TexasCHLforum.com

The problem I have with polls is intentional or not they are almost always slanted to illicit a desired response by the creator of the poll.

I see little difference between options 1 and 2. Government of the people, by the people... The governments money is the peoples money.
Why would anyone bring the church into this discussion?
Selecting option 4 could suggest that I don't believe any household should be armed.

I believe the past has shown us that making someone defend their country is not a very effective means of national defense. There will always be defenders and those who need to be defended.

jmra wrote: I believe the past has shown us that making someone defend their country is not a very effective means of national defense.

Care to explain?

...yeah, I seem to have read about a bunch of dumb farmers whippin' the finest fightin' army in the worldat that time not too terribly far from here...worked all right back then!!!

G26ster wrote:

jmra wrote: I believe the past has shown us that making someone defend their country is not a very effective means of national defense.

Care to explain?

The draft is a perfect example. Look at every conflict where us citizens were forced to serve. It turned into a disaster.
If someone wants to arm their home to the teeth in case we are ever invaded or our own government turns against us I say go for it. But the fact of the matter is there will always be people who care only about themselves or people who believe that it is someone else's responsibility to take care of/defend them.
Past attempts by the military to force such individuals into service has resulted in not only a tremendous loss of resources but also a significant loss of life.

speedsix wrote:...yeah, I seem to have read about a bunch of dumb farmers whippin' the finest fightin' army in the worldat that time not too terribly far from here...worked all right back then!!!

If I am going to war give me every "dumb farmer" you can get your hands on. I'll also take every ghetto punk over the age of 16 who wants to fight. My enemy can have all the pot smokers, the starbucks crowd, and every person ever appointed by Obama. I like my chances, a lot.

jmra wrote:

G26ster wrote:

jmra wrote: I believe the past has shown us that making someone defend their country is not a very effective means of national defense.

Care to explain?

The draft is a perfect example. Look at every conflict where us citizens were forced to serve. It turned into a disaster.
...

Yeah, that WW2 thing has put a black mark on us forever.

Maybe you should read some more history?

jmra wrote:The problem I have with polls is intentional or not they are almost always slanted to illicit a desired response by the creator of the poll.

I see little difference between options 1 and 2. Government of the people, by the people... The governments money is the peoples money.
Why would anyone bring the church into this discussion?
Selecting option 4 could suggest that I don't believe any household should be armed.

I believe the past has shown us that making someone defend their country is not a very effective means of national defense. There will always be defenders and those who need to be defended.

A departed friend of mine used to always say "the devils in the details." That is why there is a choice one and choice two. Who owns the guns IS of interest to some people. The reason for choice 3 is that Church is important to some people. At times in human history, the Church has been well-armed and had their own army.

I did not nuance choice 4 due to the many reasons one could have for a "no" vote, all equally valid in my view.

I assure there is no agenda here on my part, aside from trying to breathe a little freshness into the forum. I thank everyone who has the time and courage to voice an opinion, especially those who disagree with me, since that provides me with new thought.

"I hate maybes!"

Inflexibility can sometimes be the best response, but it's not always appropriate in all things...

Sorry Dave, but like those who say "it depends" when and if they'll become voluntarily involved in certain situations, my response to your poll rather falls into the "it depends" category - not the concrete response you prefer, as it falls into the gray area of maybe...

The world isn't black or white - yes or no, etc. Of course, things would be much simpler if it was.

And for what it's worth, I too used to be very rigid in my response to almost everything, but I've finally come around to understanding there are gray areas, dagnabit!

lkd wrote:

jmra wrote:

G26ster wrote:

jmra wrote: I believe the past has shown us that making someone defend their country is not a very effective means of national defense.

Care to explain?

The draft is a perfect example. Look at every conflict where us citizens were forced to serve. It turned into a disaster.
...

Yeah, that WW2 thing has put a black mark on us forever.

Maybe you should read some more history?

Actually I might know a little bit more about that time period than you think. 61.2% of those that served in WWII were drafted. However, that number is greatly misleading as a large number of the 61.2% were already in the process of enlisting or were on their way to enlist. There were also many in that number who had no clue their services were needed until they received the notice, communication being what is was at the time.
I was referring to more recent history. But I shoud have stated that in my post.

jmra wrote: I was referring to more recent history. But I shoud have stated that in my post.

If you are referring to Viet Nam, you'd be dead wrong too. That war was a disaster due to politics, and poor leadership both civilian and military, not the troops on the ground who fought their butts off.

G26ster wrote:

jmra wrote: I was referring to more recent history. But I shoud have stated that in my post.

If you are referring to Viet Nam, you'd be dead wrong too. That war was a disaster due to politics, and poor leadership both civilian and military, not the troops on the ground who fought their butts off.

Saigon fell on 30 April 1975. Anyone born on that date would be 35 years old now...if you get my drift?

I also had to vote no, not that I am against the principal that is the basis of the poll, the issue is that there are too many pinheads in this country that would use the firearms for the wrong reasons. Look at every major city across this country, do you really want a gun in every home or apartment?

jmra wrote:There were also many in that number who had no clue their services were needed until they received the notice, communication being what is was at the time.
I was referring to more recent history. But I shoud have stated that in my post.

Yeah, I forgot. All we had at that time were tin cans and string. Forget about the radio, which everyone listened to, the newspapers, recruiting drives and posters, and "Movietone News" which everyone saw at their local theater before every show. Yes, there were no I-phones, or Twitter, Facebook, and TV, but communications didn't seem to be a problem at all.

jmra wrote:

lkd wrote:

jmra wrote:

G26ster wrote:

jmra wrote: I believe the past has shown us that making someone defend their country is not a very effective means of national defense.

Care to explain?

The draft is a perfect example. Look at every conflict where us citizens were forced to serve. It turned into a disaster.
...

Yeah, that WW2 thing has put a black mark on us forever.

Maybe you should read some more history?

Actually I might know a little bit more about that time period than you think. 61.2% of those that served in WWII were drafted. However, that number is greatly misleading as a large number of the 61.2% were already in the process of enlisting or were on their way to enlist. There were also many in that number who had no clue their services were needed until they received the notice, communication being what is was at the time.
I was referring to more recent history. But I shoud have stated that in my post.

Rather than letting this digress into snarky finger-pointing (which I am guilty of starting, and for that I apologize), I think the point I'm trying to make in my original thread is that there's a difference in many ways between _making_ somebody take up arms and said person _reasoning_ that they should take up arms properly (genuine need for defense, etc.). The entire conceptualization of "passing muster" fell into disfavor in the early 1800's, because there was a diminishing sense of needing to provide for civil defense (there have been occasional spikes in civilian defense "mustering" - the Civil War and WW2 come to mind).

Lastly, I would be quite reticent to have a civilian entity passing out arms to my neighbors, even if I thought they could aim and shoot in the right direction. Being issued a rifle is not a "point and shoot" event...it takes a LOT of training in order to function effectively, even in defilade positions. How to move, how to shoot, how to keep your weapon serviceable. It's much more than just handing out rifles. Heck, the first thing we'd have to do is get people to lose weight so they could at least run a mile with a rifle and ammo. That probably includes me too

Got to go with individual ownership, worked for the the country very well at the beginning. People are much more comfortable with guns they own. When you are comfortable with a tool you are much more effective with it.

Besides anything that someone else owns and gives you can be taken away and used against you.