Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

[SirNitram]

Comrade's Tortoises distortions about the Canadian medical system have been accurately torn down by Nitram, but one should also note that one of Ben's sources is the ideaologically hard right Fraser Institute which never saw a privitization measure it didn't endorse.

Gosh, I wouldn't have expected that.. If it wasn't.. You know.. For all the blatant distortions, fallacies, and outright lies already spotted. But I somehow knew the linked sources were bogus when they began spouting off.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Comrade's Tortoises distortions about the Canadian medical system have been accurately torn down by Nitram, but one should also note that one of Ben's sources is the ideaologically hard right Fraser Institute which never saw a privitization measure it didn't endorse.

If you are going to attack the souce, please actually point out where the numbers are wrong. Please, enlighten me. I dont think the author of the first article, who is an economist living in canada, or the secod, who is an MD are going to blatantly lie in their articles.

[Cynical Cat]

My first claims: Fraser Institute is a right wing mouth piece is common knowledge to anyone who even pays the slightest attention to BC politics. That's the claim I made. The other claims are yours and the burden of proof falls on you. Why don't you prove your claims that Canadians pay more per capita for medical care and we can't own private health insurance?

[Cynical Cat]

The Fraser Institute article refers to waiting lists. The Canadian medical systems prioritizes based on urgency. Who makes those decisions? Doctors, not HMOs. Even if you immediate surgery, you will get it. Then there is long term and short term waiting list. The whole article is a distortion by grouping them all together in one category. If your surgery can wait, you don't jump to the front of the line.

A few opinions on the Fraser Institute and some of its studies.

http://www.publicairwaves.ca/printer.php?page=1036

http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/carryon/dcharb ... fraser.htm

http://www.sfu.ca/cmns/research/newswat ... ssue1.html

As for the other one, it talks exclusively about the costs of public healthcare in Quebec while not comparing the cost and consequences of having private healthcare in the same place, such as the cost of private insurance and the increased malpractice insurance costs enjoyed by the U.S. system. In addition, his numbers have references to support them, but none of his bold claims on consequences. We have big claims and numbers floating without comparison. A responsible article would back those claims and give comparable numbers for what would happen on a U.S. style private system. Sure, he talks about the tax burden of health care, but he doesn't mention the even higher cost to each individual person of US style health care. Real honest.

This isn't the first time you've flogged this crap Ben and I've seen you been beaten on this before. I'm not impressed.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Alright, then lets compare to the US system. Let me grab references (the difference between this and the last time is that I am supporting my case with references. So this may take a bit)

[Comrade Tortoise]

OK, according to CNN
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/09/pf/insu ... althplans/

The average cost for insurance premiums for employers in regard to insuring their families is 2412 dollars a year (as of 2003). ANd seeing as you have already conceeded that the numbers I provided for family coverage in Canada is correct (if not compared to US costs), this is less than half the cost. Granted, there is a duductable, but those are, economically speaking, a good thing. They kep the insurance cmpany from having to pay for small expenses, and also help to decrease demand by puting in place a cost that the consumer can see, and feel in their own pocketbook

Some are higher, some are lower. WHile some people are uninsured. Now, some people toss around the term underinsured, but they dont care to define it in any article I have read.

However, are people who dont have insurance out in the cold about to die if they get sick or injured? No. Because hospital cannot legally or ethiclly refuse them treatment. Will they be in debt? Sure. But it isnt as if they dont voluntarily place themselves in debt for cars and such on their own. And if they are REALLY poor, there are government programs for that, even if they are boondogles. The AMA is currently pushing efforts to reform them.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/15062.html

The idea that, because some people are uninsured, we have to socialize medicine, is the biggest piece of bullshit I have ever seen.

"There are a subsection of the american population which is either uninsured or underinsured (what does that even mean? Have they a definition of underinsured?), so we need to scrap all private medicine amd go to a socialized system" talk about false dichotomies

[Cynical Cat]

I didn't say your numbers were right. I said he provides numbers out of context. Thanks for distorting my words.

As you your supposition:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/321437.shtml

U.S. citizens paid $5,267 per person for health care in 2002, the study found, 53% more than any other industrialized country and $1,821 more than Switzerland, the nation with the second highest per-capita spending.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 3425.shtml

U.S. health-care spending per person in the U.S. is double that in Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Britain. The study researchers argue that the $1.7 trillion annual cost of health care in the U.S. would be adequate to provide coverage for everyone if proper controls on medical costs were in place.

http://www.amsa.org/hp/myths.cfm

Myths & Facts About Single-Payer Universal Health Care

MYTH: It would cost too much money.
FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.
The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.

MYTH: It is socialized medicine.
FACT: A single-payer universal health plan is not socialized medicine. Under socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and clinics. Doctors and nurses are government employees. A single-payer universal health plan preserves private ownership and employment. It has no more in common with socialized medicine than does Medicare. What's unique about a single-payer universal health plan is that all health-care risks are placed in a universal risk pool covering everyone.

MYTH: Americans would pay more.
FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.

As for your attempted rebuttal about the uninsured and underinsured, it's a strawman. Your current system doesn't work. It leaves a quarter of the population unprotected and creates a high rate of medical bankruptcy among the insured who are hit by serious health problems. You response is "I don't like any other solution, so lets not fix it. And fuck everyone who isn't covered."

[Comrade Tortoise]

*writes a formal concession regarding a sort of universal risk pool*

Caveat: An individual can opt out of said system to purchase private insurance, getting a tax deduction for doing so.

[SirNitram]

So first the government doesn't have the right, now it does. You flip-flop more than the 2004 Presidential Candidates.

Nice strawman. Changing the constitution to fit the times is what the amendment process is for. That, is within he power of government

Therefore your earlier statement the Government doesn't have the power was wrong. Concession accepted, dirtbag.

You're far more a lawyer than a scientist. The interpretation is entirely within the 'Right To Bear Arms' section; we must define what the right truly means, and thus the lack of infringement placed into a meaningful context

(I have briefly considered law)

You want to talk Meaningful context? Alright. The founding fathers just finished fighting a war against a tyranical government who sought to destroy their weapon stocks. Their entire rebellion hinged on the right of the people not only to keep and bear arms, but on the ability of the people to keep abd bear arms of similer calibre and technological sophistiation as the tyrannical government they were rebeling against.

Strike one, to your "meaningful context"

You mean ball one. Your pitch is so out of the zone it's pathetic.

While a citizen was allowed and encouraged to own a rifle, you'll not find any discussion amongst the Founding Father's about the rights of a citizen to own a 12 pounder cannon(Analogous to a Russian Tank or M240G in our context), or his right to tote his rifle into crowded forums, loaded and ready(Analogous to your desire to carry loaded and ready firearms onto airplanes in our context.

They also lived in an era with no forensic science to speak of. So the ability of government to retroactively punish criminals for their crimes was minimal. Thus necessitating the ability of the people to use arms in their defense.

By this argument, there is therefore less reason now for people to own guns.

Strike two

Ball two, you mean.

Strike three...

The definition of counting your chickens before they hatch.

The constitution is a social contract. Now, just like any other contract. it is set in stone. If a party breaks it, they are in breach onf contract. If either party wants to change the contract, they have to go through the legal process of changing, or amending it. This must be done with the consent of both parties. Hence the whole 3/4ths supermajority in both houses, with state ratification for an amendment to take effect.

And you have quite the standard of evidence to meet to show it's been broken, kiddo.

What the founding fathers intended was that every citizen have unrestricted access to firearms. That IS the meaningful context. Now, if we want to change that to something which you deem more "sensible" that is for the amendment process.

You have not proven this. As I stated, there was no mention of the 'right to bear arms' extending into endangering others or owning artillery. You must prove this logically, not by declaration.

Now, there is a lot of controversy even among supreme court judges as to the nature of the 2nd amenment. So your claim that every justice who has ever sat on the bench agrees with guncontrol as quoted here:

Strawman distortion. No justice has sided with your declarations != All justices agree with all gun control. Since the following simply follows your flagrant distortion, it is safely snipped.

Ball three...

If you cant make a real logical argument incorporating history etc Martin, just go away.

You know what your post here lacked? Yea, evidence again. Especially hypocritical when you make this.

Ball 4. I walk to First Base. Just normal for you in debates, though.

I see Cynical Cat has plucked up the Single Payer side of the debate while I was in recess. I commend him on his concise and excellent debating.

[Cynical Cat]

Wow. Nitram and I being nice to each other. Time to check which direction the sun will rise tomorrow morning. :D

[SirNitram]

Wow. Nitram and I being nice to each other. Time to check which direction the sun will rise tomorrow morning. :D

Remind me again who you are so I can see if I should be shocked we agree? :)

[Cynical Cat]

Imperial Overlord. It isn't that we disagree very often (most of of the time I thing you're right), it's when we disagree we aren't very nice to each other.

[SirNitram]

Imperial Overlord. It isn't that we disagree very often (most of of the time I thing you're right), it's when we disagree we aren't very nice to each other.

This is easily explained by the fact I am evil incarnate. 8-)

[Comrade Tortoise]

Therefore your earlier statement the Government doesn't have the power was wrong. Concession accepted, dirtbag.

It doesnt have the power to control guns (if the constitution is obeyed) until the constitution is amended, dipshit.

Whast part of amend, do you not understand?

While a citizen was allowed and encouraged to own a rifle, you'll not find any discussion amongst the Founding Father's about the rights of a citizen to own a 12 pounder cannon(Analogous to a Russian Tank or M240G in our context), or his right to tote his rifle into crowded forums, loaded and ready(Analogous to your desire to carry loaded and ready firearms onto airplanes in our context.

Didnt restrict it either. Keep and bear arms back then was taken literally, and it was just a monetary concern. Seeing as Jefferson said that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants... that generally means that he, and the other founders, inene that the people be able to rise up against the government in time of tyranny. Generally that means being able to own, in that time, cannons, or in our time, tanks.

By this argument, there is therefore less reason now for people to own guns.

Save that, it technically is not. Seeing as you are eqaually dead, regardless of the governments ability to catch and punish or murderer.

And you have quite the standard of evidence to meet to show it's been broken, kiddo.

Well they are in breach most assuredly with their userpations of our religious liberty, which you already acknowledge. Theyhave not amended the constitution to fit the idea that they can infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

You have not proven this. As I stated, there was no mention of the 'right to bear arms' extending into endangering others or owning artillery.

Again, look at the wording of the constitution, it is unambigious. Unless you want to argue the meaning of the words "shall not" or" infringe".

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Samuel Adams (1722-1803),

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
– PREAMBLE –

Preamble to the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America

Conventions of a number of States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added:

Now, this means that the government is restricted by this bill of rights. it has no right to violate it in any way shape or form

Also

The ninth amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tis means that even if they never debated the right to have a cannon, people still have that right, if they claim it. Especially becaue it is an application of the 2nd amendment.

And here are some nice founding father/early president quotes, that are relevant.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
Thomas Jefferson, 1791

"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson June 12, 1823

Hmm... could that be exactly what the letters mean in plain english? Oh, wait

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Samuel Adams (1722-1803),

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

Wow, Jefferson agrees with me

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

Looks like we shold be able to have cannons so that we can rise up against the government...

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
Samuel Adams

Best, at the time... Cannons. ;)

"Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands"
James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
John Adams

Oh, I love these people so much... and to think my best friend is related to two of them

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."
Alexander Hamilton Federalist 29

Or in other words, the army can never excee the ability of the people to defen ther rights. meaning that the people should be able to use artillery in their defense.

"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)

By enying a person at any point the means of self defense, we remove their right of self defense. Stew in that for a while

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington

George Washington just kicked your ass.



"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."
Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops..."
Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia 1787

Now, doesnt being superior to a saning arm an its fortifications require artillery>

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Joseph Story, United States Supreme Court Justice, 1833

So much for the idea that no supreme court justice has ever agreed with me

"The constitution ought to secure a genuine militia and guard against a select militia. ....all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community ought to be avoided."
Richard Henry Lee

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if so dear to the enlightened legislator Ââ€â€

[Cynical Cat]

Let's see, lost of words saying the people have the right to bear arms and form well regulated, well stocked militias.

The right of said militia to possess unlimited arnaments: elucidated no where.

The ninth amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tis means that even if they never debated the right to have a cannon, people still have that right, if they claim it. Especially becaue it is an application of the 2nd amendment.

It says no such thing. It says that just because it isn't in the Constitution that doesn't mean it is a right. This clause is entirely neutral and doesn't address the issue. Now if you can find some affirmitive statements about the right to own artillery, then you are in business.

You produce a bunch of quotes on the right of the people to form militias. Fine. None of those address heavy artillery. So, no support.


Then we get to assinine statements about airplanes. The highjackers used box cutters because they could get them on board. If they could have carried guns, they would have. Rights are not absolute. Your right to free speech doesn't mean you can yell fire in a crowded theatre and your right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can carry them in every single place in the country. You can't pack in a courthouse, you can't pack on a plane, you can't carry into a prison, and you can't pack in a lot of bars. There are good reasons for all the above.

[Comrade Tortoise]

You produce a bunch of quotes on the right of the people to form militias. Fine. None of those address heavy artillery. So, no support.

In order to rise up against a standing army, it follows that they would require heavy artillery

Then we get to assinine statements about airplanes. The highjackers used box cutters because they could get them on board. If they could have carried guns, they would have.

I was using box cutters as an example. If they could get a gun on board, that is all the more reason for a private citizen to cary a gun.

you can't carry into a prison,

Criminals relinquish their rights, so that makes sense

You can't pack in a courthouse

Why not? A law abiding citizen is not going to use it in any capacity but self defense. So what is the danger? If a criminal wants to get a gun in, they will find a way regardless of the law. Though I suppose a compromize on that and possibly the plane issue, would be prudent. Allow those with concealed carry permits to show their permit and with that done, open carry it in such places.

Though I say again, it is simply not in the government's power, accoring to the very framers of that amendment, to regulate such things. Even if I did agree that such controls had merit, unless they amend the constitution, if we actually follow the constitution, the government does not have that ability.

[SirNitram]

Ben, I asked for you to post proof of your no-limits fallacies. What you posted was 'Well, militias are a good thing and ensure the government will not become abusive' and words to that effect. You have utterly failed to produce a logical argument for no-limits on 'right to bear arms'. You haven't even produced an illogical argument, you just declare it so and think this holds any ground. Your debating in this is frankly offensive. You have been dragged over coals on this before, your arguments destroyed, but you just pop up with them again because you think no one remembers.

Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

[SirNitram]

Why not? A law abiding citizen is not going to use it in any capacity but self defense. So what is the danger? If a criminal wants to get a gun in, they will find a way regardless of the law.

Fucking disgusting! You beleive that because nothing is 100% foolproof, there should be no safeguards?! No-Limits fallacy, thy very definition is here!

Ben, you've ceased any pretense of logical debate with that one line.

[Comrade Tortoise]

No... I am posting what the founding fathers thought on the issue. When arguing the constitution Martin, it is not fallicious to do so. Because they wrote it, and they susbscribed to this so called "lack of a limit" They intende for people to rise up and destroy the government if it became tyrannical. This requires an unlimited right of the people to arm themelves with whatever sort of weapon they choose. Up to and including heavy artillery.

[SirNitram]

No... I am posting what the founding fathers thought on the issue. When arguing the constitution Martin, it is not fallicious to do so. Because they wrote it, and they susbscribed to this so called "lack of a limit" They intende for people to rise up and destroy the government if it became tyrannical. This requires an unlimited right of the people to arm themelves with whatever sort of weapon they choose. Up to and including heavy artillery.

Outright lie with no-limits fallacies strewn in it. None of the quotes supports this, only supports the formation of militias.

Shit, you're simply insane if you think you need heavy artillery to fight an army. Have you looked at Iraq lately?

[Cynical Cat]

I'm going to assume that the prison issue was a simple misunderstanding. A law abiding person can't pack a piece when he or she is inside the prison visiting an imprisoned friend or relative.

[Comrade Tortoise]

Why not? A law abiding citizen is not going to use it in any capacity but self defense. So what is the danger? If a criminal wants to get a gun in, they will find a way regardless of the law.

Fucking disgusting! You beleive that because nothing is 100% foolproof, there should be no safeguards?! No-Limits fallacy, thy very definition is here!

Ben, you've ceased any pretense of logical debate with that one line.

You sir, are an idiot to believe that an innocent person should be placed in danger because they were unable to arm themselves in a location. What o laws that prevent gun use do? They prevent those who follow the law from using them. Now, given the forgone conclusion that someone who wants to get a gun into a courthouse will do so, breaking the law... what is the point of restricting good people? SHould a law abiding citien be restricted needlessly? What objective will that accomplish? None.

Hence the idea of allowing those with legal permits to carry weapons into said courthouses as state above. What is the danger in that?

[Comrade Tortoise]

I'm going to assume that the prison issue was a simple misunderstanding. A law abiding person can't pack a piece when he or she is inside the prison visiting an imprisoned friend or relative.

Hmm... that, I would say, is a bit of a grey area. The danger of an inmate getting a gun is very real...

[Cynical Cat]

In any case, he use of a small pistol against someone arm with box cutters minimizes danger to the plane, while still protecting the lives of the people therein. Besides... what chance would you rather take? The chance that a gun will puncture a plane reducing cabin pressure and require that they make an emergency landing and use those silly O2 masks... or that hijackers will ram the plane into a skyscrapper or national monument... WOuld that flight that crashed in Penn. landed safely had one of the passengers been armed with a .22 pistol? Probably. Even with a couple punctures to the fusilage and wounded passenger, it would be preferable to what happened, now wouldnt it?

Your hijack example where you specifically pit someone with a pistol against terrorists with box cutters. You response to my critique was:

I was using box cutters as an example. If they could get a gun on board, that is all the more reason for a private citizen to cary a gun.

You don't address my critique. You go from your fantasy of blowing away lightly armed terrorist, which I was attacking, to one of having a gunfight with heavily armed terrorists on an airplane in flight is a reason to allow guns on an airplane.

[Comrade Tortoise]

No... I am posting what the founding fathers thought on the issue. When arguing the constitution Martin, it is not fallicious to do so. Because they wrote it, and they susbscribed to this so called "lack of a limit" They intende for people to rise up and destroy the government if it became tyrannical. This requires an unlimited right of the people to arm themelves with whatever sort of weapon they choose. Up to and including heavy artillery.

Outright lie with no-limits fallacies strewn in it. None of the quotes supports this, only supports the formation of militias.

Shit, you're simply insane if you think you need heavy artillery to fight an army. Have you looked at Iraq lately?

I doubt you have read them all. I order to be sucessful in taking out a military, one nees to match it in terms of arms and discipline. The whole point of forming a militia against the government is to defeat it if it is needed.

Iraq is not a shining success story for any sort of militia. They ae efeated, they ahve no chance of winning. I doubt being defeated as a matter of course is what the founding fathers had in mind when they said to rise up against tyranny.