By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - How many would answer the call for a US draft?

Kasz216 on 13 October 2008
rocketpig said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
bigjon said:
bunch of pussys... lol, I kid

But it would be very unpatriotic to dodge a draft, but I am glad people do dodge the draft. If someone is too weak too be willing to serve, there is no way in hell I want they within a grenades throw of my foxhole.

Dissent is patriotic.  Letting your government know they're ass-backwards is patriotic.  Fighting any war they want you to is blind nationalism and is very dangerous.  It's like Captain America said, (I'm paraphrasing here) "I don't work for the American government.  I work for the American dream."

Dude, bad example. Cap is dead, man.

 

Damn facist Ironman.

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 October 2008
akuma587 said:
rocketpig said:
bigjon said:
bunch of pussys... lol, I kid

But it would be very unpatriotic to dodge a draft, but I am glad people do dodge the draft. If someone is too weak too be willing to serve, there is no way in hell I want they within a grenades throw of my foxhole.

LOL. It takes just as much strength to stand up and go to jail because you disagree with something so strongly as it does to follow along with what someone else tells you, even if the ultimate payoff might be death.

 

Hey, get your civil disobedience crap out of here!  Gandhi, Thoreau, and MLK were all bitches!

 

Pft... what was so great about Ghandi.  He didn't even win a Nobel Peace Prize.

 

Al Gore > Ghandi.

 



vlad321 on 13 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
vlad321 said:

So you really think somehow they won't spin it so thatyour community is a bunch of seccesionists? Do you give your government so little confidence? Before you know it you will be labeled as terrorists or some other such crap. It's worked great so far in US history so I doubt it won't happen again. You are talking about you taking up guns against your government here. They just have to say "Signs of the civil war" and no one will give a shit about your communities because even the most redneck person knows what happened last time there were people going against the government.

Ah, yes, I forgot about all those times the government sent in American soldiers to kill American citizens in America...

Wait, what?

 

We all saw what happened the last time people went against the government, they even made their own army. I believe that's also when Atlanta was burned to the ground, among other things.

So now you're resorting to Civil War references to back up your point.

I'm not quite sure what an armed populace has to do with state governments seceding, but whatever. The Civil War wasn't "people going against the government", it was "the seceded government going against the old government".

 

The whole argument for guns is what happens when the current government decides to do smoething horrible that many people find unacceptable.  Even though the slave issue was one of the most minor causes, the masses only knew of this and rose up against the government, resulting in  the governments seceding from the federal government. The reason given for having guns is in case something gets passed that's as unappealing as the whole slave thing was back then to the southerners, at least the powerful ones, and we all know know what happened back then. Of course I'm gonna bring up the Civil War, why does history exist in the first place?

Most people were against slavery.

Even in the South.

Now if the majority of the US then were against something... (which is what it's supposed to protect.)

The government would be facing like.... Iraq a hundred times worse... and basically be screwed. (Not me though.  I'd be gone in this situation too.)  

 

 

That's simply not true, for the actual South states at least.

As I said before, if the overwhelming majority was agaionst something there'd be no need for guns then. The whole point of this is that the argument that guns should be owned by normal people is that so they can fend off the government. That is a BS argument because in either case guns won't help further any goals against the government.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Kasz216 on 13 October 2008
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
vlad321 said:

So you really think somehow they won't spin it so thatyour community is a bunch of seccesionists? Do you give your government so little confidence? Before you know it you will be labeled as terrorists or some other such crap. It's worked great so far in US history so I doubt it won't happen again. You are talking about you taking up guns against your government here. They just have to say "Signs of the civil war" and no one will give a shit about your communities because even the most redneck person knows what happened last time there were people going against the government.

Ah, yes, I forgot about all those times the government sent in American soldiers to kill American citizens in America...

Wait, what?

 

We all saw what happened the last time people went against the government, they even made their own army. I believe that's also when Atlanta was burned to the ground, among other things.

So now you're resorting to Civil War references to back up your point.

I'm not quite sure what an armed populace has to do with state governments seceding, but whatever. The Civil War wasn't "people going against the government", it was "the seceded government going against the old government".

 

The whole argument for guns is what happens when the current government decides to do smoething horrible that many people find unacceptable.  Even though the slave issue was one of the most minor causes, the masses only knew of this and rose up against the government, resulting in  the governments seceding from the federal government. The reason given for having guns is in case something gets passed that's as unappealing as the whole slave thing was back then to the southerners, at least the powerful ones, and we all know know what happened back then. Of course I'm gonna bring up the Civil War, why does history exist in the first place?

Most people were against slavery.

Even in the South.

Now if the majority of the US then were against something... (which is what it's supposed to protect.)

The government would be facing like.... Iraq a hundred times worse... and basically be screwed. (Not me though.  I'd be gone in this situation too.)  

 

 

That's simply not true, for the actual South states at least.

As I said before, if the overwhelming majority was agaionst something there'd be no need for guns then. The whole point of this is that the argument that guns should be owned by normal people is that so they can fend off the government. That is a BS argument because in either case guns won't help further any goals against the government.

Sure it was, there was a level of antagonism between the North and the South and many other issues other then slavery.

Unless Fredrick Douglass was lieing to me... at least i believe that's where i read that recently, in Fredrick Douglasses Autobiography.  I've read a lot of slavery stuff recently though so it may have been elsewhere.

Even a lot of slaveholders saw it as a necessisary evil.

Besides which, it doesn't change the point that the South was the minority in the civil war... and not a united majority.



vlad321 on 13 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
vlad321 said:

So you really think somehow they won't spin it so thatyour community is a bunch of seccesionists? Do you give your government so little confidence? Before you know it you will be labeled as terrorists or some other such crap. It's worked great so far in US history so I doubt it won't happen again. You are talking about you taking up guns against your government here. They just have to say "Signs of the civil war" and no one will give a shit about your communities because even the most redneck person knows what happened last time there were people going against the government.

Ah, yes, I forgot about all those times the government sent in American soldiers to kill American citizens in America...

Wait, what?

 

We all saw what happened the last time people went against the government, they even made their own army. I believe that's also when Atlanta was burned to the ground, among other things.

So now you're resorting to Civil War references to back up your point.

I'm not quite sure what an armed populace has to do with state governments seceding, but whatever. The Civil War wasn't "people going against the government", it was "the seceded government going against the old government".

 

The whole argument for guns is what happens when the current government decides to do smoething horrible that many people find unacceptable.  Even though the slave issue was one of the most minor causes, the masses only knew of this and rose up against the government, resulting in  the governments seceding from the federal government. The reason given for having guns is in case something gets passed that's as unappealing as the whole slave thing was back then to the southerners, at least the powerful ones, and we all know know what happened back then. Of course I'm gonna bring up the Civil War, why does history exist in the first place?

Most people were against slavery.

Even in the South.

Now if the majority of the US then were against something... (which is what it's supposed to protect.)

The government would be facing like.... Iraq a hundred times worse... and basically be screwed. (Not me though.  I'd be gone in this situation too.)  

 

 

That's simply not true, for the actual South states at least.

As I said before, if the overwhelming majority was agaionst something there'd be no need for guns then. The whole point of this is that the argument that guns should be owned by normal people is that so they can fend off the government. That is a BS argument because in either case guns won't help further any goals against the government.

Sure it was, there was a level of antagonism between the North and the South and many other issues other then slavery.

Unless Fredrick Douglass was lieing to me... at least i believe that's where i read that recently, in Fredrick Douglasses Autobiography.  I've read a lot of slavery stuff recently though so it may have been elsewhere.

Even a lot of slaveholders saw it as a necessisary evil.

Besides which, it doesn't change the point that the South was the minority in the civil war... and not a united majority.

 

It was the minority, and the fact they had guns really did not matter, now if the overwhelmign majority was against the government, and the people in the Army were also aginst it, then why would they need guns in the first place?

 

Also I wrote a paper for one of my 1st semester history classes on the civil war, but the teacher was kinda wierd so maybe that's why I got the grade which I got, I'll do some more research on it.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 October 2008
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
vlad321 said:
rocketpig said:
vlad321 said:

So you really think somehow they won't spin it so thatyour community is a bunch of seccesionists? Do you give your government so little confidence? Before you know it you will be labeled as terrorists or some other such crap. It's worked great so far in US history so I doubt it won't happen again. You are talking about you taking up guns against your government here. They just have to say "Signs of the civil war" and no one will give a shit about your communities because even the most redneck person knows what happened last time there were people going against the government.

Ah, yes, I forgot about all those times the government sent in American soldiers to kill American citizens in America...

Wait, what?


We all saw what happened the last time people went against the government, they even made their own army. I believe that's also when Atlanta was burned to the ground, among other things.

So now you're resorting to Civil War references to back up your point.

I'm not quite sure what an armed populace has to do with state governments seceding, but whatever. The Civil War wasn't "people going against the government", it was "the seceded government going against the old government".


The whole argument for guns is what happens when the current government decides to do smoething horrible that many people find unacceptable.  Even though the slave issue was one of the most minor causes, the masses only knew of this and rose up against the government, resulting in  the governments seceding from the federal government. The reason given for having guns is in case something gets passed that's as unappealing as the whole slave thing was back then to the southerners, at least the powerful ones, and we all know know what happened back then. Of course I'm gonna bring up the Civil War, why does history exist in the first place?

Most people were against slavery.

Even in the South.

Now if the majority of the US then were against something... (which is what it's supposed to protect.)

The government would be facing like.... Iraq a hundred times worse... and basically be screwed. (Not me though.  I'd be gone in this situation too.)  


That's simply not true, for the actual South states at least.

As I said before, if the overwhelming majority was agaionst something there'd be no need for guns then. The whole point of this is that the argument that guns should be owned by normal people is that so they can fend off the government. That is a BS argument because in either case guns won't help further any goals against the government.

Sure it was, there was a level of antagonism between the North and the South and many other issues other then slavery.

Unless Fredrick Douglass was lieing to me... at least i believe that's where i read that recently, in Fredrick Douglasses Autobiography.  I've read a lot of slavery stuff recently though so it may have been elsewhere.

Even a lot of slaveholders saw it as a necessisary evil.

Besides which, it doesn't change the point that the South was the minority in the civil war... and not a united majority.

 

It was the minority, and the fact they had guns really did not matter, now if the overwhelmign majority was against the government, and the people in the Army were also aginst it, then why would they need guns in the first place?

 

Also I wrote a paper for one of my 1st semester history classes on the civil war, but the teacher was kinda wierd so maybe that's why I got the grade which I got, I'll do some more research on it.

Who said that the people in the Army would all be against it?  Army support has held overwhelming majority down a lot who didn't have good weaponry.


Also... look at the casualty and death rates during the Civil War and tell me it didn't do anything.  It was a REAL pain for the government.... as any such action now would be.

Now decently armed people, they can cause a lot of trouble to countries when the majority, look at all the rebel groups that give their governments grief and sometimes overcome them now a adays.