• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than 700 arrested in Wall Street protest

I agree, it's NOT unreasonable to be concerned. If someone took matters into their own hands, and shot an elected representative, they are, in affect, denying the people who elected said representative their voice.

HOWEVER. I try to always view things from both sides, and here is my take on this. There is a LOT of anger in this country, because every single election cycle, we keep ending up with more of the same. With the advent of the internet, I think our population is becoming more and more aware of just how bad things are starting to get, in terms of political corruption, scandals, blatant lies to the american public, and in general, the fact that it seems our representatives act in their own best interest FIRST, and ours as a DISTANT afterthought, and ONLY if the two coincide. It not their goal to make american a better place to live, anymore. Their primary goal is to retain their seat in the office, secondary seems to be, more and more, to make money, via kickbacks, money laundering, drugs, and public office perks. And THEN they consider acting in the best interest of the people of this country. And it seems that our voices are being taken away from us, both in the form of a lack of viable options for government office holders, but also in the form of monetary values being the major decider in winning or losing a race, both federal, AND local. When this happens, what are we to do? What are out most effective, viable options for affecting a change that will result in a freer, better represented society? There are no redresses of grievances anymore. Every try calling your senator? Or sending an email? I have. Useless.

"We petitioned, we demonstrated, we sat in. I was willing to get hit over the head, I did; I was willing to go to prison, I did. To me, it was a question of what had to be done to stop the much greater violence that was going on."
—David Gilbert

That violence he speaking of was the Vietnam war. But now we face another, altogether different kind of violence. Economic violence. We are getting squeezed, both by taxes, and by the .01% of wealthy that rule this land. What would you have this man do, and others like him?
 
I'm going to guess the pictured man isn't part of a "well-regulated militia."

The american population is the largest standing militia in the world. During the american revolution, children, mothers, preachers, BECAME that militia. And THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about.
 
I'm going to guess the pictured man isn't part of a "well-regulated militia."

The american population is the largest standing militia in the world. During the american revolution, children, mothers, preachers, BECAME that militia. And THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about.
 
The american population is the largest standing militia in the world. During the american revolution, children, mothers, preachers, BECAME that militia. And THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about.

I doubt that is completely true today. The world is a lot different today. We might be able to become something like Palestine and Israel, but we could not fight a war like we did back then.
 
So you think the 2nd amendment is there for citizens to defend themselves against things like Native American raids, petty thieves, and trespassers? Not trying to start an argument, just wondering about your opinion on the purpose behind the second amendment.

It was to address tyranny, not to grandstand a political preference during an election campaign.
 
I doubt that is completely true today. The world is a lot different today. We might be able to become something like Palestine and Israel, but we could not fight a war like we did back then.
That's not the point, though. The point is, we have the right to deny government, or anyone else for that matter, the ability to obtain a monopoly on the threat, or use of, force.
 
It was to address tyranny, not to grandstand a political preference during an election campaign.
First of all, you don't know that isn't the point this person is making. Second, how exactly would you define tyranny?
 
First of all, you don't know that isn't the point this person is making. Second, how exactly would you define tyranny?

He was at a political rally for pete's sake, not fending off armed thugs from the government out to get him. How would I define tyranny? - Armed thugs from the government out to get you.
 
Last edited:
That's not the point, though. The point is, we have the right to deny government, or anyone else for that matter, the ability to obtain a monopoly on the threat, or use of, force.

A monopoly on the legal use of force is the definition of government. Unless you're advocating armed revolution, I don't get it.
 
The american population is the largest standing militia in the world. During the american revolution, children, mothers, preachers, BECAME that militia. And THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about.

Right. I don't know about your town, but the only thing aproaching a "militia" in mine are the bloods, and i'm pretty happy the athorities have the overwhelming force (like helicopters and swat vehicles) to keep them in check.

The romanticized vision of an oppressed citizenry taking up arms against a repressive government is antiquated. Even if you have an impressive stockpile of aks and 50 cals, they don't mater one bit when the tanks and choppers are fielded.

The militia bit made sense when muskets ruled the day, not when predator drones do.
 
The american population is the largest standing militia in the world. During the american revolution, children, mothers, preachers, BECAME that militia. And THAT is what the 2nd amendment is about.

The Constitution is very clear on what is meant by "the militia".

Your definition seems to not fit what the Constitution prescribes.
 
The Constitution is very clear on what is meant by "the militia".

Your definition seems to not fit what the Constitution prescribes.

I think I will defer to the SCOTUS on this matter and not you.

BTW - where in the Constitution is this matter resolved? Are you saying the Federalist Papers aren't relevant?
 
However, one could say that the Weathmen Underground, the splinter from SDS that actually committed the violence, are partly responsible for the US to call it quits in Vietnam. They "brought the war home", so to speak. Forcing americans to lose their stomach for it, once it was in rural USA. Not condoning, mind...just pointing out it's over all effectiveness.

Not sure if you are from that era, but that is not my sense. At the peak of the war we were losing 400 kids a WEEK. If that happened for one week now, we would be out immediately.
 
Right. I don't know about your town, but the only thing aproaching a "militia" in mine are the bloods, and i'm pretty happy the athorities have the overwhelming force (like helicopters and swat vehicles) to keep them in check.

The romanticized vision of an oppressed citizenry taking up arms against a repressive government is antiquated. Even if you have an impressive stockpile of aks and 50 cals, they don't mater one bit when the tanks and choppers are fielded.

The militia bit made sense when muskets ruled the day, not when predator drones do.

Yea, you dont want to mess with those Democrat presidents do you?

Shooting a guys wife, baby, young son & dog all because he supposedly had an illegal weapon was showing them right wing militia types who was the boss huh? oh & then there was the burning alive of dozens of women & children with a flame throwing tank.

Imagine what the Obama regime would do if you gave them the excuse.
 
Yea, you dont want to mess with those Democrat presidents do you?

Shooting a guys wife, baby, young son & dog all because he supposedly had an illegal weapon was showing them right wing militia types who was the boss huh? oh & then there was the burning alive of dozens of women & children with a flame throwing tank.

Imagine what the Obama regime would do if you gave them the excuse.

Don't misunderstand me -I'm sort of on your side with Patriot's Day, Ruby, etc... I just think it's a futile response. As you might have noticed, big gov is sort of undefeated when it comes down to firepower. My position is pragmatic, not idealistic.
 
Last edited:
Don't misunderstand me -I'm sort of on your side with Patriot's Day, Ruby, etc... I just think it's a futile response. As you might have noticed, big gov is sort of undefeated when it comes down to firepower. My position is pragmatic, not idealistic.
Thats assuming of course that the military go's along with massacring there own neibors and family members. My guess is that you'd see alot of defections & advanced weaponry being confiscated & used back against the goverment. So I dont think it would be quite the one sided slaughter you seem to think.
 
Thats assuming of course that the military go's along with massacring there own neibors and family members. My guess is that you'd see alot of defections & advanced weaponry being confiscated & used back against the goverment. So I dont think it would be quite the one sided slaughter you seem to think.

No... once again I completely agree with you: defections with real weapons would be the only way rebellion could be sustained anywhere... but not with just the hunting rifles. Thus leading me back to my assertion that the 2nd ammendment today is rather irrelevant to its original purpose, and not up to the task of being any strategic check on government power anyway.
 
Well, hey - at least we're still promoting democracy in Libya.:2razz:
 
It's premature to talk about armed revolution, this isn't anything like that dimension. I do love that people are protesting and not stopping though.

sleep.jpg
 
Well, hey - at least we're still promoting democracy in Libya.:2razz:

It's premature to talk about armed revolution, this isn't anything like that dimension. I do love that people are protesting and not stopping though.

I'm glad people are protesting too.

Like the protests in Syria, people here in America are concerned about price hikes on everything from gas, to food, rent, and education. (the Rent is Too Damn High Party) and the austerity cuts there threaten the peoples living standard, and wage cuts like in America are causing high anxiety.

Syria: Who is Behind The Protest Movement? | Scoop News
 
Not at all, however, to me this is threatening violence:

a999kostric_2050081722-31701.jpg

So jail time - arrest and a warning? Only when it's the tea party or does it apply with the Occupy Wall Street / Union crowd too?
 
It's premature to talk about armed revolution, this isn't anything like that dimension. I do love that people are protesting and not stopping though.

View attachment 67116437

At one time American liked the idea of a meritocracy. Now they just want a share in the profits of those who have been more successful than them.


A hard fact of life is that barring health problems or similar unforeseen problems not of our choosing, we each rise in this world according to our own abilities and efforts and that will be so under most systems, no matter what they might be. The United States was one of the few countries in the world that encouraged individuality, to rise on your own merits, or not. And not rising was not really that big a deal if you preferred to live your life another way.

Now it seems that people expect success without effort and that others should achieve success for them. These people are out on the street protesting and that's just where they should be in their lives. They'll remain as they are today for the rest of their days, and their tiime on the streets, being on TV and all, will be the highlight of their lives.
 
The thought process should bother you it is scary. That being said it seems that by pointing to extremes you tarnish the entire group. In the 60s, there a group called the SDS. An anti-war leftist group that actually did physical harm to people. Back then I didn't think it was fair to brand all anti-war folks, myself included with a fringe group. Is was used then by conservatives to smear the entire anti-war movement. Seems like a mirror image of what the left is now doing.

The difference is that in the 60's and 70's, those violennt groups were rejected by the left. These days, the gun toting wingnuts are defended and embraced by the right and rightwing politicians who use similar rhetoric and symbology are touted as heroes and elected to office
 
Back
Top Bottom