Dick Metcalf controversy

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I have the traditional American republican (lower case r) disdain for large standing militaries, government telling me what I can and cannot do, and police forces that enforce laws against crime by statue, not crimes of intent.

As YourNameHere pointed out, what you are advocating is an America that is based on Hobbesian, not Lockean, principles of republicanism. Which is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

I'm also surprised that you don't want a large standing military. Don't you owe your career to the fact that we have one? How do your reconcile your job with your political beliefs?

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I understand the difference in prevailing opinions between American and English gun cultures, however, in my research, which may be wrong, weren't most of the restrictions upon English firearms ownership enacted in incremental fashion as public safety measures?

They were, but that is still irrelevant. America and England are not the same. American gun owners in the U.S. have enormous political clout, while U.K. gun owners never did. So long as that difference exists, there is no lesson that American pro-gunners can learn from the British experience. End of story.

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

We, as Americans, wouldn't tolerate such restrictions on the right to vote, and here is my hard liner coming out, I freely equate the ballot box and cartridge box, metaphorically speaking.

Don't you think it's strange that your mentality is shared by the IRA ("Armalite and the ballot box") and the PLO ("olive branch and the freedom fighter's gun")? When your philosophy sounds eerily similar to that of anti-Western, left-wing terrorist groups, that should give you pause.

[SPEMack618]

MT, not avoiding you're response to my post. I have several well atriculated rebuttals to your response, but am about to head to Missouri for a duck hunting trip. I will be out of internet range and what not until next Monday at which point I will do your post justice.

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I have several well atriculated rebuttals to your response, but am about to head to Missouri for a duck hunting trip.

Now personally I find that to be hilarious considering the debate. But that's just me.

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

Now personally I find that to be hilarious considering the debate. But that's just me.

HEY! Everyone gets a vacation now and again.

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by MT2008

I'm also surprised that you don't want a large standing military. Don't you owe your career to the fact that we have one? How do your reconcile your job with your political beliefs?

Well, first off, I'm a Guardsman, so I have a normal 9 to 5 day job. And I think there is a hell of a lot of a difference between having a small, elite, well trained, well equipped force and the bloated military we had circa the end of the Cold War.

Don't you think it's strange that your mentality is shared by the IRA ("Armalite and the ballot box") and the PLO ("olive branch and the freedom fighter's gun")? When your philosophy sounds eerily similar to that of anti-Western, left-wing terrorist groups, that should give you pause.

No, not really, because at one point the Continentals were considered traitors and what not. It is trite, but the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Use of force arms is the biggest manifestation of political action, to me anyway. I certainly don't agree with the PLO, and don't know enough of the IRA to make an informed opinion, but I certainly can understand a group that when denied a lack of formal, legal recourse turns to arms.

And I reckon I'm now considered a right wing militia nutjob, too.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

Well, first off, I'm a Guardsman, so I have a normal 9 to 5 day job. And I think there is a hell of a lot of a difference between having a small, elite, well trained, well equipped force and the bloated military we had circa the end of the Cold War.

Gotcha. I don't know why I thought you were Active-duty Army. But I still think that what you want is not a realistic hope. The military should (and does) downsize when global threats recede, but having a "small" military will never happen.

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

No, not really, because at one point the Continentals were considered traitors and what not. It is trite, but the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Use of force arms is the biggest manifestation of political action, to me anyway. I certainly don't agree with the PLO, and don't know enough of the IRA to make an informed opinion, but I certainly can understand a group that when denied a lack of formal, legal recourse turns to arms.

And I reckon I'm now considered a right wing militia nutjob, too.

You are missing the point. I'm not trying to compare the PLO and IRA to the Continental Army; if you are willing to do that, then you are disrespecting the latter by making a comparison to the former. My point is that you share a mentality with terrorists who sought to undermine a liberal democratic republic, not build one. By equating the ballot box and ammo box, what you are really saying is, "Democracy doesn't work unless the government is afraid of being overthrown by force of arms." Does it really make sense to you that the Founding Fathers would endorse such an idea?

[SPEMack618]

I have been on bouts of extended active duty here as of late. Like, above and beyond the one weekend/two weeks a year type deal. Some of that was OCS, and the other part was I got picked to be part of the liaison team between the 3rd ID and the 48th BCT, which involved a lot of active duty work. (and a lot of beer at the Soldier's Club)

I think every O-2 in the military has an idea about how the military should look.

I don't think the Government should necessarily be afraid of the people, but should realize that they govern with the consent of the govern, are answerable to the citizenry, and that the citizens, if the need arise may use their lawfully held private arms to depose a corrupt regime.

[MT2008]

Sorry to disappear; I've been busy. It's not that I've been away from IMFDB; just constantly getting distracted whenever I try to muster the energy to concentrate on writing a response. Plus, I sense that I'm playing with fire.

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I have been on bouts of extended active duty here as of late. Like, above and beyond the one weekend/two weeks a year type deal. Some of that was OCS, and the other part was I got picked to be part of the liaison team between the 3rd ID and the 48th BCT, which involved a lot of active duty work. (and a lot of beer at the Soldier's Club)

You commissioned? Congrats! One of these days, I may have to ask you about your experiences with that (I'm having serious trouble just getting MEPS to cooperate with my application to USAR because I already applied to the Air Force).

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I don't think the Government should necessarily be afraid of the people, but should realize that they govern with the consent of the govern, are answerable to the citizenry, and that the citizens, if the need arise may use their lawfully held private arms to depose a corrupt regime.

Right, but the problem is, how do you define "corrupt" regime, and who determines when it is time to overthrow it? The current administration has committed a number of acts that many of its opponents regard as evidence of "corruption". I am generally sympathetic to many of those claims. The question is, do those actions give us the right to try and overthrow the administration with our lawfully-held arms?

(And as I am sure you understand, this is a rhetorical question. As a commissioned officer in the U.S. military, I don't expect you to advocate overthrowing your commander-in-chief on the Internet.)

[SPEMack618]

MT, its fine. I have been off saving Atlanta from the snow.

Will post more detailed response in Tuesday.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

MT, its fine. I have been off saving Atlanta from the snow.

Atlanta has bigger problems than snow these days.