The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(01-31-2013 07:42 PM)Dirty Ernie Wrote:  But even if our government got really intrusive (think TSA gone wild) (combined with the cyber-mining and cell phone mapping and gps location on lots of devices) (all that 10x)

Then, even if you have a snug little arsenal, how are you going to defend yourself from drones and a combat platoon and/or a cruise missile? They've got little RC airplanes and copters that can fly a bomb right in your bedroom window now.

Give me a break. These people are in some dreamland if they think their little AR or Glock will make a wit of difference.

On that line, there's this article from The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch...er/272734/

(01-31-2013 07:51 PM)okgc Wrote:  I also dont get the idea of needing guns to protect ourselves from the government.

I personally employ SLBMs.

(01-31-2013 08:23 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(01-31-2013 07:51 PM)okgc Wrote:  I also dont get the idea of needing guns to protect ourselves from the government.

I personally employ SLBMs.

Can U find them on eBay?

I get 'em from a guy on my old block in SW DC. He gives me a nice rent-to-own plan, but only one at a time.

Wayne LaPierre and his cronies are embarassing themselves in trying to defend the indefensible. And people who are in the NRA pay this stooge $1,000,000 per year out of their dues so he can ignore them and work for the gun manufacturers.

LaPierre, in his buffoon performance before a Congressional Committee this week whined that "we have laws on the books now that we don't enforce". Yes, we do, you *******, because your NRA lobbied to defund the ATF so they couldn't enforce the laws. His own members are strongly in favor of restricting the number of bullets one can load into a gun, but he ignores them.

I wonder how many NRA members are anti-Union? Rather ironic.

The **** replaced jack azz

(01-18-2013 02:13 PM)bostonbronco Wrote:  I thought background checks were required to purchase a gun. However, I heard that is not necessarily true. I may be wrong here.

At gun shows, can you just buy a gun without any assessment of criminality or mental stability?

The statement made by the NRA was "You can only stop a bad guy with a gun with a good guy with a gun."

Now, wouldn't background checks and a wait period prevent some of the bad guys from having a gun?

I'm for people purchasing guns if they wish, but not for just anyone. Screening should be required....and why would the NRA or any sane person be apposed to that ?

Well be careful about not letting the mentally ill buy guns. Even paranoid schizophrenics can have enemies.

(01-31-2013 07:51 PM)okgc Wrote:  I also dont get the idea of needing guns to protect ourselves from the government.

With all DUE respect, you may want to brush up on your history. Perhaps starting with the Federalist Papers, which covers the thinking and foundation of our Founding Fathers while drafting the Constitution and the Bill or Rights.

Having the ability to take down our own government is not "a" basis for the Second Amendment , it is "the" basis for the Second Amendment. And that basis is no less applicable now than it ever was. In fact, some might (appropriately) argue that it is more applicable now in light of the ever-growing indifference to civil liberties and the Constitutional guarantees that our government has exhibited in recent years.

Historically, Brovol is correct for sure.

Weapons certainly fill a place on the timeline of the fight for personal liberty.

As a tactic though, in the modern world, I'd contend it is a losing proposition.

The question is do you really think American solders would fire on American citizens? I saw a conspiracy piece a while back that said Obama's litmus test for top brass was if they would fire on American citizens, as frighting as that is, it is somewhat irrelevant as they are not the ones on the front lines and would not be doing any of the actual firing. And those that would have the right and duty to refuse an unconstitutional order, one of my professors at WMU said that he (twice?) drew his service pistol aimed at his commanding officer while saying "rescind that order, sir".

Keep in mind, all of the constitutional provisions were a reaction to tyranny, and were enacted to literally prevent the government from having too much power.

The First Amendment guarantee of free speech exists so that anyone can speak out, and literally openly publish thoughts and ideas; including anti-government thoughts and ideas.

When America was ruled by the British Monarchy the "tyranny" that Americans were facing was far less that what Hitler or Mussolini did; it was what Americans believed constituted unfair taxation mostly. Not really too far from what many Americans today find offensive.

Indeed, I submit that most Americans from bygone eras including the 1700's, 1800's, and almost all of the 1900's would be beyond offended at what American government has become, and would wonder what their respective generations fought so hard for, after observing what we have turned into. They might start cleaning up the old muskets.

(02-05-2013 10:39 AM)brovol Wrote:  Keep in mind, all of the constitutional provisions were a reaction to tyranny, and were enacted to literally prevent the government from having too much power.

The First Amendment guarantee of free speech exists so that anyone can speak out, and literally openly publish thoughts and ideas; including anti-government thoughts and ideas.

When America was ruled by the British Monarchy the "tyranny" that Americans were facing was far less that what Hitler or Mussolini did; it was what Americans believed constituted unfair taxation mostly. Not really too far from what many Americans today find offensive.

Indeed, I submit that most Americans from bygone eras including the 1700's, 1800's, and almost all of the 1900's would be beyond offended at what American government has become, and would wonder what their respective generations fought so hard for, after observing what we have turned into. They might start cleaning up the old muskets.

Until the right to bear arms includes tanks, drones, fighter bombers and armored vehicles, anyone who thinks that guns of any sort will protect them from tyranny is delusional if the military so desired.

Our biggest security in my mind is that we have an armed forces comprised of us who value being Americans first and foremost. We lose that we're in trouble and defenseless.

(02-05-2013 12:27 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 10:39 AM)brovol Wrote:  Keep in mind, all of the constitutional provisions were a reaction to tyranny, and were enacted to literally prevent the government from having too much power.

The First Amendment guarantee of free speech exists so that anyone can speak out, and literally openly publish thoughts and ideas; including anti-government thoughts and ideas.

When America was ruled by the British Monarchy the "tyranny" that Americans were facing was far less that what Hitler or Mussolini did; it was what Americans believed constituted unfair taxation mostly. Not really too far from what many Americans today find offensive.

Indeed, I submit that most Americans from bygone eras including the 1700's, 1800's, and almost all of the 1900's would be beyond offended at what American government has become, and would wonder what their respective generations fought so hard for, after observing what we have turned into. They might start cleaning up the old muskets.

Until the right to bear arms includes tanks, drones, fighter bombers and armored vehicles, anyone who thinks that guns of any sort will protect them from tyranny is delusional if the military so desired.

Our biggest security in my mind is that we have an armed forces comprised of us who value being Americans first and foremost. We lose that we're in trouble and defenseless.

Don't lose sight of the point.

I don't suggest that an American who is dissatisfied with the current state of American affairs has the right to attack the Pentagon. In fact, to the contrary. I believe that our civil liberties, like the 1st and 2nd Amendments, if maintained, tend to keep the government honest (although that theory is being tested under our current administration). When an administration desires or takes steps to compromise those rights, and pursues limitations or regulations on those rights, we all should take notice because those rights are truly the only thing between freedom and tyranny.

The worst mistake any of us could make is taking our constitutional rights and liberties for granted. Never give an inch; regardless of your personal political affiliation.

(02-05-2013 04:15 PM)brovol Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 12:27 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 10:39 AM)brovol Wrote:  Keep in mind, all of the constitutional provisions were a reaction to tyranny, and were enacted to literally prevent the government from having too much power.

The First Amendment guarantee of free speech exists so that anyone can speak out, and literally openly publish thoughts and ideas; including anti-government thoughts and ideas.

When America was ruled by the British Monarchy the "tyranny" that Americans were facing was far less that what Hitler or Mussolini did; it was what Americans believed constituted unfair taxation mostly. Not really too far from what many Americans today find offensive.

Indeed, I submit that most Americans from bygone eras including the 1700's, 1800's, and almost all of the 1900's would be beyond offended at what American government has become, and would wonder what their respective generations fought so hard for, after observing what we have turned into. They might start cleaning up the old muskets.

Until the right to bear arms includes tanks, drones, fighter bombers and armored vehicles, anyone who thinks that guns of any sort will protect them from tyranny is delusional if the military so desired.

Our biggest security in my mind is that we have an armed forces comprised of us who value being Americans first and foremost. We lose that we're in trouble and defenseless.

Don't lose sight of the point.

I don't suggest that an American who is dissatisfied with the current state of American affairs has the right to attack the Pentagon. In fact, to the contrary. I believe that our civil liberties, like the 1st and 2nd Amendments, if maintained, tend to keep the government honest (although that theory is being tested under our current administration). When an administration desires or takes steps to compromise those rights, and pursues limitations or regulations on those rights, we all should take notice because those rights are truly the only thing between freedom and tyranny.

The worst mistake any of us could make is taking our constitutional rights and liberties for granted. Never give an inch; regardless of your personal political affiliation.

The Patriot Act was the biggest test in recent history in my mind.

The intrusion of technology and informatics is terrifying to me.

A government could shut down an individuals ability to function in the modern environment in a flash. You can be converted to a non-Person in a flash. No conventional weapons needed.

And the president can authorized a drone strike on you if you are believed to be a threat, no evidence needed and no due process required.

(02-06-2013 06:16 AM)Tommyboy Wrote:  And the president can authorized a drone strike on you if you are believed to be a threat, no evidence needed and no due process required.

For those not familiar...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ttack.html

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_col...f-ame.html

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-...-al-aulaqi

/ducks

As to the whole gun control vs. enforce existing laws vs. NRA vs. tyrannical gov't vs. ATF debate...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-ja...s-the-boom

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-ja...boom---atf

...there's (frighteningly) more illuminating journalism in these two "comedy" segments than I've seen on any news show over the past few months.