General Politics Thread

[Sub-stance1]

I'm not saying like, if tomorrow extremists when nuts and waged war on the US Government. The series of abuses and missteps the government would have to make would be far, far greater than they are right now to warrant any kind of reasonable response of force from its citizenry.

http://liberaltaria.com/

Only one way to find out. Those extremist would get there ass handed to them by law enforcement. You don't need no military for that. No contest.

[DayWalker]

@Daywalker

The majority of Americans are chill with the Executive Orders (top image) like I said.

Check out his legislation numbers through for a stronger AWB, and magazine\AP ammo bans. The only people who are onboard with that by majority are Democrats. Not Independents and Republicans.

edit: whoops, except AP rounds. But that's kind of nonsense anyway.

thats fine. My point has been reinforced is all.

[Molurus]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/am...-violence.aspx

Americans Back Obama's Proposals to Address Gun Violence
Criminal background checks on gun sales garner highest level of support







===============



this whole discussion stems from mass murder using guns. not knives. nobody is disputing knives kill people too. they aren't used in mass murders. so your fact is irrelevant.




you don't simply get to ignore current events in pursuit of your agenda.




coming from you this mean nothing.

all you've ever added to this thread is name-calling and whining.

go outside, get a tan.

Lol@polls; then say Americans.

As far as using "mass murders" as a basis, that pretty pathetic as well. The amount of deaths involved in "mass murders" is so insignificant to try and limit the entire country based on that.

[Vulgotha]

Only one way to find out. Those extremist would get there ass handed to them by law enforcement. You don't need no military for that. No contest.

LEO's would not be on Federal side of things. All of my cop friends emphasize this daily to me lol and how angry they are about the new stuff the ATF\DoJ are doing and how they will not enforce "unconstitutional" gun laws.

One of my sheriff friends sent me this:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn...ional-gun-laws


I know the source is a right wing outlet, but the point is these local and state level guys aren't enthused with this nonsense either.

Lately there have been more flare ups between State and Federal government. Obamacare, Drug legalization, and now this.

[DayWalker]

Lol@polls; then say Americans.

As far as using "mass murders" as a basis, that pretty pathetic as well. The amount of deaths involved in "mass murders" is so insignificant to try and limit the entire country based on that.

I think they call this foot in mouth disease.

[-Kwesnoth-]

coming from you this mean nothing.

all you've ever added to this thread is name-calling and whining.

go outside, get a tan.

Riiiight.

[Sub-stance1]

LEO's would not be on Federal side of things. All of my cop friends emphasize this daily to me lol and how angry they are about the new stuff the ATF\DoJ are doing and how they will not enforce "unconstitutional" gun laws.

One of my sheriff friends sent me this:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn...ional-gun-laws


I know the source is a right way outlet, but the point is these local and state level guys aren't enthused with this nonsense either.

Lately there have been more flare ups between State and Federal government. Obamacare, Drug legalization, and now this.

it's not up to cops. If the president issues an executive order they really don't have much of a choice. I'm sure they love their jobs, so they will comply or else.

[Vulgotha]

it's not up to cops. If the president issues an executive order they really don't have much of a choice. I'm sure they love their jobs, so they will comply or else.

You gravely misunderstand the relationship between County-->State-->Federal.

They are not obligated to do anything. The Sheriff has the constitutional authority to say no. County Sheriff has the highest law enforcement capacity in his county, there is no authority of law higher than the Sheriff in that local region. You cannot arrest a county sheriff, another state official (whose title escapes me) is the only one who can do that.

So they could (and many have pledged) to say "No".

It would be up to the courts to decide if this reaction were correct, however there is established precedent for what I've just told you to be the case.

Local authority>Federal authority within states. This is why the State government can pass a law legalizing marijauna and the DEA\Federal Government can pitch a fit and attempt to threaten them into compliance (like revoking funding) or attempting to utilize inner state commerce clause to arrest them.. But recently courts have been striking this behavior down.

State government has supreme authority except in specific constitutional matters (inter state commerce) that have been twisted in the past decades to empower federal government, in addition to dangling the carrot of additional funding.

They reserve the authority to say no. Not that they often do, the atmosphere hasn't really been conducive, but lately if you take a look around the States are acting up and getting annoyed.

Courts ruled that the States CAN opt out of federal laws that affect them. Like Obamacare:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/201...e-the-deficit/

The only reason in the past that if a federal law is passed and all states agree to go along with is has mostly been through the consistent threat of having their various grants cut back if compliance is not established, and various nonsense concerning Elastic Clause...

I mean alot of it is up to the courts and the States don't always have the necessary funding to challenge a lawsuit or have the right judge on the bench at the time. It's complicated.

[MATRIX 2]

It would be crazy for anyone to say that everything about the government is good because the fact is it isn't, but at the same time everything isn't bad either. Iv'e never been someone who supports big government but I think a more effective one works for everyone. All this overreacting to basically nothing is really foolish. First the gov heath care scare and now it's moved on to fear of gun rights being taken away.




IMO you are just as dumb for suggesting that the citizens would take on it's military? Makes sense right?...lol


lol... I think most can read what i wrote and know i'm not serious. I clearly stated that the gov would never do that simply because it doesn't wanna take your guns. You are falling for the same crap that been pulled over and over the past 4 years. Putting limits on assault weapons and clips isn't taking away gun rights. The proposals only improve on the 1994 weapons assault ban that already exists. It's just basically closing loopholes. Or do you think that arming teachers is the answer? What is the NRA doing to make our citizens safer? Nothing, because they don't care about gun owners. They care about the manufacturers and we all know why. Stop the madness and take your own advice and wake the fuck up. The bogeyman isn't out to get you.

Now I gotta go cause it's getting late here. Besides, we are scheduled to attack North Carolina and west Virginia at 0430 tomorrow.

All I can say is this. These says it look like the government is doing more bad than good. And it seems to be at the expense of the constitution and peoples rights. That's the cold hard truth.

Obama failed in his biggest/most important promise, to unite the country. I don't see much good in the bleak future.

And gun rights are taken away. In the short term it is the removal to access to weapons misclassfied as "assault weapons" and many standard capacity magazines that would be banned.

In the long run if feinstein's legislation is passed once the owner of the "assault weapon" dies it cannot be passed on to/down to other family members. It must be surrendered.

I told you they would not come door to door, they must accomplish their goal in incremental steps.

Now I don't expect this to make any sense to you since you have a completely fucked view of the second amendment (and you never mentioned the specifics as to why an AR-15 or similar kinds of rifles/firearms are so much worse (made for hunting down humans I believe you said how so?) (and therefore unfit for civilian use/ownership) than others).



I stand by my statements about the citizens against the military, assuming it ever comes to that (which I doubt, just look at what happened during the fall of the soviet union).

I think you have made it clear that it is you who is falling for the crap.

The 94 awb expired in 04. And the consensus was it had no tangible effect on crime/gun violence.

What loopholes? Where do you come up with this rubbish.

Getting rid of gun free zones would significantly reduce the risk of mass shootings/killing sprees since nearly every one in recent history has occurred in a gun free zone.

Last I checked the NRA created the National School Shield Program. Oddly enough one of the main points of that program is addressed by one of Obama's recent executive orders.

I guess it counts when he does it, but not when the NRA does, right?

The NRA membership is growing at a rapid rate. Unless gun manufacturers are signing up all those people, that statement holds little water.

My eyes are wide open, I can't seem to say the same for you since you seem to be under some kind of delusion. I can only hope you will realize this sometime in the future.


Oh and don't forget to thank Obama and Panetta. Because of them you will soon be serving with GI Jane.

[Sub-stance1]

All I can say is this. These says it look like the government is doing more bad than good. And it seems to be at the expense of the constitution and peoples rights. That's the cold hard truth.

Obama failed in his biggest/most important promise, to unite the country. I don't see much good in the bleak future.

lol....That's ridiculous. I don't ever think he "promised" to unite the country. But then again, politicians say a lot of things.. If we aren't united it's not only because of him. It's deeper than that. But i think Obama's party is more united than the GOP. They are in total disarray. I think Obama learned how difficult it is working with congress.

And gun rights are taken away. In the short term it is the removal to access to weapons misclassfied as "assault weapons" and many standard capacity magazines that would be banned.

In the long run if feinstein's legislation is passed once the owner of the "assault weapon" dies it cannot be passed on to/down to other family members. It must be surrendered.

I told you they would not come door to door, they must accomplish their goal in incremental steps.

Now I don't expect this to make any sense to you since you have a completely fucked view of the second amendment (and you never mentioned the specifics as to why an AR-15 or similar kinds of rifles/firearms are so much worse (made for hunting down humans I believe you said how so?) (and therefore unfit for civilian use/ownership) than others).

Why don't we wait and see what happens first. There is no need to have the "chicken little" syndrome on this thing yet. I'm a proud gun owner and when it's all said and done people will be ok. I'm more concerned about why they're doing it and most gun owners agree with what is being proposed.

I stand by my statements about the citizens against the military, assuming it ever comes to that (which I doubt, just look at what happened during the fall of the soviet union).

I think you have made it clear that it is you who is falling for the crap.

I'm not worried about it and you shouldn't either.

The 94 awb expired in 04. And the consensus was it had no tangible effect on crime/gun violence.

What loopholes? Where do you come up with this rubbish.

Getting rid of gun free zones would significantly reduce the risk of mass shootings/killing sprees since nearly every one in recent history has occurred in a gun free zone.

Yea, I know when it expired. I know they tried to renew it several times too and have failed. I think most people know why. It's all about gun politics.

[Last I checked the NRA created the National School Shield Program. Oddly enough one of the main points of that program is addressed by one of Obama's recent executive orders.

I guess it counts when he does it, but not when the NRA does, right?

The NRA membership is growing at a rapid rate. Unless gun manufacturers are signing up all those people, that statement holds little water.

My eyes are wide open, I can't seem to say the same for you since you seem to be under some kind of delusion. I can only hope you will realize this sometime in the future.

I still stand by what I said. I don't have anything against the NRA but they have done very little when it comes to gun violence. I know they need a better media presence too. Stop letting all the loonies talk to the media about gun ownership. They don't come across so well.

Oh and don't forget to thank Obama and Panetta. Because of them you will soon be serving with GI Jane.

I love women. Got nothing against that. It won't be the first time they tried this. Trust me it won't affect much of anything. Just because you open up jobs doesn't mean they will want them. I think some people misunderstand the whole thing. It won't have any affect on mission capabilities.

[Yuuichi]

I love women. Got nothing against that. It won't be the first time they tried this. Trust me it won't affect much of anything. Just because you open up jobs doesn't mean they will want them. I think some people misunderstand the whole thing. It won't have any affect on mission capabilities.

Of course many women may not go for the new positions but that won't stop media and women right orginizations to go after the military spewing crap because not enough women are in these new positions. Yes even tho many women may not go for it they won't care and this will cause heat. Face it there is just some things women can not do as good as men as vise versa.

[Sub-stance1]

Of course many women may not go for the new positions but that won't stop media and women right orginizations to go after the military spewing crap because not enough women are in these new positions. Yes even tho many women may not go for it they won't care and this will cause heat. Face it there is just some things women can not do as good as men as vise versa.

I agree with that and this whole thing has little to do about what women capabilities are. It's pretty obvious to me what's going on.

[Vulgotha]

Agreed. Opening up combat roles for women is a bad plan, but I find it tolerable providing there's a universal physical and mental standard.

[DayWalker]

drive a tank... fly a helo (sp?)... fire a sniper rifle...

there are tons of "front line combat" positions where "gender skills" (for lack of a better term) have no bearing.

not worried about it in the slightest. If they prove them can do their job, let them do the job.

PS- I think its unlikely that you're going to see a media fenzy for female navy seals anytime soon

Saw zero dark 30 last night. good flick.
intense despite knowing how it was all gonna go down... I need to get my hands on the book

[Sub-stance1]

drive a tank... fly a helo (sp?)... fire a sniper rifle...

there are tons of "front line combat" positions where "gender skills" (for lack of a better term) have no bearing.

not worried about it in the slightest. If they prove them can do their job, let them do the job.

PS- I think its unlikely that you're going to see a media fenzy for female navy seals anytime soon

Saw zero dark 30 last night. good flick.
intense despite knowing how it was all gonna go down... I need to get my hands on the book

Agreed. I don't think we will see any big changes. I think women are more than satisfied with the supported role they play.

[DayWalker]

Agreed. I don't think we will see any big changes. I think women are more than satisfied with the supported role they play.

I mean you should see some of the women is crossfit

Dare I say...A lot of them would put your average GI to shame...

[Sub-stance1]

I mean you should see some of the women is crossfit

Dare I say...A lot of them would put your average GI to shame...

lol...I know a few who may give some guys a run, but I don't think we should change our whole doctrine because of it.

I've trained with some Israelis and they got some smoking hot women in their military. Talk about distractions...lol

[-Kwesnoth-]

I thought combat positions were open to females?

[Vulgotha]

They are.

As for gender skills- I'm not entirely sold that female interaction with males in combat situations is going to be entirely beneficial at large. There's a large volume of work devoted to studying the male and female psyche and how we interact- men go out of their way to pay special attention to women (like if they're hurt) and show more emotional distress when a woman is hurt or killed than when a man is.


To say nothing of the very large problem of rape and sexual assault in the military as it is already.

Additionally, I'm not sure most of the women out there right now in the US are the most suited mentally for alot of these kinds of tasks. Just my 2cents.

[Sub-stance1]

They are.

As for gender skills- I'm not entirely sold that female interaction with males in combat situations is going to be entirely beneficial at large. There's a large volume of work devoted to studying the male and female psyche and how we interact- men go out of their way to pay special attention to women (like if they're hurt) and show more emotional distress when a woman is hurt or killed than when a man is.


To say nothing of the very large problem of rape and sexual assault in the military as it is already.

Additionally, I'm not sure most of the women out there right now in the US are the most suited mentally for alot of these kinds of tasks. Just my 2cents.

Some probably could hold their own. The problems come when you try to stick them with infantry and armour units. But like I said before, this whole thing isn't about that. This is about people( mainly females) who can't achieve a certain rank because of our military doctrine and it's mainly on the officer side. I'll bet you can ask 50 females in the military if they would like to be infantry or armour and 47 would say no.

[Vulgotha]

Some probably could hold their own. The problems come when you try to stick them with infantry and armour units. But like I said before, this whole thing isn't about that. This is about people( mainly females) who can't achieve a certain rank because of our military doctrine and it's mainly on the officer side. I'll bet you can ask 50 females in the military if they would like to be infantry or armour and 47 would say no.

Very true.

Just so long as we don't get caught up in female empowerment shenanigans for PR points.

[Morganator]

To be real frank, I believe this to be nothing but PR shenanigans. The standards should not be changed nor should there be any segregation in the military to allow females to get in and feel like they matter or are treated equally. They should be forced to endure the same exact hardships any male would be forced to under the exact same circumstances and conditions required to fulfill their roles for the position they seek within the military. No free rides, lunches or anything else thereof.

This means that barracks, quarters, training, treatment and ALL aspects need to be unisex. Equality in every sense of the word.

[Vulgotha]

Exactly. I don't think anyone in this discussion so far is advocating for anything but a unified, not dumbed down, physical standard for both sexes. No preferential treatment.

I'd only hesitate to go along with the whole unified barracks and sleeping arrangements\showers (etc) because I don't think anybody would argue that rape would not skyrocket. Or emotional attachments\baggage happening.

[Ixion]

Our troops would be fucking like jackrabbits if that happened.

But perhaps it would be good for morale...

[Sub-stance1]

To be real frank, I believe this to be nothing but PR shenanigans. The standards should not be changed nor should there be any segregation in the military to allow females to get in and feel like they matter or are treated equally. They should be forced to endure the same exact hardships any male would be forced to under the exact same circumstances and conditions required to fulfill their roles for the position they seek within the military. No free rides, lunches or anything else thereof.

This means that barracks, quarters, training, treatment and ALL aspects need to be unisex. Equality in every sense of the word.

They are and have been for many years.