Who is it exactly that these people are preparing to wage war against? Seriously, I'm not trying to be flippant. I don't understand their agenda.
It is better to be a warrior working in a garden than a gardener lost in a war First I have heard of them, but most of my family believe in being prepared for the worse and not be surprised.
Who is it exactly that these people are preparing to wage war against? Seriously, I'm not trying to be flippant. I don't understand their agenda.
Bad guys, any and all? I guess? Home invader, car invader, store invader, country invader? He applies what he knows to many areas. But is a firearms trainer by trade, and was in Secial Ops in the military.
It may come as a surprise to the left, but there are ten's of millions of us who have beyond had enough. Enough of being told what we can and can't say. Enough of being told how and what we will and won't think. Or believe. Enough of being told who we will or will not associate with. Enough of being told what we will and will not accept.
You are watching us take our freedoms back. Your approval is neither required nor sought.
What is the problem? The cartoon image was in response to MidEngineManiac's post (which immediately preceded it), and the second thing you quoted was my first post which followed 2.5's opening message/video. I don't know what your issue is.
The problem Patrick is that you do not understand American's or how much they value thier Freedoms.
In the US we have Constitutionally guaranteed Freedoms, that our Forefathers built in. We are very serious about keeping them ! Your goofball Trudeau just took away more of your rights, and enabled criminals, but yet he didn't ban "Fire" which killed have of your last crime spree victims. You are still the "Queens subjects" and we are not, nor will we be any Govt's "subjects".
In the USA, The Govt is responsible to "The People" not vice versa! We have a built in right to overthrow our Government ! We usually do it every few years at the ballot box, but we have the right to use the 2A if we feel we have to.
The problem Patrick is that you do not understand American's or how much they value thier Freedoms.
The problem Skatulaki is that you do not understand that MidEngineManiac (whom my cartoon was aimed at) is a Canadian living in Ontario. And in regards to my post directed at 2.5, it was an honest respectful question as I don't/didn't know who or what this paramilitary group in the video is preparing for... an invasion from abroad or a threat from within.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 05-23-2020).]
Originally posted by Patrick: Who is it exactly that these people are preparing to wage war against? Seriously, I'm not trying to be flippant. I don't understand their agenda.
... an honest respectful question as I don't/didn't know who or what this paramilitary group in the video is preparing for... an invasion from abroad or a threat from within.
First off, it is not a paramilitary group. It is not a supplement to a regular military force. Though, properly trained, it could be.
Secondly, it is not preparing to wage war. Just as our military and police, ... firefighters, medical, even oil field workers train relentlessly, everyday citizens should also prepare relentlessly for say First Aid.
Granted this band of scofflaws (yes, I am being facetious) is eyeing the threat of lost freedoms. Yet it is much more than that.
First off, it is not a paramilitary group. It is not a supplement to a regular military force. Though, properly trained, it could be.
Well geez Cliff, forgive me for using the term "paramilitary".
Definition of paramilitary: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force.
...the only 2 parties worth anything right now are PPC and VCP.
Granted, I don't follow politics very closely... but I had no idea who or what you were referring to. I looked them up. Keep buying your Lotto tickets. You'll have a much better chance of winning "the big one" than ever seeing either one of those political parties reaching national prominence.
Originally posted by Patrick: Well geez Cliff, forgive me for using the term "paramilitary".
You don't need my forgiveness.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: Seriously, I'm not trying to be flippant. I don't understand their agenda.
... it was an honest respectful question
I gave you an honest answer. Trying to be precise. I could have easily termed it a paramilitary force. Just as I tend to term a guns "magazine" as a "clip".
Well geez Cliff, forgive me for using the term "paramilitary".
Definition of paramilitary: of, relating to, being, or characteristic of a force formed on a military pattern especially as a potential auxiliary military force.
What you see in that pic is a group of individuals training in a class setting. Individuals can go there to get firearms training. The AR15 is the most popular rifle in America, they brought their own.
Who is it exactly that these people are preparing to wage war against? Seriously, I'm not trying to be flippant. I don't understand their agenda.
Most people dance around this topic, but I'm going to come out and be completely forward about it. These people have the weapons they do, to protect themselves from Government, and to make sure Government understands its place.
This often comes as a shock, and a lot of people from other countries, find this absurd and crazy. The United States formed its Government in the face of adversity... and obviously, you know the whole history. As clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, what makes our governing documents distinct is that they were written by the people, for the distinct purpose of telling the Government what it is allowed to do, and what it is not allowed to do. Incidentally, all other governing documents through most of the world were written from the opposite perspective, and that is... the government has dictated what the populace is allowed to do.
So back on the whole guns thing. People will say, self defense, hunting, defense against foreign invaders, etc. But the PRIMARY reason why the right to bear arms was defined as an inalienable right (that the Government may not infringe upon) was to ensure the populace can protect itself against a tyrannical Government. You may not hear about this anywhere, because it's not popular among anti-gun advocates. They often state that over time, we've misunderstood what they meant in the Constitution... and that it meant to only have a government-sanctioned militia. All of that is wrong. Incidentally, it's been affirmed at least twice by the US Supreme Court what they meant. If you're curious how we know definitively, it's because our founding fathers created a set of documents that they released in the local newspapers at the time. They did this to get an idea of what inalienable rights would be popular, and what would not. It was brilliant, really. This was known as the "Federalist Papers."
Among the things mentioned in the Federalist Papers, it talks about defending against "internal corruption." That the need for self-defense will ensure the Government is kept in check against tyranny.
Now, keep in mind, we all have our hobbies, right? I restore Swiss watches, I like Pontiac Fieros, and I enjoy renovating homes. Some people like guns. The great thing about these people in the video is that... they're spending their money, and investing their time in ensuring that MY rights are protected.
I want you to consider for a second that our (well, in the US) inalienable rights are a lot like a muscle in the human body. If you don't exercise it, you will slowly lose it. As time goes on and you get older, the ability to regain the muscle you fought so hard for in the beginning, becomes more and more difficult, to the point where it eventually becomes impossible. When we allow our rights to be eroded through inaction (freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc...), we lose the ability to maintain these rights through atrophy and improper education on the subject.
People get shocked sometimes when they see people carrying semi-automatic rifles slung around their shoulders. But the truth is, these people are doing the dirty work that the rest of us are sometimes too cowardly to do. Incidentally, many of these people are veterans as well, and have actually fought our external wars.
Yeah... it's also about hunting, and target practice; however, the REAL reason we have guns, is to keep the Government in check. There are now more privately owned guns than there are people in the United States. This is an exceptional protection to keep our Constitutional freedoms.
Bonus topic, the Federalist Papers also go into detail about Republicanism (the theory of a Republic, not the party per-se). Consequently, I get annoyed when people refer to the US as a "Democracy." It isn't. There is not a single place in the US Constitution where it uses the word "Democracy." This wasn't an oversight, it was implicit. One issuance in the Federalist papers spoke at length, specifically, about the need for a Republic, and talked about the failures of a Democracy. Our representatives are elected through a Democratic process, but we absolutely have a Republican / representative form of Government. The Democrats consistently mention "Democracy" in almost all of their speeches for the sole purpose of trying to persuade the public that that's what we have. Our Republican form of Government ensures that a large population in small areas of the country cannot impose their will on the majority of cities and states in the country. This is also distinctly different in our Government, as we don't have "referendums" at the Federal level.
Anyway, I know I'm rambling... and again, you don't have to like it, and you don't have to support it. But I'm merely trying to explain the what and why behind all of this.
Yes, and Franklin's quote is a whole other thing that drives me crazy. I've come to the conclusion, respectfully... that Progressives / Liberals are ignorant of our Constitution. It seems to conflict with what they *think* they want in a Government (or what they're told they should want), but when I argue with my Democrat friends about things as simple as the concept of "A Republic," they are just totally oblivious.
Democrat politicians, they ALL constantly state that we are a "Democracy." We are 100% NOT a democracy. Half the politicians (like AOC) really just have no clue, and they say we're a democracy because they just don't know any better. People like Pelosi KNOW we are not a democracy, but constantly throw it in there to further the ideals of majority rule.
Our form of government was carefully... CAREFULLY constructed modelling the good and bad from both the Roman Republic, monarchy, and European governments.
ALSO... in the Federalist Papers, #39, discussed specifically the concept of a Republic, "The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles."
In it, he discussed the ability for a tyrannical government to sway public opinion in a democracy to crush the minority. It was a very careful consideration to ensure the sanctity of Federalism, in that local-state power could not be overwhelming trumped by the majority of people in a minority of the states. Quote:
quote
"A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual."
But you ask any liberal what kind of Government we have, and they'll flat out tell you we have a Democracy. We have a representative form of Government that funnels all the way from the bottom to the top. These individuals are duly elected locally by majority vote. At the Federal level, the House is 100% representative of the people, but the Senate represents the State governments. The similar construct is further represented at the state level, and even further down at the lowest level, we have city commissioners with a Mayor in the cities.
Anyway, drives me nuts... Reagan said it best when he said...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 05-26-2020).]
But you ask any liberal what kind of Government we have, and they'll flat out tell you we have a Democracy. We have a representative form of Government that funnels all the way from the bottom to the top. These individuals are duly elected locally by majority vote. At the Federal level, the House is 100% representative of the people...
I don't understand how this is any different than what we have in Canada. Are you under the belief that the ruling party during a federal election here is determined by the total number of votes from across the country? If so, you're in for a surprise.
I don't understand how this is any different than what we have in Canada. Are you under the belief that the ruling party during a federal election here is determined by the total number of votes from across the country? If so, you're in for a surprise.
So, respectfully Patrick, Canada's independence is VERY new. You have a system of government that was imposed upon you by the British ruling party in the late 1800s, and you didn't gain sovereignty from the UK until sometime in the early 1980s. The US Constitution, and the construct of our Government is VERY UNIQUELY different, because it was formed by revolution from the ruling class. Unlike all the other countries that typically form under a revolution, and shift to dictatorship, our Government was formed through a collection of leaders of city-states. The sole purpose of our Government was the idea of rugged individualism and putting in place a system of checks and balances that EXPLICITLY told the newly form Government what they would and would not be allowed to do. This is not only idealistically different than *every other Government*, but it ensures the Government understands that there can never be an aristocracy. A Government's natural tendency is to grow power.
While Canada did in fact model much of their Constitution off of the United States, there was still the concept of a Democracy, and not a Republic. There are no referendums in the United States at the Federal level, while in fact, there have been several in Canada. Referendums do exist in the United States exclusively at the state level, which is fine because each state has their own constitution. It is primarily left-leaning states that have referendums, because they believe in the rule of the majority. Again, we have a Republic that was set up specifically to ensure the majority in a few states could not overrule the minority in the majority of states.
1 - I don't know how Canada elects their politicians, why are you asking me?
Ummm... you just gave me a whole lecture Here on Canada's form of government.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
2 - Why are we talking about Canada anyway?
Oh, maybe because you're involved in a discourse with a Canadian, but that's just an educated guess.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
3 - What does any of this have to do with the United States being a Republic and not a Democracy?
Because after you've gone on and on about the supposed merits of a Republic verses a Democracy, your description of a Republic (in regards to preventing majority rule) sounds an awful lot like how a Democracy operates in Canada. There are 338 electoral districts/ridings in Canada. The total number of ridings won by each political party is what is used to determine the party in power federally, not the total number of votes cast for each party across the entire country. Sounds suspiciously similar to your description of a Republic, at least in regards to electing the ruling party.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
But you ask any liberal what kind of Government we have, and they'll flat out tell you we have a Democracy. We have a representative form of Government that funnels all the way from the bottom to the top. These individuals are duly elected locally by majority vote. At the Federal level, the House is 100% representative of the people...
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 05-27-2020).]
Why does anyone buy a weapon, learn how to use it, and learn self defense and how to defend their loved ones for example. Why does anyone object to being told they shouldn't be allowed to do this?
Why does anyone buy a weapon, learn how to use it, and learn self defense and how to defend their loved ones for example. Why does anyone object to being told they shouldn't be allowed to do this?
"anyone"? Perhaps you should qualify that term, or use a less inclusive one. There are plenty of people, who for a variety of reasons, shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon/gun... or play with C-4... or drive a car... etc.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 05-27-2020).]
"anyone"? Perhaps you should qualify that term, or use a less inclusive one. There are plenty of people, who for a variety of reasons, shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon/gun... or play with C-4... or drive a car... etc.
I didn't interpret 2.5's wording as being very inclusive at all. 'Anyone' is a far cry from 'everyone' and general usage of the former means exactly what the word says. Any one person. To me, it means the same as 'any 1 specific ' person.
Originally posted by maryjane: 'Anyone' is a far cry from 'everyone' and general usage of the former means exactly what the word says. Any one person. To me, it means the same as 'any 1 specific ' person.
It may be a far cry but how close is it ? I tend to lean towards "everyone". When does one lose the "inalienable" right to self defense ? A natural human instinct.
Because after you've gone on and on about the supposed merits of a Republic verses a Democracy, your description of a Republic (in regards to preventing majority rule) sounds an awful lot like how a Democracy operates in Canada. There are 338 electoral districts/ridings in Canada. The total number of ridings won by each political party is what is used to determine the party in power federally, not the total number of votes cast for each party across the entire country. Sounds suspiciously similar to your description of a Republic, at least in regards to electing the ruling party.
Canada should be very proud about the fact that they modeled their Constitution after the one the United States ratified in 1788. If it *IS* exactly as you say, then it is a Republic also, and people would be incorrect to refer to it as a Democracy. That said, I'm sure it is a Democracy since Canada has had several referendums, correct?
But you're taking this down a tangent. The US is a Republic... period. It's specifically called a Republic in the Constitution and makes no mention of a Democracy. Furthermore, in the Federalist Papers it specifically discusses WHY a Democracy is bad and a Republic by the people is good. If you want to call it a dickfor, you can... but that doesn't make it correct.
Seriously?
If so, you're in for a surprise.
