please clarify how the police took military control over the citizens and the army without an overall failure to resist the outcome I'd be happy to clarify. Your error is that you assume the police took control of the military, which they did not. Rather, the military was deployed fighting a multiple front war. Other than relatively few officers, most enlisted men in the Wehrmacht were unaware of the atrocities being committed by the SS - a police force. I hope this helps to clear things up.
[quote]I repeat my statement Justices authoritativeness relies on what`s politically prudent always[/quote] While it`s a lovely thing to say, merely repeating it does not make it any more true.
Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:55:30 PM
@CrakrJak, I look at your picture below and wonder if you really think all schools should have greater numbers of armed guards per head than the president, and if taxes are going to pay for it? Does your view vary if it is Obma or not?
Sunday, January 13, 2013 12:47:51 PM
@HumanAction, please clarify how the police took military control over the citizens and the army without an overall failure to resist the outcome - that was my point.
Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:45:25 PM
@5cats I'm not saying overturn the 2nd Amendment I clarified what J.Stewart said.
Want to keep status quo go ahead. Want to say there are soo many guns out there you wouldn`t get them all so people have the right to own guns to protect themselves once again go ahead. Want to say Assualt weapons, machine guns etc can`t be owned legally or mental patients are already restricted no issue, anti-gun lobby does say some crap. Want to point out removing guns in Oz resulted in less suicides but relatively same amount of murders go for it. Argue it all on it`s merits. 2nd amendment is about having a armed militia not having a gun at home. You can remove guns from homes without changing that, or keep guns at home without changing that. Just stop quoting the 2nd amendment an archaic statement which can not legitimately be shoe horned into the debate. It`s a weak form of arguing on this issue. I repeat my statement Justices authoritativeness relies on what`s politically prudent always