• 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!

Minority Rights

Michael McMahon said:
I said previously how "a few other countries do have permissive gun laws but all one would need to do is to selectively monitor and check trade and imports from such places". So mentioning high gun crime in Chicago despite their limited gun control, as some gun-rights advocates do, is very dishonest. Imports from other places with legalised guns must always be checked: "About six in ten “crime guns” seized by Chicago Police originated from gun shops outside of Illinois, according to a 2017*report*issued by the department"
Where Do Guns Used to Commit Shootings in Chicago Come From? | Congresswoman Robin Kelly
Click to expand...

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Click to expand...

This is clearly a State's sovereign right since it only involves the unorganized militia. Due Process must come from that free State as input to our Union.
 
danielpalos said:
Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.



This is clearly a State's sovereign right since it only involves the unorganized militia. Due Process must come from that free State as input to our Union.
Click to expand...

where do you come up with this nonsense? Nothing you post has any support in the constitution, the case law, or the US Code
 
danielpalos said:
Plain reason and legal axioms?
Click to expand...

I have yet to see anything in your posts on gun threads that remotely resemble plain reason or accurately reference legal axioms
 
danielpalos said:
You have no understanding of the concept or you would have replied with a valid rebuttal instead of the useless ad hominem, you did.
Click to expand...

Actually I do constantly. You make idiotic claims that have no basis in fact and demand people rebut idiocy. Such as your claim about what the militia is. And you repeat the same stupid statements over and over-no matter what the gun topic is
 
TurtleDude said:
Actually I do constantly. You make idiotic claims that have no basis in fact and demand people rebut idiocy. Such as your claim about what the militia is. And you repeat the same stupid statements over and over-no matter what the gun topic is
Click to expand...

lol. i gainsay your contention because it really is that easy to type words on a keyboard; want to argue about it?
 
danielpalos said:
lol. i gainsay your contention because it really is that easy to type words on a keyboard; want to argue about it?
Click to expand...

nope, but guess what, its fun stuff to read
 
Michael McMahon said:
I said previously how "a few other countries do have permissive gun laws but all one would need to do is to selectively monitor and check trade and imports from such places". So mentioning high gun crime in Chicago despite their limited gun control, as some gun-rights advocates do, is very dishonest. Imports from other places with legalised guns must always be checked: "About six in ten “crime guns” seized by Chicago Police originated from gun shops outside of Illinois, according to a 2017*report*issued by the department"
Where Do Guns Used to Commit Shootings in Chicago Come From? | Congresswoman Robin Kelly
Click to expand...

This is why gun control needs to be federal
 
vegas giants said:
This is why gun control needs to be federal
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment says otherwise. We should have no security problems in our free States if our legislatures were doing their job.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...
 
I think increasing freedom of association within the military would make it easier for minorities to disobey any unlawful orders. Maybe a very loose analogy is with the French Foreign Legion or Britain's Gurkha Regiment by way of giving different minority groups their own military units.
 
Michael McMahon said:
I think increasing freedom of association within the military would make it easier for minorities to disobey any unlawful orders. Maybe a very loose analogy is with the French Foreign Legion or Britain's Gurkha Regiment by way of giving different minority groups their own military units.
Click to expand...


Perhaps transform a branch of service - say the Marine Corps - into a Spanish speaking branch ?

Officers would naturally have to speak English as well.
 
There was actually an Irish Brigade that fought with the Union Army during the American Civil War. They were given their own regiments in order to increase their support for the Union.

"... by mid-1861 the formation of an ethnically based, Irish brigade served two purposes for the North. First of all, it warned Britain (which appeared to be favoring the Confederacy, or at least openly deliberating its entry into the conflict on their behalf) that there could be Union-supported consequences in Ireland if Britain intervened (most of the brigade's leadership were known Irish revolutionaries). Secondly, it served to solidify Irish support for the Union. Many Irish were divided between supporting the Confederate States in their struggles for independence or to preserve the Union, which gave the Irish a set of rights and freedoms under the Constitution but which they had to struggle to obtain. There were also concerns by some Irish about a flood of freed slaves migrating north and competing for the lowly jobs for which they already had to scrabble. An ethnically based brigade would thus solidify the support of the largest Catholic minority for the Union cause."
- Wikipedia
 
Waddy said:
You see that connection, too? Democratic big government doesn't make the power grab all at once, it does it a little at a time. Death by a thousand cuts. And the next generation doesn't even miss their lost freedoms; they never had them in their life time anyways. All of our freedoms are under siege; free speech, privacy, self defense; the list could go on and on. They are trying to mould us into an obedient cookie cutter version of a compliant citizenry. Under their ever watchful eyes.
Click to expand...

Everyone sees the connection. Which is why every time a Democrat is elected President there is a huge boost in private firearm sales throughout the US. The more the anti-American left wish to abolish free speech, free association, freedom of religion, and all our other protected rights the more we will see Democrats attack the Second Amendment. They know, as do we all, that without the Second Amendment we would have no means to defend any of our other constitutionally protected rights. So it is essential for Democrats to abolish the Second Amendment first before they can successfully attack the rest of our rights, which has always been their ultimate goal.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Tyranny is more likely to happen when only 51% of the vote grants you complete 100% control of the military.

Even if minorities are in the army, they are outnumbered in every military base. This makes them ineffective in deterring a potential tyrant. It would be hard for them to defect and they would be mistaken for the enemy by fellow minority members due to the uniform they've on. Ideally minorities would have their own military bases, their own uniforms, their own recruitment procedures and a section of the military budget in proportion to the democratic mandate that they have received.
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no idea what country you are from, but if you are going to refer to the US Constitution, the Second Amendment, or the US military you should at least learn a little bit about your subject matter first. If you are from the US, and educated in the US, then the state of our civics education is much worse than I originally thought. I can only hope you are not born and educated in the US, because your posts show that you lack fundamental understanding of how things work.

The US military swears its allegiance to the US Constitution, not to individuals. I have no idea where you got the idea that votes has anything to do with controlling the military, it doesn't. The President is the Commander-In-Chief of the military and Presidents are not elected by popular vote. Furthermore, only Congress has the authority to declare wars, determine their training, and fund them, so even the Commander-In-Chief is not in complete control of the military.
 
TurtleDude said:
where do you come up with this nonsense? Nothing you post has any support in the constitution, the case law, or the US Code
Click to expand...

danielpalos is noted for making things up out of thin air. Even when presented with the exact text from the Supreme Court telling him he is flat-out wrong, he will claim the court is wrong instead. There is no reasoning with self-delusion this bad.
 
Glitch: "The US military swears its allegiance to the US Constitution, not to individuals."

I'm afraid an oath of allegiance can be easily broken.

Also, tyranny does not solely refer to a lone individual tyrant but also instances where a majority of the population try to oppress a minority.
 
Michael McMahon said:
Glitch: "The US military swears its allegiance to the US Constitution, not to individuals."

I'm afraid an oath of allegiance can be easily broken.

Also, tyranny does not solely refer to a lone individual tyrant but also instances where a majority of the population try to oppress a minority.
Click to expand...

You are clearly in serious need of an education. I would advise that you refrain from discussing anything that has to with US politics until you first learn something about the subject matter.
 
Michael McMahon said:
There was actually an Irish Brigade that fought with the Union Army during the American Civil War. They were given their own regiments in order to increase their support for the Union.

"... by mid-1861 the formation of an ethnically based, Irish brigade served two purposes for the North. First of all, it warned Britain (which appeared to be favoring the Confederacy, or at least openly deliberating its entry into the conflict on their behalf) that there could be Union-supported consequences in Ireland if Britain intervened (most of the brigade's leadership were known Irish revolutionaries). Secondly, it served to solidify Irish support for the Union. Many Irish were divided between supporting the Confederate States in their struggles for independence or to preserve the Union, which gave the Irish a set of rights and freedoms under the Constitution but which they had to struggle to obtain. There were also concerns by some Irish about a flood of freed slaves migrating north and competing for the lowly jobs for which they already had to scrabble. An ethnically based brigade would thus solidify the support of the largest Catholic minority for the Union cause."
- Wikipedia
Click to expand...



And don't forget the Confederacy:

"...although significantly fewer Irish lived in the Confederate States of America, six Confederate generals were Irish-born....units such as the Charleston Irish Volunteers attracted Confederate Irish-Americans in South Carolina, the 24th Georgia Volunteer Infantry followed General Thomas Reade Rootes Cobb, while Irish Tennesseans could join the 10th Tennessee Infantry Regiment. A company of the Washington Blues regiment of the Missouri Volunteer Militia commanded by Colonel Joseph Kelly, was the subject of a Confederate song, "Kelly's Irish Brigade".
The Louisiana Tigers...had a large number of Irish American members. Company E, Emerald Guard, 33rd Virginia Infantry of the Stonewall Brigade composed of Irish immigrant volunteers may have been first to make the infamous "rebel yell" at 1st Bull Run...the Davis Guard, a company of mostly Irish-American men from the Houston and Galveston area, won a lopsided victory Second Battle of Sabine Pass in 1863..."


Irish Americans in the American Civil War - Wikipedia
 
I had previously made references to a decentralised military. A potential tyrant would have difficulty trying to command their nuclear arsenal:

“ To centralise or not: The fear of a first strike leads to the search for what are called ‘survivability-enhancing practices’. These are measures aiming to ensure that one’s second-strike capacity, even after a first strike, is relatively unimpaired. But these very practices themselves undermine the stability of the deterrence equation. The two most important such measures are a) to disperse one’s nuclear arsenal as widely as possible, and b) to adopt what is in effect a ‘launch-on-warning’ posture for one’s missiles. Both give rise to grave problems. The first involves a centralisation-decentralisation dilemma. It is not enough to disperse the locations of nuclear delivery systems. There is also the problem of decentralising command and control over such systems. This is because there is always the danger of what is called a ‘decapitating first strike’. That is to say, an opponent can not only strike first, but also seek to decapitate the command and control system of the opponent by finishing off the key decision-makers at the apex of the chain of command over the nuclear arsenal. Even the establishment of ‘redundant’ or multiple chains of command which become operative in wartime may not prove equal to the impact of an effective decapitating first strike.
To avoid this dilemma, one has to greatly decentralise command and control to junior levels and more localised personnel at much lower rungs of the chain of command, so that they can carry out a second strike.”
- tin.org
 
Michael McMahon said:
I had previously made references to a decentralised military. A potential tyrant would have difficulty trying to command their nuclear arsenal:

“ To centralise or not: The fear of a first strike leads to the search for what are called ‘survivability-enhancing practices’. These are measures aiming to ensure that one’s second-strike capacity, even after a first strike, is relatively unimpaired. But these very practices themselves undermine the stability of the deterrence equation. The two most important such measures are a) to disperse one’s nuclear arsenal as widely as possible, and b) to adopt what is in effect a ‘launch-on-warning’ posture for one’s missiles. Both give rise to grave problems. The first involves a centralisation-decentralisation dilemma. It is not enough to disperse the locations of nuclear delivery systems. There is also the problem of decentralising command and control over such systems. This is because there is always the danger of what is called a ‘decapitating first strike’. That is to say, an opponent can not only strike first, but also seek to decapitate the command and control system of the opponent by finishing off the key decision-makers at the apex of the chain of command over the nuclear arsenal. Even the establishment of ‘redundant’ or multiple chains of command which become operative in wartime may not prove equal to the impact of an effective decapitating first strike.
To avoid this dilemma, one has to greatly decentralise command and control to junior levels and more localised personnel at much lower rungs of the chain of command, so that they can carry out a second strike.”
- tin.org
Click to expand...

Why are you obsessed with America being run by a tyrant ?

f there was a tyrant in the White House, access to one nuke would be too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom