ServiceSoon
Member
To your point I have heard that is why Japan never attacked US soil during World War II. "Because there is a firearm behind every blade of grass."
Have you ever driven and or been to Walmart? Let's just say the Swiss are a bit different.Who are they?
Was Hawaii not part of the US at the time?
Having an armed citizen-militia would be fine in case of a full-scale invasion, but where will those invaders come from? Mexico?
By the time any invading force got here, our military would have been legitimately deployed to intercept them.
They don't have to be "loyal to the United States." All they need is to "not wish to be raped and pillaged by invading huns." They won't be fighting for the Bush administration; they'll be fighting for their sons' and daughters' lives.It's too late for the "Swiss Model" to be applied here in the U.S.. The majority of our citizenry here are not loyal to the United States...
They don't have to be "loyal to the United States."
budney said:You're ignoring the deterrent factor. What idiot attempts to invade a country whose citizens are armed to the teeth? If you read the article, you'll note that Hitler considered invading Switzerland--and changed his mind.
S.P.E.C.T.R.E. said:Please don't misunderstand, I believe that an armed populace is useful as a last line of defense, and an enormous dissuader to a foolhardy invasion attempt on US soil. Japan noticed our proliferation of citizen marksmen and never seriously considered an invasion of the continental US.
I can't say whether I agree or disagree with you, because frankly I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "loyal to the United States." Do you mean literally loyal to the "states," or is it sufficient to be loyal to your own state (in my case, Pennsylvania)? Or are you referring to the United States as if they are one country, and so meaning that we must be loyal to Washington D.C.? And by loyalty to Washington, DC, to you mean that we must be "loyal" to the current administration, or that we must be "loyal" to an idealized notion of the United States, as symbolized by the Constitution?With all due respect. If they're not, I wouldn't want them fighting beside me anyway, and would prefer they didn't. Actually, I would prefer they reside somewhere esle, somewhere they would be loyal to their country.
I can't say whether I agree or disagree with you, because frankly I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "loyal to the United States."
I didn't know what you meant by it then, either--and it didn't matter. I was pointing out that your neighbor will fight because he cares about his wife and daughter, not because he votes elephant or donkey.I quoted you budney. You tell me?
My apologies; I'm trying to give you a little credit, rather than assuming what you probably mean by "loyalty to the United States." Namely, the talk-radio BS that anything other than supporting G. W. Bush is "treason," and Democrats, libertarians, and even anti-war republicans are "traitors" who "support al qaeda" and "want America to lose." That viewpoint, repeated by Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc., is pure horse-hockey, so I thought I'd make a point of not assuming you think that.I've never heard so much double talk bla bla bla in my life.
Oh. Then anyone with a wife and daughter that he doesn't want raped is "loyal to the United States," since he will of course fight an invasion or takeover.The subject is defense of our country. We're talking about arming citizens. Reason? Protection from invasion or take over. "Loyal to the United States" would mean defending it from the above, by a foreign entity, people or government.
You're acting like this is rocket science. It isn't. Invading horde? Shoot. That simple.I hope you think about the answer to all your questions before we get invaded because by the time you get this figured out you would already have been shot.
Please reread my post; you seem to have gotten confused. I'm on the green defending them, not hiding behind them.But for the hell of it, forget for a moment you have a wife and daughter so you can't hide behind them.
You definitely need to reread my post, because you've clearly missed the boat. I'm defending it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, because I don't want my home destroyed. By contrast, you seem a little confused, because you are demanding that I swear loyalty to domestic enemies--which I won't do.If your lack of love and or loyalty to this country prohibits you from fighting against enemy invaders to protect this country from take-over by a foreign entity, people or government...
You're acting like this is rocket science. It isn't. Invading horde? Shoot. That simple.
Please reread my post; you seem to have gotten confused. I'm on the green defending them, not hiding behind them.
By contrast, you seem a little confused, because you are demanding that I swear loyalty to domestic enemies--which I won't do.
These are the questions I have for Ron Paul's isolationist foreign policy.
It's not simple, easy or plain what you mean by "loyal to the United States," since you yourself are not loyal to the republic founded by Jefferson et al. Your use of the phrase "loyalty to the United States" is doublespeak.I am the one making a simple, easy, plain, statement. You're the one throwing out the double speak and the 20 questions, so get with it and quite making statements that have no merit.
The country is not the government, but you definitely appear to confuse the two. As a result you confuse "defending the country," which I support, with "defending the federal government," which today is treason against the republic. You are therefore in the contradictory position of insisting that I promise to defend and betray the American people at one and the same time.A REASON FOR DEFENDING THIS COUNTRY INSTEAD OF DEFENDING THE COUNTRY ITSELF.
See? It's as clear as day that to you that "the United States" is synonymous with "the federal government." They most certainly are not. The United States are sovereign, independent nations[*] which have formed a federation for the purpose of securing the common defense and promoting interstate trade.Since you substitute the term "domestic enemies" for the "United States of America", which you did, you miss the boat and should swim quick to catch it and be on it out of here. If you won't fight invading foreign enemies for the safety of this nation and instead say, if you do, then by default, you're swearing loyalty to domestic enemies (The USA)...
This is pointless; you keep repeating such statements without reading what I said. I believe in defending Americans from all enemies of the Constitution--including the federal government. You don't recognize the federal government as a domestic enemy of the Constitution because you don't care about the original intent, which has long ago been shredded and burned. The framers would consider you a domestic enemy for that--but thanks to George Orwell, you get to try and reverse reality by calling traitors patriots and patriots traitors.You say you won't defend this country because of the government and your hatred for it, but then, turn around and say that I confuse the country for the government. That's double speak.