How come the only time the MIC finds favor on DU is when it involves gun control?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Mind you, this is not a slam against members who are military veterans. Lover Boy is a veteran and a proud one because he considers the people he served with to be the best he has ever known. Having met his friends, I agree.

However, the military industrial complex is normally criticized for consuming too much revenue, infringing on civil liberties and leading to military adventurism.

Yet, in discussions involving gun control suddenly we don't need individual gun ownership because the beneficent MIC satisfies our every security need.

And when it comes to having arms to fend off from a potentially rogue MIC, well, they're just so gosh darn golly powerful it would be futile to resist -- so just surrender your guns now get back in line, prole.

But then there are the "We're coming for your guns sort" who seem to relish the thought of a contest between citizens and the MIC with the MIC prevailing. Killing ISIS as it spreads to numerous nations? Bad. Killing Americans on American soil for daring to own guns? AWEZUM!

Am I missing something?

[villager]

1. Huh? Any links to specific threads?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. I'll ask you --

Do you think owning guns for national defense is pointless because the MIC is here to defend our shores?

Do you think the MIC is too powerful to resist if it were to go rogue so there is no point in allowing civilians to to own guns to defend themselves from a rogue government?

Do you think if there was ever a mass civil disobedience campaign against gun registration/turn-in that the authorities should employ whatever force is necessary to insure compliance?

[villager]

3. It's your OP and your thesis. Where are these pro-MIC DUers in gun control threads?

I've never seen any.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. We'll count you as one of them.

[villager]

5. Sure, Senator McCarthy. Absent any links, evidence, proof, etc., you just go ahead!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. My first premise is -- the assumption the MIC obviates the need for a militia.

Are you seriously suggesting this line of argument has never been posed by the gun control regulars? This is your challenge to me? Because if it is, any claim of ignorance of such posts by you is seriously revealing about either your attention to the debate or duplicity on your part. Assuming you aren't lying in a fit of pique then you should be prepared to be disappointed by those who are presumably your peers in gun control advocacy.

To wit --

Fine, we don't need a militia nowadays. So leave you guns at home.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=57571

So is there no longer any need for any "Militias"

In fact since they were deliberately left out of this Extreme Court Decision I would say those that currently exist are now nothing more than armed gangs and should be forcibly broken up..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3534667

Not only that, but since the 1903 militia act, there has been no 'well regulated' citizens militia as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Since the rationale for RKBA has collapsed into oblivion, so should the 2ndA, since it has become obsolete & worthless. You no more need the 2ndA to purchase a firearm today than you need first amendment rights to talk to yourself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129165#post22

So, how about you? Do you think the MIC has obviated the need for an armed citizenry?

[villager]

8. So you view yourself as part of a "well-regulated militia" taking up arms *against* the MIC?

Those threads were hardly supportive of the MIC, however.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "Those threads were hardly supportive of the MIC, however."

So now you admit they exist. That would make your earlier implications that I was deluded/lying rather uncalled for. I would dare say, dishonorable.

I don't know how you got "taking up arms against the MIC" from "the MIC obviates the militia" but, yes, I do consider that supportive of the MIC because when these arguments are made the binary of the situation comes down to -- who would we rather have? The MIC or the people? I have yet to see the Controllers side with the people. In fact, they expect the people to disarm in the face of an MIC that is, by supposition, waging war on the American people.

If you can find a post where a gun control advocate has made a comment to the effect of, "these gunners might be crazier than outhouse rats but if the government ever does go rogue I sure hope they prevail" I would delight in seeing it. You'll find the site search feature in the upper-right hand corner of your web browser; seeing as you're all big on people showing their theses and stuff.

How about you? If the MIC does go rogue who will you be rooting for?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. re: "...a gun control advocate has made a comment to the effect..."

Here's one that's close:

Dr. Arthur Kellerman, stated: “If you’ve got to resist, you’re chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah.” (Health Magazine, March/April 1994)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Ah yes, the ol' "lay back, try to relax and hopefully it will all be over soon" defense.

Never without a fight.

[villager]

11. No, Sen. McCarthy, those threads were about "well-regulated militias" and the intent

...of the framers regarding the 2nd Amendment (And not what your pals like Alito and Scalia claim it says). Those were not supportive of the MIC. Those threads don't exist.

Your use of Sarah Palin's phrase "go rogue" is interesting, in this context.

So do you see this sea of unregulated guns in America as a way of making the NSA and the corporate elite, et al -- the MIC -- "stand down" in the face of your awesome armed power?

How often do you and yours rewatch "Red Dawn" in your household, btw?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. "Those threads don't exist."

There is certainly no support for the people in them. The people or those trying to subjugate the people? Hmmm -- decisions, decisions.

So do you see this sea of unregulated guns in America as a way of making the NSA and the corporate elite, et al -- the MIC -- "stand down" in the face of your awesome armed power?

Why, do you believe them to be so powerful that opposing them would be futile so we might as well just not bother to even arms ourselves?

[villager]

15. So you're keeping your guns oiled and ready for an eventual showdown with our own government?

You've said nothing to the contrary.

I think if things devolve to that point, you will not find yourself valiantly in the trenches blasting the Pentagon to a standstill. There will be other kinds of resistance.

Though you've also said that military people are the best you've ever known -- so who is it, exactly, you're planning on killing?

For make no mistake, that's exactly what you're talking about here.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. Actually, I can't help but think a people who are well armed and of the mind to defend themselves

are exactly the sort of people common criminals, foreign invaders and domestic tyrants would find unappealing. It wouldn't be worth it for any of them to try because they would never find a moment's peace to enjoy their efforts.

And, yes, I find soldiers to be -- for the most part -- admirable people. I'm not particularly fond of militarized, shoot-first or just-choke-em-out police, though. And I get the feeling I'm not alone; QED the Huey P. Newton Gun Club and the fact registration laws are ignored en masse.

[villager]

17. So you really *do* watch "Red Dawn" a lot in your household.

OK!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Actually, I've never seen the original but I want to see the new one but only because

it has Chris Hemsworth. Does that count?

Just out of curiosity, what is it about the idea of people defending themselves that you find so objectionable that it serves as the basis of ridicule?

"Homeowners insurance? Pfft! What a bunch a paranoid rubes! I bet they wear seatbelts too. Can you imagine?"

[villager]

19. I'm just curious who it is you actually imagine gunning down in the streets of your neighborhood

....thus turning the tide of the foreign/fascist takeover that, evidently, only you and your guns can prevent.

Though I noticed your arsenal did nothing to prevent the excesses of the Bush/Cheney years.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. I don't imagine gunning down anyone. Why do Controllers imagine decent people gunning

people down?

Apparently you seem to think robbers, rapists, stalkers, murderers are fictions of the imagination and the only real threats are those who would defend themselves.

Though I noticed your arsenal did nothing to prevent the excesses of the Bush/Cheney years.

Apparently neither did doing nothing.

By the way, what "arsenal"? How many guns of what types do I own?

[villager]

21. Ok, so you imagine robbers, rapists, foreigners, and U.S. Army folk being deterred by your guns

But you don't actually imagine using them? Or shooting anyone?

If your guns are such a deterrent, do you just fire them in the air and shout "EE-HAW!" and watch those hordes go scuttling back to where they came from?

How, exactly -- exactly -- do you see your lauded deterrent working? Actually?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. I wear a seatbelt but I don't look forward to being in an accident.

Look, if you want to live as a corralled herd animal that is your choice. I'm sure your masters will pat you benevolently on the head and congratulate you and working so diligently for the state. If that is who you are, fine; but that doesn't obligate anyone else to seek a comfortable half-existence with a police state that spies on its own citizens.

How, exactly -- exactly -- do you see your lauded deterrent working? Actually?

Would you advocate confiscating guns from those who refused to surrender them knowing the potential reaction?

[villager]

23. You of course keep dodging the question. *How* -- exactly -- will your guns keep the MIC in check?

I noticed your arsenal failed to prevent any excesses of the Bush/Cheney era. Was that because you were too busy and simply forgot to take your guns to Washington to force that regime to stand down?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. I'm not dodging. Do you think any serious person would propose banning guns knowing

it would be an electoral, legislative and enforcement nightmare?

I would argue, no. No not-stupid person wants to be that guy to reign over that mess. Ergo, the deterrent works.

I noticed your arsenal failed to prevent any excesses of the Bush/Cheney era.

And what did you stop? you're saying you saw something you consider to be a crime and just sat on your duff grousing at others? Aren't you special.

[beevul]

25. I'm just curious what dog you actually imagine beating in the streets of your neighborhood.

See, we can make unsubstantiated allegations too.

[villager]

26. ?????

[beevul]

27. ROFLCOPTER

"Who, me?"

[villager]

28. Whatevs, Beevul, whatevs.

I'm sure it all makes sense to you.

[needledriver]

14. You forgot to include

The obligatory cartoon of a bearded overweight ammosexual in a baseball cap standing in futile opposition to a fearsome array of guns and tanks and missiles and drones and helicopters and fighter jets.

[oneshooter]

29. Just another hoplophobe showing their true colors. n/t

[digonswine]

30. There are many words here-

are you stating that you arm yourself for the purpose of defending our borders and that the MIC--"scary words"--can't do the job?
YOU will do it because the corrupt government will not do it.
You will be the line of defense?

I will answer--YES--the military has made an armed populace unnecessary.

An armed uprising against this government, or in the event of an ineffective military response, is laughable.

I do not like the state of affairs of the military,-- the money they consume, the fawning they draw, the power they exert--but the idea that the armed citizens are holding them in check is funny.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. No, that's not why I support the RKBA. I support the RKBA because self-defense is a human right.

Victimization is never moral obligation and in those instances where it is a legal obligation the law is in error and should disregard when the need is legitimate.

But I imagine a populace that is armed is not appealing to anyone who might consider dispensing with democracy in favor of a form of rule more to their personal liking. Waging war on a populace is never the goal of these sorts, they want people to be ruled, not destroyed.

the idea that the armed citizens are holding them in check is funny.

I imagine what really holds them in check are the individual soldiers. If the average American soldiers were to be surveyed as to whom they feel deeper loyalties, the people of the political leadership, the people would win overwhelmingly.

[needledriver]

6. Surely you have noticed

The many threads which stridently promote the claim that the National Guard is the "well regulated militia" to which the 2nd Amendment limits the right to keep and bear arms.