Second Amendment

Originally posted by normbenign
Clearly, the founders thought an army a temporary expedient in case of foreign invasion. This may perhaps be an anachronism, but we don't need bases around the world, nukes enough to kill all mankind 30 times over, or even enough military power to fight a two front war. We don't need the most fearsome fighters or other weapons systems, at least not on an ...[text shortened]... iberties for security is fools gold. One ends up with neither security, nor liberty.

Me: "Who will protect us from the deeds and misdeeds of our protectors (I count Lanza's mother's lack of vigilance regarding her weapons' security to be a misdeed)?"

You: Yes, but school shootings are rare. A child is more likely to be struck by lightening than to be killed by a semi auto rifle with a large magazine. Adam Lanza's mother brings up another issue, which was the subject of a link I provided to an interview with Larry Elder. He emphasizes that it is fatherless young men who do the majority of the shooting and killing in the US.

Me: That is non-responsive, which makes me think you are not thinking past the coming revolt you are fantasizing. You are among those who are at least, suspicious of the armed military of this country and how it would be used to enforce your FEMA camps etc. I am among those who are suspicious of those civilians that you seem to support, who have their thousands of assault weapons, and more than that, seem ready to use against the government. Same as the old boss, they would be, except of course they have zero chance of success. Show me i am wrong. Show me they would protect me when and if they would ever overcome the government and show me how they would institute a new proper order.They do not have the magnificence of our founders.

Originally posted by normbenign
It was absurd to think that the 13 north american colonies could defeat the mighty British army and navy in 1775. Of course 3000 miles of ocean, and an unwillingness to commit resources may have had a bit to do with the result.

Ireland was much more simple to keep under the British thumb than colonies around the world.

3000 miles of ocean with France ,Holland and Spain fighting on the colonists side . Makes a big difference .

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ireland is not a fully independent country because Britain still controls
6 counties of MY country.

It is true that Britain committed atrocities against Ireland.
If that had not been the case then the British Prime Minister
would not have apologized on TV.

As for calling it absurd that if Britain took it seriously if it came to all out war
Britain has tried to bully Ireland for the last 800 years or more
and has failed to dominate completely.

Put that in your historian pipe and smoke it.

Why do you suppose the Queen could not visit Ireland for so long?

She was not welcome that's why.

It is only since the peace process of 1995
that mechanisms were put in place to try and arrange a
peaceful welcome for the Queen of Britain to visit Ireland.

She herself acknowledged that there have been many unhappy events
that she herself found regrettable.

I am happy to say that her visit was a success and I think she herself
enjoyed it and expressed a wish to come again.

I am happy that things are more peaceful today.
I would like to see a further improvement in
Anglo Irish relations.

The result of such an action can only be positive.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Well yes, but then the Irish simply wouldn't have fought a conventional war. The thing with Ireland is that it's close and so the atrocities you need to commit to keep 'em down are too close to home to get away with, with a real danger of a civil war spreading to Britain. This is around the time of the General Strike in Britain - so mass oppression in Ireland wasn't politically possible. For colonies further away there were less likely to be political difficulties with exerting force because of the distance, and projecting power wasn't a problem for them.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Isn't Scotland talking about declaring independence? There are ways to leverage navies without full out war. Fleet in being and all that.

The next time unionists start throwing temper tantrums show them a little shillelagh law like at Finnegan's Wake:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q6CHq9mXkJ8

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ruthlessness loses to ethnic nationalism in the long run.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Populations like that and the American Indians were wiped out due to relatively weak immune systems. Hitler thought the same way but he found ruthlessness isn't enough without the advantage of diseases. He wanted to emulate the US with Slavs instead of Indians but it didn't work.

Those genocides were not caused by ruthlessness. Anyway there are still descendents of those people. They must not feel very ethnic nationalist in a military sense. If they were they'd be intensely breeding and committing crimes. That's usually how it starts.

http://www.tasmanianaboriginal.com.au/liapootah/index.htm

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Populations like that and the American Indians were wiped out due to relatively weak immune systems. Hitler thought the same way but he found ruthlessness isn't enough without the advantage of diseases. He wanted to emulate the US with Slavs instead of Indians but it didn't work.

Those genocides were not caused by ruthlessness. Anyway there ar ...[text shortened]... That's usually how it starts.

http://www.tasmanianaboriginal.com.au/liapootah/index.htm

Hitler's nationalism was quite a different type of nationalism
to Irish nationalism. Hitler was a tyrant who wanted to seize power
and then look for a scapegoat to heap revenge upon for all the
austerity measures that Germany had endured when it had to
make reparations for World War 1.

He became a dictator and not content with that he went on to seek
Lebensraum in other countries which he declared were of Germanic
Teutonic origin and so he decided to occupy them.

Ireland never sought to occupy any other country.
We never sought to create an empire and impose our
will upon others like the Germans did and the British did.

We Irish simply wanted the right to our own nation
and self determination. The British came in and
imposed their will and their cruelty upon this country
just like they did in America and India and Africa and in
countless other countries who did not invite them or
welcome their intervention or imperialistic attitude.

History has shown the cruelty and atrocities of the British.
Their Prime Minister has had to apologize for one
just one of those atrocities.

Much work and apologies had to be made before the
British Queen eventually was made welcome here.
The last time a British Monarch set foot in Ireland
was 1910. That's how long it has been because the British
had shamed themselves so much as they sometimes still
do today.

All over Europe special riot police swing into action
when English football fans come to town.

You never see that when the Irish come to town.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I do argue that Neandertals were never wiped out. They interbred with Homo sapiens and merged cultures. Who do you think taught us to tie sharp rocks to sticks to make spears? Sapiens spears had fire hardened wooden points that far back.

Ill find you some quotes in a sec.

This isn't a primary source but its a start:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Lebensraum

It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Polish,Russian,and otherSlavic populations, whom they regarded as Untermenschen ("inferior peoples"😉, and to repopulate the land with reinrassig ("pure breed"😉 Germanic peoples. The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class.