm saying (in my original post) can't be applied to every situation in life. Just clearly defined battles, like whats going on in the middle east. Get it???? [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:15:57 AM EDT
[#42]
Garandman, I've lost track of what point you were actually trying to make as you are all over the place here. Was it Jews vs. Arabs, or all Americans are legitimate targets because they are members of the Constitutional militia? Using your self-touted ability at logic, the actions of one Timothy McVeigh (if he really did it) were perfectly justified, as the targets were (mostly) members of the militia, and employees of the government to boot. He had declared war, I guess, and therefore the clerks and such at their desks in the Murrah building were legitimate targets of opportunity, right? It's just "logical," right? He had declared war in exactly the same way the Palestinians have in Israel. You are way off base in this thread and appear to be hell-bent on completing the crash-and-burn.
One other thing, certainly you have heard of the children used in combat in Vietnam? Our soldiers learned the hard way (early on) that all the citizens can be combatants, so, I guess, using your superior logic, all men, women, [b]and children[/b] are militia because they have been such in at least one major conflict? There is a distinction between war and terrorism. The Jews and Palestinians are not at war, though it is hard to tell that at times. The Palestinians commit an act of terror, the Jews respond. That is not war. I almost hope they do go to a real war and get it over with. It is not mine to say, so perhaps I should not have said that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:21:01 AM EDT
[#43]
interesting argument.
let's see if i've got this straight. since only combatants are legitimate targets, and since we americans have a duty to serve as militia, and are potentially combatants, hence legitimate targets; american civilians are legitimate targets, while citizens of other countries without obligations to serve as militia are not. ok, works for me! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:28:17 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: One other thing, certainly you have heard of the children used in combat in Vietnam? Our soldiers learned the hard way (early on) that all the citizens can be combatants, so, I guess, using your superior logic, all men, women, [b]and children[/b] are militia because they have been such in at least one major conflict? I think the Germans also used kid's at the end of WWII? I was told that by my grandfather who had fought over there. My other Grandfather the Japans also used young kids on a few of the islands. Now this is what I was told by two people who where there and lived it. I'm also guessing that they where not the first in history to use children in war and they will also not be the last. If this sounds like a flame on you beekeeper is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:33:57 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: If this sounds like a flame on you beekeeper is not. I didn't take it that way at all. I took it as an attempt to help make my point, and, for that, I thank you. [:)] I was not aware of the examples you gave. It gives definition to the old adage: "Desperate times call for desperate measures." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:34:56 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Garandman, I've lost track of what point you were actually trying to make as you are all over the place here. Was it Jews vs. Arabs, or all Americans are legitimate targets because they are members of the Constitutional militia? Using your self-touted ability at logic, the actions of one Timothy McVeigh (if he really did it) were perfectly justified, as the targets were (mostly) members of the militia, and employees of the government to boot. Well the reason you are confused is because people, like yourself [:D] , throw COMPLETELY unrelated scenarios at me (Tim MCVeigh - puhlease) and then try to force me to defend my position under THOSE circumstances, when I've said NOTHING of the sort, and had NO INTENT to apply my statements to situations other than WAR with clearly defined combatants, battle lines, engagements etc etc etc. I'll restate - 1. If you beleive in the 2A concept of the militia as a justification for your RKBA, then you must also acept yourself as a legitimate military target. 2. By extension, the "civilians" in Israel and Palestine, of Israeli and Arab descent, IF they also have a militia / RKBA / God given right relationship with their gov't (a debatable point for sure, I will concede) then they ALSO are legitimate military targets for their opponents (VERY important verbage follows to explain the context ) in a state of War as these two countries are currently in. ANYONE engaged in defending a country (i.e. as militia member by DEFINITION are, even the unorganized militia) are by definition legitimate targets. With the pictures I've seen of israeli school teachers and 50+ yr old female shoppers with M16's slung over their shoulders, these Israelis MOST CERTAINLY are engaged in the defense of their country. If the Israeli gov't is just giving out m16's for the halibut [:D], I GOTTA move to Israel. [:D] That's alls I'm sayin'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:37:34 AM EDT
[#47]
I think you have a good point Garandman. One thing I would like to add is that back in the day when the militia was called out to do the countries bidding it was optional. People were not forced to fight. As a true description the militia does include everyone. Originally it did not, but due to the equal rights movements etc... I'd have to say it does now. Not Children though.. So if these people choose to exercise their rights and choose to arm themselves and train for the defense of their country then I would expect that they would be legitimate targets.
However now bear in mind, I don't know if this is technically correct.. if they chose not to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, and chose to be included in the militia then they should not be considered tactical targets. Now how is a nation at war to determine that? I have no idea. The way I see it, if a nation declares war on another nation and some people surrender without resistance, then those people are not considered targets. Those that resist are considered targets. It's a big fat gray area.. But I think I understand the point you are trying to make. I believe that anyone can willing concede their rights. They don't have to exercise them. By signing you name on a concealed carry permit many people are giving their right away to the state. They are saying that they recognize the state as having the right to give them permission to exercise their right. It basically acknowledges jurisdiction to the state. So if somebody chooses not to exercise their second amendmant rights are they actually a member of the militia... That is the question. I believe they may choose to not be, and if they choose to not be then I belive they are not valid targets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:39:49 AM EDT
[#48]
Just playing [}:D]'s advocate a little. While I understand your main point, I think you ought to greatly refine it to differentiate between genuine non-combatants, potential combatants, and actual combatants. If you do that, you'll de-fuse much of the criticism you're getting.
As for the sig-pic, I got it from [url]www.google.com[/url]. Click the image button, and type in what you want a pic of. Lots more M1s where mine came from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:41:05 AM EDT
[#49]
The concepts of an individual's right to bear arms, and the "militia" are two distict concepts.
The individual's right is arguably inalienable, while the "militia" is an entity whose description and content is determined by a country's laws. Therefore, according to garandman's logic, a dictatorship that had neither of these rights or entities would be morally just in attacking US civilians (if we were at war). If we (the US) were to attack THEIR civilians, we would be criminal, because their citizenry does not make up a militia. Silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2002 11:47:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: interesting argument. let's see if i've got this straight. since only combatants are legitimate targets, and since we americans have a duty to serve as militia, and are potentially combatants, hence legitimate targets; american civilians are legitimate targets, while citizens of other countries without obligations to serve as militia are not. ok, works for me! Well, sort of. Who said life was gonna be fair??? [:D] For a bit of historical perspective, consider the Japanese admiral, who KNEW it would be futile to invade America because (to use his words) "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." I take that to mean he KNEW that the ENTIRE US populace would INSTANTLY become combatants if Japan invaded the continental US. Seems these foreigners, during a time of war, ALREADY consider our unorganized militia a "legitimate target." (My general point applies ONLY to war-like situations) I think we'd all better wake up to reality. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
