The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA [Archive]

PowerWizard

05-29-2009, 09:16

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

An armed populace is the ultimate sanction against government that has overstepped its authority and turned towards tyranny.

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Beskar

05-29-2009, 11:08

Not my full personal opinions, but short answers to why/etc which it could be argued.

what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States

Pretty high, look at all the anti-terror legalisation you guys have, including secretly moving citizens to places lime Guantamo Bay to avoid a fair trial.

what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Also, with this, you don't have to spend so much on funding an army as they come already equipped, or if the Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

The population outnumber the marines. Also the fact, Marines will join the population. If America was going to do it, they would use a foreign armed force, which wouldn't be persuaded to join the opposition.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument? They won't be able to because they will never gain enough support.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.

HoreTore

05-29-2009, 11:50

Rhyfelwyr

05-29-2009, 12:08

King Henry V

05-29-2009, 13:07

Bah. Any would-be dictatorship in America worth it's salt wouldn't suddenly declare in from one day to the next the suspension of all democratic rights and liberties. They'd use the goold old salami tactics, slicing away those rights bit by bit. When would you, and by you I mean the average American citizen and not some paranoid extremist who crises "Tyranny!" every time they're stopped by the police, resort to something so drastic as armed rebellion? When a 9 pm curfew is established? When the press becomes censored? When voting rights are slowly shaved away? After all, this could only happen in a time of grave crisis, when there is some tangible threat to the very existence of the United States. Many people would believe these measures to be for the public good and would not have much sympathy for people who declared an armed rebellion from the word go.

This is the twenty-first century. Like it or not, the state has much more power than it did two hundred years ago, and very little, least of all sporadic armed resistance.

PowerWizard

05-29-2009, 14:03

You contradict yourself a bit where you argue that gun-ownership allows extremists to form paramilitary groups to overthrow the government, and then on the other hand you argue guns are uselses to civilians since they could never defeat their government in a fight should it become tyrannical.

Extremists and normal civilians are two different kinds of groups, I hope we agree. These are two separate issues, there's no contradiction.

Also the fact, Marines will join the population.

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.

Presuming the state is intentionally acting against the interests of the people, moreover wants to oppress them. Why would you presume that?

Beskar

05-29-2009, 14:43

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

They will obvious shoot their own families for the state. If the government is that unpopular, it would have breached all aspects including the army. People would desert the army and take up arms along side their friends and families.

People in the army aren't idiots. They might be conditioned for obedience but that only goes so far.

Presuming the state is intentionally acting against the interests of the people, moreover wants to oppress them. Why would you presume that?

Power corrupts. I think politics today shows you how corrupt politicians are, look at examples such as the MP expenses scandal. Do you think the state doesn't oppress people and trample on our civil liberties? The "anti-terrorist" laws, which all they do is strip away our rights in the guise of protection, how a earlier post highlighted. US government is far from the shining beacon of democracy as it claims to be, how it ties up its own citizens and takes them to Guantamo Bay where they are tortured without rights or a fair trial, or even any trial at all.

Ser Clegane

05-29-2009, 14:47

PowerWizard

05-29-2009, 14:50

They will obvious shoot their own families for the state.

Meh, strawman. They will obviously NOT be assigned to posts where they have the chance to shoot their own families. And families could join their side too.

Power corrupts.

Nice thought-terminating cliché.

It is interesting that you would criticize somebody for presenting his opinion as a "fact" only to do the very same thing with your opposite opinion (at least I do not see any kind of "proof" in your argument).

As I am not aware of any case where the willingness of marines to shoot their own people (on a broader scale) has been really but to the test, the two opposing viewa are obviously based on conjecture.

Please address my original questions, then get in the nitty-gritty of the debate.

Beskar

05-29-2009, 14:54

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

Ser Clegane

05-29-2009, 14:59

Please address my original questions, then get in the nitty-gritty of the debate.

As a "moderator" I got into this nitty-gritty detail as the discussion style took a not so constructive direction, i.e. chastising somebody who responded to your thread for labeling his opinion as a fact while doing the very same thing.

I think overall your discussions would benefit from applying a less hostile tone

Thanks you

:bow:

Sasaki Kojiro

05-29-2009, 15:14

It's a fact that 9 million lives have been saved by the 2nd amendment. Maybe you should have read up on that.

Fiddling_nero

05-29-2009, 15:25

One of the very few things in this modern age that would cause a full scale revolt/revolution would be if the Second Amendment were repealed.

If this Right isn't safe from being repealed, then what Right is safe?

The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained.

There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

Also remember that Marines and other service members are people, not automatons, with other influences on their lives other than their training.

It is implied that the current makeup of the military, being an all volunteer force, would have some patriots in it.

And most patriots would tell the State to go fornicate itself if there is a conflict between the orders of the State and the Constitution, because the Constitution is the source of the structure and legitimacy of the State.
If the State is issuing orders that conflict with the Constitution, then the State is no longer legitimate. (that is also a part of their training)

____

The Second Amendment is there for many reasons.

The most important is that it is the American Litmus Test for Tyrants TM.
Most who would try to touch it have ambitions beyond traditional American political custom.

HoreTore

05-29-2009, 15:38

It is implied that the current makeup of the military, being an all volunteer force, would have some patriots in it.

It is implied that any wannabe despot would redefine the meaning of "patriotism" to mean supporting the dictator. Anyone who doesn't support said despot would be labeled traitors, and would be fair game for every "patriot".

It's a fact that 9 million lives have been saved by the 2nd amendment. Maybe you should have read up on that.

How 'bout giving some sources on that? Please note; only studies performed by non-partisan organizations will be accepted...

King Henry V

05-29-2009, 16:07

One of the very few things in this modern age that would cause a full scale revolt/revolution would be if the Second Amendment were repealed.

If this Right isn't safe from being repealed, then what Right is safe?

There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

Sure, but what happens if in 50, 100 or 200 years time America is threatened by the Enemy Within who seek to destroy all that America stands for? If the loons in the Pentagon advocating nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War are anything to go by, I doubt you woud lack people in the military who believe that like in Ancient Rome, in times of crisis one must suspend certain liberties in order to destroy this enemy and anyone who sympathises with them.

Besides, say a potential megalomaniac hell-bent on becoming Emperor of America is elected President, and manages to amend the constitution through Congress. All privately-owned guns are banned, citing the reasonable grounds of crime-prevention. What are you going to do when asked to hand in your gun? Shout "You'll never take me alive!" before barricading yourself in your house staging your one-man rebellion?

PowerWizard

05-29-2009, 16:37

As a "moderator" I got into this nitty-gritty detail as the discussion style took a not so constructive direction, i.e. chastising somebody who responded to your thread for labeling his opinion as a fact while doing the very same thing.

I think overall your discussions would benefit from applying a less hostile tone

Thanks you

:bow:

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

And I'd just like to hear your opinion, good Sir.

:bow:

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

Don't civil wars happen in the first place, because of the abundance of weapons? I wonder how can you fight a civil war without guns.

There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

Obviously the first value: loyalty to the state. That assures my point of view.

Also remember that Marines and other service members are people, not automatons, with other influences on their lives other than their training.

Aha, okay. Just a few points to add to that statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gale

Also, check out these: U.S. Marine Corps - Making a Marine part 1, 2 and 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYRccSZgXV4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPgkACv7grk&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPRzONdtgN0&feature=related

Lemur

05-29-2009, 16:49

How 'bout giving some sources on that? Please note; only studies performed by non-partisan organizations will be accepted...
Don't bother asking; Sasaki is not actually participating in a thread when he does his "9 million" thing; it's his personal, private joke.

To those who say an armed populace does not deter a modern military, take a look at how much trouble we had with people armed with AKs and explosives in Iraq. Although given that example, to deter tyranny we need fewer hunting rifles and more plastique.

Besides which, the gun control debate is kind of silly. There are millions (9 million?) firearms in the U.S.A., and they don't expire like milk. Our population is armed, and any talk of disarming them is fantasy-land wishful thinking. Better to talk about how to enforce existing laws and have as few firearms as possible land in the hands of the criminal and the insane.

The Repubs don't back gun control, and these days it looks as though the Dems don't either. Dead issue.

Marshal Murat

05-29-2009, 16:56

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

The invasion of a foreign power into the United States need not simply be a total invasion of all areas of the United States. Were Cuba to invade South Florida, that would be a "foreign power invading the United States" and could conceivably be either harassed or countered by a combination of partisan gun-owners, detached armed forces, and police forces until National Guard and Army troops could throw the Cubans back into the sea.

An armed population will have zero chance against a foreign military invasion, see Iraq/Afghanistan. Their only chance is, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, to win a war of attrition.
So an armed population can win against a foreign invasion. The statement is entirely predicated on the assumption that our foes share the same moral standards we do. If they have censored news and no problem killing Americans, then we have a serious problem that will result in the total defeat of America no matter what we have.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.
If an "armed militia" consists of a couple disaffected homeowners who own hunting rifles, then I would bet on the Marines, Police, and SWAT. Were it a tyrannical government which is generally unpopular then the "homeowners" might eventually gain support to overthrow the government. Especially if we were to enlist the aid of countries who don't like the "current tyrannical government".

Meh, strawman. They will obviously NOT be assigned to posts where they have the chance to shoot their own families. And families could join their side too.
Impossible. You are seriously suggesting that the Marine Corp is going to go through it's lists, and then move troops around so much to prevent Marine units from being posted in "home-areas" is not only highly impractical but it would also ruin unit cohesion and prevent the Marines from operating effectively in a counter-insurgency. While Marines are some of the best soldiers in the United States, we aren't talking about heroes. If that was the case, we wouldn't have friend-on-friend or civilian casualties would we?

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.
Agreed.

Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?
Greatest support for gun-rights.

rory_20_uk

05-29-2009, 17:03

The invasion of a foreign power into the United States need not simply be a total invasion of all areas of the United States. Were Cuba to invade South Florida, that would be a "foreign power invading the United States" and could conceivably be either harassed or countered by a combination of partisan gun-owners, detached armed forces, and police forces until National Guard and Army troops could throw the Cubans back into the sea.

Ok...

Radar
A fleet
An airforce
An army...

Here's the timeline:

Cuba sets off in a combination of rafts, rusting ex-soviet ships and cargo containers. They are detected before leaving port.
The ones that don't sink slowly make their way towards Florida; the covering aeroplanes run out of fuel and have to turn back as ethanol has a shorter range.
When the coastguard have stopped gut laughing they inform the Navy and set off to rescue those drowning due to the capsizing of most of the rafts and ships.
The minute anything sets foot in USA waters there are already ships en-route. The Navy and coastguard, who both have more sophisticated ships and weaponry argue whether this is an invasion or whether they've just got lost and who has juristiction.
Contact is finally made - the difficulties being the lack of working radios on the Cuban ships.
Those that decide to try small arms verses the USA ships get sunk within seconds. The rest declare asylum.

The point being - they'll NEVER reach land in an organised way :wall:

What's next? Mexicans invading? The Russians finding the remains of the Pacific fleet and invading? The Chinese sneakily building a blue-water fleet, making it accross the whole pacific without detection and storming the beaches?

When you're a weak power with powerful Imperial neighbours with a vast, hostile hinterland this argument is valid. But as the world's largest power? Please...

~:smoking:

Yoyoma1910

05-29-2009, 17:35

Marshal Murat

05-29-2009, 17:44

Don't worry rory, Harold Coyle has you covered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Conflict)

HoreTore

05-29-2009, 18:35

Well, what if your city falls into anarchy, the state fails to respond properly, and you have to protect yourself, your family, your property and your neighbors and their property from roving bands of armed and violent criminals?

And don't tell me for one moment that does not, and would not happen in the U.S.

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely? :idea2:

HoreTore

05-29-2009, 18:41

To those who say an armed populace does not deter a modern military, take a look at how much trouble we had with people armed with AKs and explosives in Iraq. Although given that example, to deter tyranny we need fewer hunting rifles and more plastique.

Two things:

- As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.
- Secondly, you think Joe Iraqi had his house stuffed with c-4, RPG's and so on before the invasion? He didn't, nor did he need to, since an invasion creates a power vacuum for looting, as well as allies(Iran, Syria, etc etc) willing to give you a bunch of stuff for free. Also, there seems to be an unending supply of black market ex-soviet weapons...

Crazed Rabbit

05-29-2009, 18:41

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

It's a low chance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare or even think about it.
Also, you cannot buy an AK-47 unless you have tens of thousands of dollars and the time to fill out a lot of paperwork.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Armed citizenry resisting was the case a couple times in the 1800s. Right now it is unlikely. Times will change however, and the future may be different.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Police or SWAT? Sure - they can be resisted easily. SWAT teams rely on surprise, they're not soldiers. As for Marines, perhaps you ought to take a look at how many there are (not that many) and how big the US is (huge) and how many people there are (a great deal). Marines can't be everywhere. Look at the trouble they had in Iraq, a country of far fewer people. The military cannot control the population of the US if even a fraction rebels.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Because I want somebody to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Why should I care what they're doing so long as they don't actually attack someone?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

It is read in that context- where every male was a member of the militia and well regulated meant well organized and armed. And no, laws do not change over time. They mean the same thing until they are rewritten or repealed.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Anti-gun folk always say they have the 'common sense' position because they don't really have any facts. If this country rebels, people aren't going to march out and find Marines to fight toe-to-toe with. Maybe you ought to stop thinking about how an idiot would stupidly fight.

The Repubs don't back gun control, and these days it looks as though the Dems don't either. Dead issue.

I'm afraid it's not. There's some dems and liberals for whom it is the main issue. They aren't getting anywhere right now, but that doesn't mean they won't try again. They must be kept under close watch, and the struggle for gun rights must continue.

CR

Strike For The South

05-29-2009, 18:46

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

Main Entry: ig·no·rance http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?ignora04.wav=ignorance') Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant) : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

drone

05-29-2009, 18:59

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely? :idea2:

You have no idea what he is referring to here, do you? :inquisitive:

Yoyoma1910

05-29-2009, 19:12

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely? :idea2:

Oh, and what if the Federal government takes the majority of your state military and their infrastructure, which normally deals with such a situation, and plants them in a place like, I don't know, Iraq, where they wouldn't be able to respond to such a situation.

Crazed Rabbit

05-29-2009, 19:19

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely? :idea2:

In the Rodney King riots in the early 1990s, the LAPD pulled their officers off the streets for the officer's safety. Guns let business owners defend themselves and their stores.

As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.
Gee, you mean the spots where we were going to be welcomed as liberators? The US wasn't deterred because the government didn't even think about that.

CR

PowerWizard

05-29-2009, 19:37

It's a low chance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare or even think about it.

The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be changed, but not due to the "well-armed militia" argument. Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

And it isn't a valid argument too, that once it was useful, so let's keep this law. For instance, it is illegal in Tennessee to catch a fish with a lasso. Why? Some day, back in 18.. a weirdo decided to hunt fish with a lasso and incidentally hurt his fishing buddy, who died of a heart stroke. So the good state of Tennessee made a law to ban fishing with a lasso to prevent similar unlucky accidents. How smart. And centuries later, they forgot to abolish this law.

Main Entry: ig·no·rance http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?ignora04.wav=ignorance') Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant) : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

Sorry, but...

Beskar

05-29-2009, 19:41

[QUOTE=PowerWizard;2249752]Sorry, but...

Broken image link?

Marshal Murat

05-29-2009, 19:48

Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

False analogy.

drone

05-29-2009, 19:51

What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too.

Actually, the chance is exactly zero. US citizens cannot buy machine guns from their local gun shop.

Your facepalm image is hotlinked, host it yourself. ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

05-29-2009, 19:52

The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be changed, but not due to the "well-armed militia" argument. Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

Pink elephants don't exist. Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

And it isn't a valid argument too, that once it was useful, so let's keep this law. For instance, it is illegal in Tennessee to catch a fish with a lasso. Why? Some day, back in 18.. a weirdo decided to hunt fish with a lasso and incidentally hurt his fishing buddy, who died of a heart stroke. So the good state of Tennessee made a law to ban fishing with a lasso to prevent similar unlucky accidents. How smart. And centuries later, they forgot to abolish this law.

Another bad example. People could still be hurt by lasso-fishing, if that's why the law was written. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make it less dangerous.

See- this is why antis refer to the "common sense" argument - they don't have any others.

CR

Strike For The South

05-29-2009, 20:14

Ah the Red X. A truly powerful image.

I at least hope you're serious. Becuase if this is a troll then you have way to much times on your hands.

Kralizec

05-29-2009, 20:59

What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

The chance of a militia in say, Ohio, capturing Washington DC and thus overthrowing the government there would be slim at best.

The chance of a seceding state protecting its autonomy is much greater, especially if other states would follow its example.
I know you're thinking about the Confederacy now, but you have to realize that it comprised less than a third of the total population and the Union's success depended on the willingness of the population to fight a rebellion they viewed as illegitimate. If the US government were to become truly tyrannical it's questionable wether people would agree to be drafted to supress rebels.

Hosakawa Tito

05-29-2009, 21:10

Main Entry: ig·no·rance http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?ignora04.wav=ignorance') Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignorant) : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

It appears "common sense" is really an oxymoron in this thread, doesn't look to be that ...common. Some of the statements eschewed as "facts" simply leave me speechless. Now pardon me, but I'm late for the machine gun store. Musn't forget the grenades for our pink elephant hunt this weekend... ~:wacko:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: omg, unfrickin' believable

HoreTore

05-29-2009, 21:20

Pink elephants don't exist. Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

Oh come on. Comparing that situation to the current world has so many glaring errors it's getting ridiculous.

In the Rodney King riots in the early 1990s, the LAPD pulled their officers off the streets for the officer's safety. Guns let business owners defend themselves and their stores.

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

Be a patriot, double your taxes :smash:

drone

05-29-2009, 21:35

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

Be a patriot, double your taxes :smash:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Prevent it? You are aware that the LAPD caused the Rodney King riots, right? Strike 2!

PowerWizard

05-29-2009, 21:46

Ah the Red X. A truly powerful image.

I at least hope you're serious. Becuase if this is a troll then you have way to much times on your hands.

Some people get so sensitive by a single picture. :D

People could still be hurt by lasso-fishing, if that's why the law was written. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make it less dangerous.

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

See- this is why antis refer to the "common sense" argument - they don't have any others.CR

You're right, why do you, Americans need common sense, when you have laws (http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/laws01.htm)?

AussieGiant

05-29-2009, 21:54

The budget for the DOD is about 600 billion dollars in 2010. Up around 4%.

The US military battle of order represent the single most devastating military force available on the planet by a factor of same considerable margin.

Owning a gun, to prevent a tyrannical government and its action against the populace, is entirely and utterly a distant second on the "To Do List" when it comes down to the bottom line.

The number one issue is....who is in command and control of the US military? If anyone thinks otherwise then they are on some serious drugs.

Not only does the US military have better guns, they have more, and they have far superior training.

Don't let insurgent success in Iraq and Afghanistan delude you. The reason they have success is because of the extremely restrictive rules of engagement placed on them by civilian governments.

If it was in fact left up to the military to simply achieve objectives, with far less regard for a number of "engagement rule" issues, like civilian casualties, weapon types available etc etc, I'd say the result would be far, far different. The consequence of course would be that no one would be able to sleep at night due to the horrors committed. However make no mistake, there would not be much of an insurgent force left in reality.

In the context of a tyrannical government and what that entails by definition, well then I'll leave it up to your collective imaginations as to what the military could be ordered to do.

It certainly is becoming ironic that the 2nd amendment, written in a vastly different time, in vastly different circumstances, is being upheld for those vastly out of date reasons. In contrast, the US government is currently in control of a military force that makes the civilian ownership of any type of weapons completely redundant.

Keep in mind that the personal weapon used at the time of the writing of the constitution was entirely similar to that of the military. A smooth bore musket. While the military at the time had the use of cannon that was the only real technological difference.

If we could time warp Lincoln to 2009, I'm sure the gentlemen would look at the USS Enterprise and then at the smooth bore musket and realise something was vastly out of date...that being the words written on the paper he signed.

HoreTore

05-29-2009, 21:55

Prevent it? You are aware that the LAPD caused the Rodney King riots, right? Strike 2!

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot ~:)

Or it might've helped to use some money to get an actually functioning judiciary system. Or trying to be less racist. Or even have police officers who don't get a woody from beating up citizens.... The thing is; every such incident has a cause. And every such cause can be neutralized. Hiring your own army of mercs will lessen the effect, but it won't address the cause. However, if you address the cause, you can hop around naked preaching peace and love, hippie-style :yes:

Strike For The South

05-29-2009, 21:58

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot ~:)

Epic US history failure.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-29-2009, 22:02

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

In spoilers for language:

Enjoy. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM)

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

You really should read the last gun control debate thread, which answers your questions.

PowerWizard

05-29-2009, 22:11

You really should read the last gun control debate thread, which answers your questions.

I did, and believe it or not, I made me think about some of my views. It didn't change my mind though about the "well-regulated militia" argument.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-29-2009, 22:12

I did, and believe it or not, I made me think about some of my views. It didn't change my mind though about the "well-regulated militia" argument.

Hence the link I provided.

drone

05-29-2009, 22:18

...
Utter destruction of a rebellion by US military forces
...

A citizens' revolt could be easily crushed by the US military, and the tyrannical government would cease to exist due to the economical cost of the aftermath. Who would pay to build it back up again? China isn't going to fund that bill. Smoking rubble and an oppressed citizenry make for a horrible economy.

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot
Strike 3! The upper income tax bracket in the 60s was 70%+. Income taxes across the board were much higher than today. It wasn't until Reagan when the tax rates were significantly reduced.

PowerWizard

05-29-2009, 22:27

Hence the link I provided.

The link you provided is funny, but it doesn't counter my points. It says:

"Why the word people? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for 2 years against a tyrannical state. They knew the time would come, when they have to that again."

Which leads us back to the first post.

AussieGiant

05-29-2009, 22:31

drone

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me so directly. :inquisitive:

A Terribly Harmful Name

05-29-2009, 22:32

Insurgence is quite fine in the US: vast expenses filled with the most diverse guerrila friendly terrain, from marshlands to rocky and hilly ground. The US military, as intimidating as it might have seemed, was unable to fully fight the power of the VC back in 'nam near their own nose. Now to guard the whole country against insurgents would be beyond their capabilities, and eventually their strained operational capabilities would be slowly grinded in a low intensity guerrila movement.

drone

05-29-2009, 22:45

drone

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me so directly. :inquisitive:

I didn't want to repeat 40 lines of text into the discussion, so I summed it up. :bow:
You are correct, if the US military removed the restrictions meant to prevent civilian casualties and used it's full force to suppress a rebellion, they could do it quite easily. And the US Treasury would never recover. A secondary goal in Iraq is to leave a functioning state behind, the methods you describe would make this goal impossible. Total war doesn't work when you are at war with yourself.

AussieGiant

05-29-2009, 22:52

I didn't want to repeat 40 lines of text into the discussion, so I summed it up. :bow:
You are correct, if the US military removed the restrictions meant to prevent civilian casualties and used it's full force to suppress a rebellion, they could do it quite easily. And the US Treasury would never recover. A secondary goal in Iraq is to leave a functioning state behind, the methods you describe would make this goal impossible. Total war doesn't work when you are at war with yourself.

Ah, ok now I understand. No problem then. :2thumbsup:

And yes I agree with your context. However limited levels of severe destruction by the US military controlled by the government would do the trick nicely.

In the end as I mentioned, back when the document was written, parity of weapons between the people and the militia was very real.

Now it's beyond comprehension and something those learned gentlemen back then could never have even contemplated. I just don't get it.

But as long as no American complains about the consequences then I guess it's fine.

Crazed Rabbit

05-29-2009, 22:56

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

I thought your point with the Tennessee law against lassoing fish was to say it was now a stupid law that had passed its usefulness. I was pointing out that circumstances that made lasso-fishing dangerous haven't changed. So another bad argument on your part.

You're right, why do you, Americans need common sense, when you have laws (http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/laws01.htm)?

What's the point?

What's really funny about this thread is the huge amount of ignorance of US history and law being put on display here:

Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?
:inquisitive:

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

Two things:

- As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.

Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot

If we could time warp Lincoln to 2009, I'm sure the gentlemen would look at the USS Enterprise and then at the smooth bore musket and realise something was vastly out of date...that being the words written on the paper he signed.

As for gun-owning citizenry being of no danger to an established government - well, it makes me wonder why so many authoritarian states banned their subjects from having guns.

CR

AussieGiant

05-29-2009, 23:07

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-29-2009, 23:19

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?
We can't "buy an AK-47 on every corner". Nice strawman though.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.
I don't think it's likely. But I don't think that's the purpose of the 2A.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.
If a third of the US supported the revolution, it would be hopeless for the Marines and the entire armed forces to put down such a movement, except perhaps locally. It wouldn't be fought conventionally, civilian rifles against tanks. It would be fought as a guerrilla war, hitting military targets where they are weakest (behind the lines, supply depots, that sort of thing). Not to mention that parts of the military are likely to join any popular revolution.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?
Groups that openly advocate such as usually dealt with. If it is done in secret, how will disarming the population change things?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.
The "historical context" argument supports gun rights.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.
Well that's nice. You can say "you're argument is stupid" and it just goes away?

Reverend Joe

05-29-2009, 23:29

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?
Fairly good, considering that both parties have not only totally consolidated power in the election system (thus effectively eliminating choice) and that both parties are slowly growing more totalitarian in nature. I personally see no difference in the overall goal of both parties, aside form the fact that the Democrats want a Communist state, and the Republicans want a Fascist state run by their bigtime corporate buddies. Basically, it adds up to the same thing: no free market or state, or choice.

Color me paranoid.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.
An invasion is very unlikely given the current circumstances. However, if the populace were forced to break their "contract" with the Government, it would not only necessitate the use of powerful weaponry, but it would also greatly increase the likelihood of foreign intervention. In such a case, I will admit that those who would style themselves to be prepared to resist the crazy train would need actual training in partisan warfare if they want to have a chance.[/quote]

Maybe they should learn a little from the Iraqi Parisans. :clown:

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.
Very bad, if they don't know what they are doing. If they do, well, it's a known fact that a populace which does not wish to be conquered, will never be conquered.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?
It may arm psychopaths, but it also allows regular citzens to defend their homes (and I do mean their HOMES -- I absolutely disagree with any firearm-related action extending beyond your property grounds, as it gets far too iffy in legal and realistic terms.) It also gives the rest of us a chance just in case. And yeah, you can bitch and whine about "realistic," but if you don't ever have a plan B, you will be screwed when the time comes, no matter how low the chances.

Hell, there's a latent fear that honey-bees are dying off. That's a big problem; all major crops depend upon bees for productivity. Do we have a plan B? No, until just recently, when people started looking at Carpenter bees and other types of bees. Seems crazy, but the collapse of a small part of our system can lead to disastrous consequences.

Point is, you best have a plan B.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.
A "well-regulated milita" means an armed populace by its original definition, and I find it to be equally applicable now as ever. And don't insult our intelligence, please. It's rude.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Anyhow, sorry for reading ZERO of this thread, but I felt like dropping my own arguments at random. Let's see how it works, eh?

Marshal Murat

05-29-2009, 23:34

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

Reverend Joe

05-29-2009, 23:43

Sure, but what happens if in 50, 100 or 200 years time America is threatened by the Enemy Within who seek to destroy all that America stands for? If the loons in the Pentagon advocating nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War are anything to go by, I doubt you woud lack people in the military who believe that like in Ancient Rome, in times of crisis one must suspend certain liberties in order to destroy this enemy and anyone who sympathises with them.

Besides, say a potential megalomaniac hell-bent on becoming Emperor of America is elected President, and manages to amend the constitution through Congress. All privately-owned guns are banned, citing the reasonable grounds of crime-prevention. What are you going to do when asked to hand in your gun? Shout "You'll never take me alive!" before barricading yourself in your house staging your one-man rebellion?

Henry, I find your arguments interesting, but does it not occur to you that the same slippery-slope situation is occurring among the American populace? Because it is; there's far more paranoid anti-government people in the US than there were 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Anyhow, I would advise you to examine how your local Catholics handled the situation, because it's remarkably similar to how the drug users in the US face the "Drug War": just slip it by. Don't get caught so you can practice your God-given freedoms out of Big Brother's gaze.

Reverend Joe

05-29-2009, 23:45

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

Well, 1) it's kinda close, from what I hear, and 2) apparently there are more illegal guns there now than there were legal and illegal guns before the ban.

Edit: 20 more posts and I have 4200 posts...

...get it? :jester:

Edit 2: is nobody else reminded of Paranoid? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz3GopphFyM)

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-29-2009, 23:47

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-29-2009, 23:57

The link you provided is funny, but it doesn't counter my points. It says:

It does, if your point is that gun rights should not exist unless there is a "well-regulated militia."

Regardless, the historical context argument does support the right to own firearms, as previously stated. Jefferson.

PowerWizard

05-30-2009, 00:34

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

Good point, alas it will be ignored or handled with something irrelevant like "yeah, but you Brits are compromising your basic freedom".

It does, if your point is that gun rights should not exist unless there is a "well-regulated militia."

Regardless, the historical context argument does support the right to own firearms, as previously stated. Jefferson.

No, that's not my point, have you read my first post? I didn't say gun rights should or should not exist, I said people resisting tyranny is a weak argument for gun ownership.

Crazed Rabbit

05-30-2009, 00:35

I meant George Washington. Sorry CR.

-EDIT-

They were probably nations that didn't govern the worlds most impressive military force at the time. Meaning an armed militia could have been a credible adversary to those authoritarian states. The US military is far different.

No prob about the history - I was just amused. As for states that banned weapons - they included WWII Germany, which as I recall had quite an impressive military, and the Soviet Union. An armed citizenry is a threat to any dictatorship, no matter how large. The American revolutionaries overthrew the most powerful military on earth.

Edit 2: is nobody else reminded of Paranoid?

Or The Clash? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiQoq-wqZxg)

CR

Rhyfelwyr

05-30-2009, 00:39

Well, 1) it's kinda close, from what I hear, and 2) apparently there are more illegal guns there now than there were legal and illegal guns before the ban.

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-30-2009, 00:43

No, that's not my point, have you read my first post? I didn't say gun rights should or should not exist, I said people resisting tyranny is a weak argument for gun ownership.

Then perhaps you could restate it in a different manner? I have reread it and am having trouble deciding where you were going with that point specifically.

PowerWizard

05-30-2009, 02:39

Then perhaps you could restate it in a different manner? I have reread it and am having trouble deciding where you were going with that point specifically.

My point is this. Is it a myth that US citizens would be able to resist a tyrannical/usurper government if they own guns?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-30-2009, 02:40

My point is this. Is it a myth that US citizens would be able to resist a tyrannical/usurper government if they own guns?

Answer: no.

I was asking why, specifically, you brought up the militia aspect.

KukriKhan

05-30-2009, 03:28

A little background on American militias, and their use, as experienced by the writers of the US Constitution. LINK (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy2.html)

Note: this is longish, so skip to the summary if you're pressed for time:

In essence, the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution (seldom looked at in depth), prohibiting the quartering of troops, walks alongside the 2nd Amendment's establishment of the need for a militia. It was envisioned, that when a war (constitutionally declared) was over, via surrender or treaty, that the "standing army" of that war would always be dissolved, or at least reduced in strength to mere cadre level.

Soldiers would return to their fields and farms and shops, until the next emergency, when they, already armed (by the right declared by the 2nd Amendment) would amass again to address the emergency/fight the new war. The "cadre level" would maintain bases, stay up to date on weapons and tactics, and practice managing militia mobilization.

A "large standing army" was and is anathema to American thought; americans prefer a small, crouching army (SCA) instead. This held true until FDR/Truman, armies being deactivated quite routinely between the US's wars.

With the onset of the Cold War, that changed. It being thought of as a war, though undeclared constitutionally, it seemed to justify the funding and support of a large standing army. The immediate events in Korea and, in succession, Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Iraq1, Afghanistan, Iraq2... has gotten 2 generations of americans more accustomed to the idea of a large standing army being "necessary", due to the threats perceived, and the speed with which we think we need to respond to crises/emergencies.

Resulting in a situation in which the LSA (large standing army), its existence and justification, is now a foregone conclusion. To the detriment of the concept of militias.

=============================
In summary: the country wasn't designed to maintain a LSA, just a SCA and a buncha armed volunteers. So, with present reality being athwart that idea, should the 2nd & 3rd Amendments be scrapped? I don't think so. We will eventually return to our senses and abide the Constituion, and its Bill of Rights, and subsequent hard-fought amendments. And we will someday need a means to oppose a tyrannical gov't, short of "off with their heads" revolution. A totally disarmed populace, made so in the name of public safety, removes the final legal means of opposition to oppression.

In my humble opinion. :bow:

Lemur

05-30-2009, 03:35

Note: this is longish, so skip to the summary if you're pressed for time:
Followed the link. When you say longish, you are engaging in that most Anglo-Saxon of pastimes: comic understatement.

Veho Nex

05-30-2009, 04:05

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

You do realize that these activities aren't banned by law because in our present day world, people know the risk involved with doing them. The same thing goes for gun ownership in the US. There are severe flaws in assuming that the 4 original statements are why the 2nd amendment exist. If I suddenly wanted to go hunting, and was in the well regulated season, I am allowed to. The ability to defend my friends and family from, oh lets say, Oakland gangsters trying to expand their turf, who mind you never buys their weapons from a gun store. There is no need to worry about a military force from another country stepping foot in the US because we already have our own "wars" to deal with in the streets.

When "Jack Yo mama dog" is driving down the street with his crew and looking for rival hoods the police aren't going to respond in time to get Jack and his crew after their drive by. While anyone in my family and a well placed round can end Jack's day in a hurry.

So, if you didn't want to read that here's the short hand

Gun ownership is the peoples shield against gangs and other groups (Another nations army being one) of danger.
Gun ownership allows me to feed my family should there be a major disaster with little or no signs of relief in the way of food coming.
Anti-Gun laws won't stop the crypts and the bloods from obtaining their firearms.
There will never be 100% protection from the law.

EDIT: I forgot to add, our military will never fight its own people. They aren't going to mow down their neighbor sally because some crack pot general says so. Even in Iraq and other conflict zones there are reports of men who would hold their fire even though being told to open fire repeated times. That's in a place where you actually have a higher chance of being shot by the guy you choose not to shoot.

Lemur

05-30-2009, 04:11

LittleGrizzly

05-30-2009, 04:17

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

And this is why Manchester is the most free and safe place in the UK ~;)

Veho Nex

05-30-2009, 04:21

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot ~:)

What about the 20's?

Sasaki Kojiro

05-30-2009, 04:26

Will the USA have a standing army in 100 years? 200 years? You can't predict the future.

Reverend Joe

05-30-2009, 05:02

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

And this is why Manchester is the most free and safe place in the UK ~;)

Would it happen to be the "most free and safe place in the UK" because the people there can legally own firearms to defend themselves from criminals who would wield firearms anyhow, thus giving ordinary citizens a chance and crime a major deterrent?

:smash:

Major Robert Dump

05-30-2009, 06:34

PowerWizard

05-30-2009, 08:17

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

What about the civil war?

I got this far on the first page and saw this and now I don't want to continue in the thread because you have completely discredited yourself by writing, hands down, one of the stoopidest things ever written on this forum. congratulations.

You just discredited yourself with a very stupid post without countering or disproving any of my points. Kthxbye.

Marshal Murat

05-30-2009, 14:41

What about the civil war?
As CR will no doubt point out, the American Civil War was set in a different period in American History, when we viewed ourselves as "Union of States" where citizens held themselves to their state governments before the federal government. After the Civil War, we transformed into a "United States". It's like saying "because the War of the Roses occurred, there is a stronger possibility of Tories and Labor going at it with guns and tanks to decide who is going to be Prime Minister".

Husar

05-30-2009, 16:31

Will the USA have a standing army in 100 years? 200 years? You can't predict the future.

Will US citizens be able to buy guns if they can't even pay for a standing army? You can't predict the future.

Sasaki Kojiro

05-30-2009, 17:42

Will US citizens be able to buy guns if they can't even pay for a standing army? You can't predict the future.

"not being able to pay for it" is far from the only reason that we might abandon the standing army, and guns are many many times cheaper than paying for a standing army.

Yoyoma1910

05-30-2009, 20:26

King Henry V

05-31-2009, 00:23

Henry, I find your arguments interesting, but does it not occur to you that the same slippery-slope situation is occurring among the American populace? Because it is; there's far more paranoid anti-government people in the US than there were 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Anyhow, I would advise you to examine how your local Catholics handled the situation, because it's remarkably similar to how the drug users in the US face the "Drug War": just slip it by. Don't get caught so you can practice your God-given freedoms out of Big Brother's gaze.

Aren't guns supposed to be registered? So if a ban did come about, the state would have a pretty good idea who owns what. And besides, consciences, or even drugs, are much easier to hide than weapons.

However, the more I've been thinking about this the more I've come to see the argument of gun-ownership as a defence against tyranny as a bit of a non-issue. Of course, it would be an obstacle for an unscrupulous government, but certainly not an insurmountable one.

Imagine the scenario: it's a time of crisis, and a strongly authoritarian government is elected, with a wannabe despotic President who believes only he can save the United States through strong action. Say he doesn't have nearly enough support in Congress to amend the Constitution to ban guns. A sudden wave of nihilistic, psychpathic terrorism sweeps the country, secretly staged by this evil government. Horrific school shootings, machine guns fired into crowds by seemingly hitherto normal people, mortars being fired from private houses. All of this would never be possible if the most deadly item a citizen could carry was a shotgun. People now clamour for the law to be changed. A few stalwarts might keep the old cry of liberty, but in view of the terrible circumstances they are largely ignored. The constitution is amended, and there you have it, the government can commence their ruthless programme of creating a dictatorship.

All pure hypothesis of course, but if a government really wanted to get rid of gun rights to impose a tyranny, I believe it could do so with relative ease.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-31-2009, 00:33

Aren't guns supposed to be registered? So if a ban did come about, the state would have a pretty good idea who owns what. And besides, consciences, or even drugs, are much easier to hide than weapons.

Not all guns should be registered, in my opinion.

However, the more I've been thinking about this the more I've come to see the argument of gun-ownership as a defence against tyranny as a bit of a non-issue. Of course, it would be an obstacle for an unscrupulous government, but certainly not an insurmountable one.

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

King Henry V

05-31-2009, 01:41

Not all guns should be registered, in my opinion.

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

If the conditions are right for a totalitarian government to be installed, I doubt an armed populace would have a great impact, as it would be disarmed from the start. Might as well get rid of the rather unhealthy right, in my opinion, that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to own highly lethal weapons and with all the often unhappy consequences that entails.

[If any of you are wondering what my precise opinions are on gun control in general, I personally believe that people should be allowed to have small handguns, however, there must be a rigourous selection process partly to filter as many nutters as possible and partly to make it more difficult to obtain one. However, anything above handguns (and hunting rifles obviously) makes me believe that the owner has something else in mind other than merely protecting himself and his family.]

Beskar

05-31-2009, 01:46

Then you can start bans on knives after guns. Like in Britain. :nod:

King Henry V

05-31-2009, 02:19

Then you can start bans on knives after guns. Like in Britain. :nod:

That is taking it too far. What can they ban after that, forks?

Though of course the only proper method of self-defense is the carrying of sword-sticks. No ruffian bent on despoiling one of one's valuables would ever dream of using something so stylish. :toff:

KukriKhan

05-31-2009, 03:45

Those boyos from Arkansas sure didn't mind shooting my neighbor's dog, and when they almost ran me over while I was on my bicycle, they were laughing it up.

Point. But: Back in the '67 Detroit riots, when a Brigade of the 101st Airborne was sent to our east side, they exempted from deployment, anyone whose Home Of Record was Michigan. Very... extremely quiet on that side of town after they arrived.

Whereas on the west side of Woodward Ave, where the State Police, DPD, and Mich Nat'l Guard (all containing local boys) had jurisdiction, the hell broken loose lasted almost a week, and the bodies piled up (http://www.67riots.rutgers.edu/d_victims.htm).

That might look like an argument against the effectiveness of a militia, and the superiority of a LSA. But I hasten to point out that the 95% of non-rioters, many, if not most of whom were armed, kept themselves busy sitting by their front doors, awaiting the invasion of rioters. Those guys were the potential militia, not the sworn officers. And I therefore speculate that had that group come to see the 101st, Nat'l Guard & State Police as invaders of a tyrannical gov't, things would have turned out differently.

All that was lacking was organization. And motive.

What does it take to overthrow a tyranny? Complete victory on the battlefield? No. Militias can't do that. The staunch and prolonged opposition of an armed, radicalized, motivated, righteous majority of the populace can. And has.

Tribesman

05-31-2009, 06:55

Banquo's Ghost

05-31-2009, 09:37

I would rather see the government have a surmountable obstacle to totalitarianism than none at all.

Indeed. But the only obstacle to totalitarianism is the will of the people.

"Guns do not kill people, people kill people" is an old, and valid refrain. Equally, guns do not defend liberty.

There are many ways of achieving freedom from tyranny. The United States are proud of the role their armed militia played in ridding themselves of the British Empire. India is proud of achieving the same result through strikes, marches and dignified refusal.

These freedoms are derived, no matter the tool employed, by the desire of a people to be free.

a completely inoffensive name

05-31-2009, 11:28

After reading (i.e. speed skimming) this entire thread, I have come to a few conclusions:

1. The people most advocating for no more guns are ones with the least amount of U.S. History knowledge.
2. From what I understood from a couple posts, we should not have guns and/or should have lots of guns because there may and/or may not be pink elephants everywhere.
3. ...

This thread is why I don't like to post in the Backroom anymore and comments from both sides made me very disappointed overall.

-ACIN

Tribesman

05-31-2009, 12:38

This thread is why I don't like to post in the Backroom anymore
I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway

PowerWizard

05-31-2009, 12:43

LittleGrizzly

05-31-2009, 15:14

Would it happen to be the "most free and safe place in the UK" because the people there can legally own firearms to defend themselves from criminals who would wield firearms anyhow, thus giving ordinary citizens a chance and crime a major deterrent?

So illegal guns do not defend freedom as well as legal ones....?

The goverment simply need to make guns illegal and thier freedom keeping properties become useless then... it thier freedom keeping properties are reduced to nothing so easily can thier freedom keeping properties be said to exsist at all...

It was just a joke anyway...

Safety eh? I think Tony Martins farm was raided loads of times... despite being an aggressive shotgun wielding umm... person

Crazed Rabbit

05-31-2009, 18:37

Aren't guns supposed to be registered? So if a ban did come about, the state would have a pretty good idea who owns what. And besides, consciences, or even drugs, are much easier to hide than weapons.

Registeration laws vary across states. And that is why I'm against registration.

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

CR

||Lz3||

05-31-2009, 20:46

you have to pass a background check.

And that always works. No maniac will ever get access to a gun...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-31-2009, 20:57

And that always works. No maniac will ever get access to a gun...

A maniac will acquire a firearm whether it is legal or not, regardless of registry laws (and if he has to pass a background check, and passes it, he will also be able to register his firearm, so your point has no effect - unless you propose banning all firearms completely).

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

This is your answer:

Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

If the conditions are right for a totalitarian government to be installed, I doubt an armed populace would have a great impact, as it would be disarmed from the start. Might as well get rid of the rather unhealthy right, in my opinion, that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to own highly lethal weapons and with all the often unhappy consequences that entails.

It entails some unhappy consequences, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. An armed populace would have an impact, however major or slight, and would therefore be a welcome obstacle to a totalitarian government. Again, it is better to give a totalitarian government a series of slight obstacles than none at all.

Crazed Rabbit

05-31-2009, 21:21

And that always works. No maniac will ever get access to a gun...

Bah. An annoying strawman argument. Yes, maniacs will always get a hold of weapons, no matter the laws.

CR

Alexander the Pretty Good

05-31-2009, 21:31

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
bollox absolute bollox
I've figured it out. Tribesy posts from an alternate dimension where the UK won that nasty little colonial insurrection. It's also why posts by colonials make no sense to him...

a completely inoffensive name

05-31-2009, 22:26

I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway

You just proved that you didn't care enough to read through the posts and try to understand the different views.

@Tribesman: That just totally won me over to your side. Stay classy.

@PowerWizard: EDIT: Oops that was hore.

EDIT 2: I think MRD said it best about you already.

I got this far on the first page and saw this and now I don't want to continue in the thread because you have completely discredited yourself by writing, hands down, one of the stoopidest things ever written on this forum. congratulations.

-ACIN

Tribesman

06-01-2009, 00:03

I've figured it out. Tribesy posts from an alternate dimension where the UK won that nasty little colonial insurrection.
errrrr.......bollox , no more needs to be said as you obviously are clueless about history:dizzy2:
Though for those with functioning brains a simple question....If Britain was the greatest military power in the world then who the hell was the military superpower that comprehensively defeated them ?

KukriKhan

06-01-2009, 00:15

I've figured it out. Tribesy posts from an alternate dimension where the UK won that nasty little colonial insurrection. It's also why posts by colonials make no sense to him...

An impressive theory. But I think it's simpler that that: he just tracks Crazed Rabbit around, so he can fill out his bollox dance card.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-01-2009, 04:52

errrrr.......bollox , no more needs to be said as you obviously are clueless about history:dizzy2:
Though for those with functioning brains a simple question....If Britain was the greatest military power in the world then who the hell was the military superpower that comprehensively defeated them ?

This is the statement at hand:

Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.
If it is "absolute bollox" then it's all wrong yes?

Do you deny that America ("this nation") originated from a revolution against another nation? And that part of that revolution involved citizens with guns?

Or are you stuck on a little hyperbole, even though at the time the UK's military might was still significant, although it wasn't say, a sole superpower? I know you can't form an argument that isn't just smilies, but you might come off as actually credible if you spelled something out once in a while.

a completely inoffensive name

06-01-2009, 05:00

This is the statement at hand:

If it is "absolute bollox" then it's all wrong yes?

Do you deny that America ("this nation") originated from a revolution against another nation? And that part of that revolution involved citizens with guns?

Or are you stuck on a little hyperbole, even though at the time the UK's military might was still significant, although it wasn't say, a sole superpower? I know you can't form an argument that isn't just smilies, but you might come off as actually credible if you spelled something out once in a while.

ooooooh, stop drop and roll Tribesman because you just got BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNED!

LittleGrizzly

06-01-2009, 05:17

a completely inoffensive name

06-01-2009, 06:59

@Tribesman: That just totally won me over to your side. Stay classy.

Perhaps someone needs to read thier own advice... whilst i don't paticularly like Tribesman style all the time can you show me where in this thread your style has been any better...

In one of your first posts you insulted all those in previous gun debates... which considering we had on recently and i was fairly heavily involved on the anti side was pretty much an insult directly against me and possibly others...

You then make a sarcastic comment... and then say to stay classy... I couldn't tell if the irony there was intentional or not...

And then finally the most mature comment out of the lot, just piggy back someone else's argument and insult the person thier arguing against...

For someone who has criticisms of others debating style i would suggest looking at your own somewhat...

Zing! you got burned! PWNED!

Ok i forgive you for the last one... was kinda fun ~;)

Hmm, i need something on topic to go here...

Ohh i would also like to dispel the myth about being able to get illegal guns... both me and Husar would be clueless.... so keeping guns illegal successfully stops me and Husar arming up and causing all kinds of chaos... so count yourself lucky ~;)

I walked into this argument not being serious. If you looked at the last gun control thread, I was involved heavily and learned a lot from both sides. i remarked that the pro gun people convinced me and had more solid arguments which caused me to lean more pro gun. I was very serious and gave thought out arguments. This thread has been nothing so far but history blunders, insults and half thought out arguments, nothing at all like the last thread.

So yes, the irony is intentional. And yes, my last post was fun.

If you want me to be serious how is this:

Is the fact that you and Husar are inept supposed to be applied to everyone and should convince me to expect that no one could get illegal guns? I think the fact that there is a huge market for illegal guns means more people then you think are buying these guns.

See what I did there. I made an argument and inserted an insulting word above a 6th graders vocabulary toward you, (which means its ok, while insults that are not as bad but more obvious and blunt are given infraction points) does this mean I have officially perfected the backroom style of rhetoric?

Megas Methuselah

06-01-2009, 07:37

Ohh i would also like to dispel the myth about being able to get illegal guns... both me and Husar would be clueless.... so keeping guns illegal successfully stops me and Husar arming up and causing all kinds of chaos... so count yourself lucky ~;)

I believe there are 3 illegal, unregistered hunting rifles within my immediate family... :thinking:

Banquo's Ghost

06-01-2009, 07:46

I would appreciate everyone getting back to topic, or returning under their bridge.

:beadyeyes2:

Megas Methuselah

06-01-2009, 07:56

Sorry, I didn't bother reading the thread, like most people here often do.

Tribesman

06-01-2009, 10:15

If it is "absolute bollox" then it's all wrong yes?

Correct , your nation threw off the "tyranny" not by having citizens with guns but by having an ally that was an even more powerful military than the worlds "greatest military power" .
So since the conflict was a case of a big military power getting beaten by a bigger military superpower the citizens with guns were an irrelevant sideshow .

King Henry V

06-01-2009, 10:23

Registeration laws vary across states. And that is why I'm against registration.

Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

CR

Rightyho.

It entails some unhappy consequences, but the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. An armed populace would have an impact, however major or slight, and would therefore be a welcome obstacle to a totalitarian government. Again, it is better to give a totalitarian government a series of slight obstacles than none at all.

All right, I suppose we should just agree to disagree. I fear mob rule more than I fear tyranny, and a heavily-armed populace certainly contributes more to that threat more than it impedes totalitarianism.

Strike For The South

06-01-2009, 17:35

Ariovistus Maximus

06-01-2009, 18:07

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

[QUOTE]First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument.

Well, PowerWizard, the mere assumption that government WON'T become oppressive is often what gives bad people the opportunity to make it oppressive. We need to make sure that government knows that we won't take crap lying down.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Actually, wanna know the reason that Japan never invaded continental U.S.? They're like, "Everybody has GUNS in this country!!!"

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

I've thought of this many times, and agree with you. If the mayor of my town declared marshall law and started rounding up and assassinating political enemies, employing the National Guard, the county SWAT team, and goodness knows whatever else, I think I'd lose. :help:

But that's no reason to throw everything out the window. I might lose, but it would sure make the gov't think twice if they considered the resistance they might get for doing... whatever.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

When has this happened? Besides, do you think that people need "assault weapons" to do serious damage? The naievete of this idea is shocking. I know a great way to kill off a whole room full of people for under $10, no illegal hardware required.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

Because we comprehend that this is a cheap attempt at devaluing the Constitution. If that clause is "outdated," then why wouldn't the rest be outdated? Hey guess what, I think that the 1st Ammendment is outdated now. Only people who agree with me should be able to open their mouths.

:stupido2: :stupido:

If you strip away the value of the Constitution like that, then you basically say that whatever fad of the moment that we come up with should be law. And by doing that, the whole concept of the Republic is undermined; it becomes a rule of the mob.

:2cents: :2cents:

Ironside

06-01-2009, 18:12

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

Psh, to get a dictorship in the US the "easy" way is to play on the enemy within card. How many soldiers would have opened fire on a bunch of people they were told were communists (or whatever this new enemy would be) after those communists had caused a 9/11? How many would do it after the second attack?

Even in states without registration, buying a gun from a store means you have to pass a background check.

CR

I think I asked in the last thread, but how is this backround check done? Accessing some public record or some larger private organisations?
But the real question is, could an evil goverment gather decent information about gun ownership by some key intel gathering and cross-records?

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-01-2009, 18:13

Correct , your nation threw off the "tyranny" not by having citizens with guns but by having an ally that was an even more powerful military than the worlds "greatest military power" .
So since the conflict was a case of a big military power getting beaten by a bigger military superpower the citizens with guns were an irrelevant sideshow .

And you still haven't gotten over that loss, apparently, if you are unwilling to look at the entirety of the conflict with anything approaching objectivity. I don't know why I'm surprised by this though. Maybe I'll take a page from your book.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: absolute bollox! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

LittleGrizzly

06-01-2009, 23:24

Is the fact that you and Husar are inept supposed to be applied to everyone and should convince me to expect that no one could get illegal guns? I think the fact that there is a huge market for illegal guns means more people then you think are buying these guns.

Firstly being inept has nothing to do with it... it would just be fairly difficult for me here... ask me for most other illegal things, drugs, pirated stuff... i think i could get most of it with at least a few calls... its just not that easy to get guns round here....

Secondly i wasn't saying nobody can get guns... it was CR's Yes, maniacs will always get a hold of weapons, no matter the laws. that i was kind of aiming it at... although he wasn't clear whether he meant guns or any kind of weapon...

Im just saying not everybody can get illegal guns... im sure there are plenty of other people like me and Husar that would struggle to get a gun...

See what I did there. I made an argument and inserted an insulting word above a 6th graders vocabulary toward you, (which means its ok, while insults that are not as bad but more obvious and blunt are given infraction points) does this mean I have officially perfected the backroom style of rhetoric?

Yes, welcome to the club... although i wouldn't really call it that insulting, if, from your point of view getting an illegal gun is simple then you would think someone who can't do that thing inept, so i put it down to your point of view rather than a reflection of how .... ept ? I am...

returning under their bridge.

*returns*

BTW im fairly sure France did make a fairly big contribution... not that i can't say it still cuts to the core... that and 1066...

Tribesman

06-01-2009, 23:46

And you still haven't gotten over that loss
Wow , you don't only need a history lesson you need a geography lesson too:dizzy2:

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-01-2009, 23:47

I don't dispute that at all. But Tribesy wants to throw out the first half of the war to try and make political hay. And now he'll just post more laughing smilies...

EDIT: LOL just beaten

Ariovistus Maximus

06-02-2009, 02:06

When were illegal guns hard to get?

Keep in mind that there's not really a market for illegal guns in the US b/c atm they are still legal.

I'll be impressed with the idea that gun bans are safe when the goverment has a 90% illegal drug interception record.

But considering that your average high schooler can get meth, I don't think guns are hard to get if you really want them.

And, as I said before, I could kill a whole room of people for under $10 if I was some psychopath bent on mass murder.

Consider the components:

1. A beer bottle; THOSE sure aren't gonna become illegal.

2. A few ounces of gasoline. That's not gonna be illegal either.

3. Some detergents or other compounds to create a more volotile chemical reaction.

4. A match or two and some tape.

Fill the bottle with gas + detergent etc., tape the matches to the side and light 'em, pitch the whole thing into a house, and you've just blown up a room with a molotov cocktail.

And I'm not disclosing hard-to-get information here; you can find a zillion great ways to make efficient and effective molotovs on good ol' wikipedia.

Interestingly enough, a guy was arrested during the Republican Nat'l Convention with some molotovs... but you sure didn't hear it in the news, did you? Nope, because only GUNS can kill people! Please.

Ban the guns and knife killings will go on the rise!

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

I think it'd be easy to do it in the U.S. You may perhaps recall that civil war...? ~;)

And even today there are probably plenty of southerners who would believe anything bad they heard about me because I'm from the north! And vice versa of course.

And when it all comes down to it, the soldier will do what his officer tells him to.

And do you think the government will be like, "Go kill these Americans because they don't agree with us..."

No, the government will come up with some excuse to tell the troops that the target is a bunch of evil anarchists bent on government overthrow! We've seen it already! The CIA has branded conservatives as potential terrorists in one of their studies!

Ariovistus Maximus

06-02-2009, 02:14

Wow , you don't only need a history lesson you need a geography lesson too:dizzy2:

Tribesman, instead of engaging in pointless argumentum ad hominem* and insulting your opponent by saying he needs lessons, why don't you stop beating around the bush and just give him the lesson he needs?

If you really have evidence, your point will be proven better by giving the evidence, rather than weighing down the discussion with insults.

* is a debating tactic, really a logical fallacy, in which one debater (1), rather than answering his opponent's argument, simply insults the debater (2) personally (get an education, you're a retard, etc.) instead of addressing his (2) arguments. By doing this, he (1) hopes to devalue his opponent's (2) argument by calling his (2) intelligence into question.

In short, it proves nothing and is certainly no credit to your viewpoint.

I don't mean to be preachy; it's just that I've encountered a LOT of this in debates. I've talked to so many guys who can't answer my argument, so they just dismiss me as stupid because they don't know what to say.

So Tribesman you can get much farther simply by giving your evidence. :thumbsup:

:2cents: :bow:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-02-2009, 02:29

Tribesman, instead of engaging in pointless argumentum ad hominem* and insulting your opponent by saying he needs lessons, why don't you stop beating around the bush and just give him the lesson he needs?

If you really have evidence, your point will be proven better by giving the evidence, rather than weighing down the discussion with insults.

* is a debating tactic, really a logical fallacy, in which one debater (1), rather than answering his opponent's argument, simply insults the debater (2) personally (get an education, you're a retard, etc.) instead of addressing his (2) arguments. By doing this, he (1) hopes to devalue his opponent's (2) argument by calling his (2) intelligence into question.

In short, it proves nothing and is certainly no credit to your viewpoint.

I don't mean to be preachy; it's just that I've encountered a LOT of this in debates. I've talked to so many guys who can't answer my argument, so they just dismiss me as stupid because they don't know what to say.

So Tribesman you can get much farther simply by giving your evidence. :thumbsup:

:2cents: :bow:

We try to tell him that all the time, it has absolutely zero effect. There are many theories as to why.

LittleGrizzly

06-02-2009, 02:40

No, the government will come up with some excuse to tell the troops that the target is a bunch of evil anarchists bent on government overthrow! We've seen it already! The CIA has branded conservatives as potential terrorists in one of their studies!

Wasn't it more like they said there was a potential threat from extremist conservative groups ?

Which holds fairly true if you look at the other thread in the backroom, abortion doctor killing.

I agree with what you say though... there are plenty of ways to make americans suddenly seem less american... or like americans that don't deserve to live anyway...

Depending on which angle the goverment was coming from you could use things to rile people up like, abortion, guns (the other side wants to take yours) for example would americans have been happy for american citizens to be taken up to guantanamo bay prior to 9/11 ? probably not, after 9/11 there was a lot more support for it...

Ban the guns and knife killings will go on the rise!

If someone is to try and kill me i would rather they had a knife or some home made bomb rather than a half decent gun. Unless this guy is some knife combat expert, or very good at handling home made bombs (as in accuracy rather than making them) he is going to have a far easier time killing me with a half decent gun...

Edit
When were illegal guns hard to get?
Keep in mind that there's not really a market for illegal guns in the US b/c atm they are still legal.

Yeah you can't really get an accurate picture in America as guns are mostly legal, In Britian its a little different as (to the best of my knowledge) shotguns are legal for those who have a good reason for having one (farmers for example) as i live in Britian, it was from the perspective of someone getting an illegal gun in Britian...

Mooks

06-02-2009, 04:03

nvm

Ariovistus Maximus

06-02-2009, 04:25

We try to tell him that all the time, it has absolutely zero effect. There are many theories as to why.

Hmmm; well, I've seen Tribesman around and he seemed pretty reasonable.

But honestly I don't even know what point he's trying to make in this thread; all I've seen is some arguing back and forth about which forum users need a better education.

So I think I can speak for the lurkers when I say that the argument has become so out of control that we don't even know what it's about!

I'm not even disagreeing with Tribesman's viewpoint (I don't even know what it is), I'm just saying he would be more effective if he stuck to standard debating guidelines.

So anyways Tribesman no offence, just I think you might wanna give more material. :thumbsup:

Wasn't it more like they said there was a potential threat from extremist conservative groups ?

Which holds fairly true if you look at the other thread in the backroom, abortion doctor killing.

I agree with what you say though... there are plenty of ways to make americans suddenly seem less american... or like americans that don't deserve to live anyway...

Yes, that's how they put it. They're much to clever to say what they mean. :laugh4:

But seriously, look at how they defined radical conservative: [paraphrase] "wholly dedicated to single issues such as abortion or immigration..."

They're practically saying, "these guys are radicals because they DARE to have an opinion! And what's MORE, they don't subscribe to the canned opinions that we shove down their throats!!!"

And then as a caveat to pretend that they weren't playing favorites, they gave a cute little memo about how some liberals are bad... (ok it was more than that but still).

If someone is to try and kill me i would rather they had a knife or some home made bomb rather than a half decent gun. Unless this guy is some knife combat expert, or very good at handling home made bombs (as in accuracy rather than making them) he is going to have a far easier time killing me with a half decent gun...

True, except for a few things:

Essentially, gun killings will decrease, but successful home defense with guns will be completely eradicated. So all that the ban does is increase the success in the criminal's success/failure ratio.

Personally, I would rather face a criminal who has a gun with my own gun, rather than a criminal who has a knife with my own knife. I'm guessing that a serious criminal is bigger than me, on average. Especially repeat offenders who've done time. :duel:

However, if we both have guns, his size is taken out of the equation, and then my familiarity with my house will give me a decisive advantage. Not to mention that many bad guys will run blind after hearing a "click-CHUNK" sound. :sneaky:

But yes I'm glad we agree on these issues. I just want to clarify for... other people... :eyebrows:

Illegal guns are easy to get. I really doubt most people in the debate here mix around with shady characters, but I know for a fact that I can walk down the street in the middle of suburbia where I live and get a 9mm or maybe a 45 with a full clip for a decent price of 130-150; most likely with the bar code already filed off.

So true; soooo true.

Hey, if the black market was plenty successful in the USSR, it'll do just fine here.

I mean, some legislators want to LEGALIZE meth just because it's hard to enforce a ban on it!!! And you know how badly prohibition of alcohol failed. And people expect us to believe that guns will disappear just because they say so? Yah; believe that one when I see it.

Ariovistus Maximus

06-02-2009, 04:43

OK, having read Tribesman's posts...

I'm still not sure what he's trying to prove. :clown:

I guess you're saying that the "well-regulated militia" of the colonies had nothing to do with the British defeat (because the French did everything and they were more powerful than G.B.), therefore the American Revolution is not any evidence of the value of an armed citizenry.

And that everyone who disagrees with you is uneducated in either history or geography. :inquisitive:

Well, as to the French doing all the work, I would remind you that they didn't enter the war until relatively late. The colonials certainly pulled their own weight for a few years.

And I also point you to the battles of Saratoga, Concord, Brandywine, etc. The last one was a loss, but the point is that there was no French presence on those fields. So it seems to me that the colonials did the fighting...

Also I see no reason to rate the French as more powerful overall then the British. Consider that even AFTER the British defeat, they still managed to whup the French under Napoleon.

Waterloo and Trafalgar hardly seem to demonstrate French military supremacy AFAIK.

And even if the French HAD been superior to the British, it's not as if they sent that great of a percentage of their military might to help us anyway. I don't know the numbers, but it wasn't THAT many.

Therefore, considering these two evidences, we see that:

1. The colonials did the majority of the fighting.

2. The French were not powerful enough to best the British alone anyway.

3. The colonials, who did most of the fighting, were comprised mainly of citizen militia who possessed personal firearms.

4. Thus, personal firearms played an important role in the War for Independence.

Any (relevant ~:))history book should verify these findings; at least the gist of them.

LittleGrizzly

06-02-2009, 04:53

I think with the geography comment Tribesman was saying he isn't British... or at least thats how i read it... the other bit was about france being the military superpower that defeated britian... ill admit Tribesman can be a little cryptic for my liking sometimes... it can be hard to figure out what he's sayng...

Yes, that's how they put it. They're much to clever to say what they mean.

We did have a whole topic on the report, a few weeks back if your intrested...

I think someone theorised that the report was actually done under the Bush admin, or at least started under the Bush admin as these reports take sometime to compile... It did also mention radical left wing groups as well... It didn't seem paticularly biased to me...

I'm guessing that a serious criminal is bigger than me, on average. Especially repeat offenders who've done time.

Not nessecarily, I've known a fair few criminals whose physical stature was less than mine... and im a little under the average hieght...

Personally, I would rather face a criminal who has a gun with my own gun, rather than a criminal who has a knife with my own knife.

Well that depends really... If i just wanted to block myself in a room and wait till he goes away/ the cops arrive i would much rather the criminal was armed with a knife. I would feel alot more confident holding the door shut or holding something to keep the door held shut if he had to try and stab through the door rather than shoot through it...

Or if i simply wanted to run away, with the knife armed attacker i just need a little space to make a break for it... with the gun armed attacker i need some serious obstacles to dodge between whilst trying to run away...

I think you can do the example counter example thing all day, the thing that sells it for me is i would prefer my criminals without guns...

However, if we both have guns, his size is taken out of the equation, and then my familiarity with my house will give me a decisive advantage. Not to mention that many bad guys will run blind after hearing a "click-CHUNK" sound.

The criminal though will have the advantage of being prepared for this situation awake and alert, rather than woken up by strange noises downstairs whilst still half asleep, then the terror of seeing an intruder in your home... im fairly sure your average criminal is more ready for a confrantation than your average citizen

Illegal guns are easy to get. I really doubt most people in the debate here mix around with shady characters, but I know for a fact that I can walk down the street in the middle of suburbia where I live and get a 9mm or maybe a 45 with a full clip for a decent price of 130-150; most likely with the bar code already filed off.

I know a few shady characters... through friends of friends i could get you just about any of the fairly common drugs, crack, heroin, LSD, Weed, Amphetamines... hell even Ketamine. I think within at least a day or two of trying i could get any one of those with relatively little effort... ask me to get an illegal gun though and i don't even think i could do it with a few grand and a few weeks to do it in....

Just look at our criminals... the majority don't seem to be getting armed up, this could be for a number of reasons... but to stay on the safe side i would prefer we didn't have guns legalised over here...

Mooks

06-02-2009, 05:02

You live in the UK?

Ariovistus Maximus

06-02-2009, 05:13

I think with the geography comment Tribesman was saying he isn't British... or at least thats how i read it... the other bit was about france being the military superpower that defeated britian... ill admit Tribesman can be a little cryptic for my liking sometimes... it can be hard to figure out what he's sayng...

We did have a whole topic on the report, a few weeks back if your intrested...

I think someone theorised that the report was actually done under the Bush admin, or at least started under the Bush admin as these reports take sometime to compile... It did also mention radical left wing groups as well... It didn't seem paticularly biased to me...

Well, when a "radical conservative" is defined as someone who is ex-military or someone who has a definite oppinion, and a "radical liberal" is defined as someone who blows up offices for the good of the environment...

it seems like they are targeting a lot more conservatives than liberals.

Not nessecarily, I've known a fair few criminals whose physical stature was less than mine... and im a little under the average hieght...

I think you can do the example counter example thing all day, the thing that sells it for me is i would prefer my criminals without guns...

Yeah, we could go allllll day.

And yes, criminals without guns would be nice, especially for our examples. :clown:

But the unfortunate reality is that criminals can still get guns after they're illegal. So actually it would end up where he has a gun and I have a knife...

Also keep in mind that you and I are men. Do your average women want to tangle with ANY size of criminal with a knife? Nosireebob.

I know a few shady characters... through friends of friends i could get you just about any of the fairly common drugs, crack, heroin, LSD, Weed, Amphetamines... hell even Ketamine. I think within at least a day or two of trying i could get any one of those with relatively little effort... ask me to get an illegal gun though and i don't even think i could do it with a few grand and a few weeks to do it in....

Just look at our criminals... the majority don't seem to be getting armed up, this could be for a number of reasons... but to stay on the safe side i would prefer we didn't have guns legalised over here...

Well, in the US there are environmentalist extremists getting bombs. :inquisitive:

So I think it's not too difficult to see that illegal firearms are quite accessible. Also, I don't think you've done a lot of checking. I hope not, at least.

Again, in a perfect world (at least in the area of suppressing crime) guns would not exist. True.

Reality, however, dictates that guns DO exist, and government will be no little more effective in keeping guns from criminals then they are at keeping drugs from dealers.

Turn it into simple math if you want.

Criminals + Law-abiding citizens = can have guns.

(Initiate gun ban)

SUBTRACT citizens.

Criminals + Law-abiding citizens = can have guns.

Therfore, only criminals are left to have access to guns. So all we have done is force a few bad guys to revert to knives.

The serious ones can find guns (it's not like they need a whole bunch; just a Ruger .22 would do), and now the playing field has been seriously altered in favor of the criminals.

Oversimplified perhaps, but it seems logical to me.

ALSO consider:

Due to pathetic laws, people can sometimes be prosecuted for injuring/killing criminals who illegally enter their homes.

Probably the most people victimized by this foolishness are those who use guns in home defence, simply because ignorant people find guns menacing.

So if you take away guns, do you think that people who injure/kill criminals using KNIVES in home defence will be given any slack? No way.

In the US at least, you can sue people for just about anything.

I've heard about a guy who took out insurance on his cigars, smoked said cigars, and then filed suit to have insurance pay for the cigars he smoked. And won.

In the US you can sue somebody if you trip off their front steps!

So anyways, it's a criminals game, so to speak.

Tribesman

06-02-2009, 18:52

I'm still not sure what he's trying to prove.
Its quite simple really.
If Britain was they greatest military power then how did a greater military powers defeat them?
If the armed citizenry was such a threat how did they achieve nothing without the
support of a global superpower(yes Alex that covers Saratoga too)?
Since the myth about the armed citizens was thoroughly destroyed within a few years of independance why the hell are people still trying to sell the myth centuries later?

I think with the geography comment Tribesman was saying he isn't British...
Hold on Grizz , Eire is in the country of Europy which is above the nation of Africy so they are right on the geography:2thumbsup:

LittleGrizzly

06-03-2009, 00:39

Well, when a "radical conservative" is defined as someone who is ex-military or someone who has a definite oppinion, and a "radical liberal" is defined as someone who blows up offices for the good of the environment...

it seems like they are targeting a lot more conservatives than liberals.

I think it was more like thier wary of ex military especially those who are big on hot button issues like abortion or race...

And with the left wingers it was they are wary of those who are big on hot button issues like the enviroment or a general dislike of capitalism...

Both are vague and could potentially include huge chunks of coservatives and liberals

So i think the general idea is some nice middle aged man who served in the military and attends the occasional peaceful anti abortion rally is not going to be branded a right wing terrorist...

The same as some nice middle aged woman who is big on the enviroment and attend the occasional peaceful enviromental rally is not going to be branded a left wing terrorist...

The report wasn't biased and it didn't shy away from the different definitions because they are completely true... you should be wary of extreme enviromentalists and watch thier groups because they do have extreme elements that go out and break the law....

Same thing with anti abortionists and every other group mentioned in the report, it may be insulting to you personally but some conservatives do go out and break the law in the name of thier politics, so the goverment simply pointing out these threats exsist and monitoring them is simply good policy... and same with the left wing groups the extreme elements go out and cause trouble so its perfectly acceptable for the members to be on some kind of watch list...

But the unfortunate reality is that criminals can still get guns after they're illegal. So actually it would end up where he has a gun and I have a knife...

Well its not the case that making guns illegal stops all criminals getting them... its also a common fallacy that all criminals can still get guns whether they are illegal or not...

In britian for example there are plenty of criminals not armed with guns, i imagine there could be a few reasons for that to be the case, such as harder to get as theres less guns in the country, less likely to want a gun as you probably won't be up against one, ect. but i can't paticularly think of many factors outside of our guns laws why US criminals would arm up with guns and UK criminals wouldn't...

Also keep in mind that you and I are men. Do your average women want to tangle with ANY size of criminal with a knife? Nosireebob.

If women everywhere were crying out for guns and saying they needed them to have any chance to defend themselves i may be swayed by that argument but women seem at the very least less into guns than men...

So I think it's not too difficult to see that illegal firearms are quite accessible. Also, I don't think you've done a lot of checking. I hope not, at least.

Well thats the thing, with all the other illegal things i mentioned i know i could get hold of them without me having asked around to try and get hold of them, ive known friends or at the very least friends of friends that could get it. Either that i have seen them with it or they have talked about it, people are usually pretty proud when they have good contacts for this and that...

But despite all the other stuff they have talked about and i have seen guns have never once been even mentioned...

I will out of interest ask around (though obviously not buying one) ill ask firends to ask friends and see what i get back... but i am highly doubtful that anything will come back...

Reverend Joe

06-03-2009, 07:41

Its quite simple really.
If Britain was they greatest military power then how did a greater military powers defeat them?
If the armed citizenry was such a threat how did they achieve nothing without the
support of a global superpower(yes Alex that covers Saratoga too)?
Since the myth about the armed citizens was thoroughly destroyed within a few years of independance why the hell are people still trying to sell the myth centuries later?

Dude... no. Just... no. The French gave us loans and blockaded Yorktown to bring about the endgame. The land war was fought entirely by American soldiers, milita and partisans.

And if France was a greater military power, how come Britain had just defeated them in the Seven Years War, and went on to defeat them once again in the Napoleonic conflict?

Tribesman

06-03-2009, 09:02

The land war was fought entirely by American soldiers, milita and partisans.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

The French gave us loans
Considerinng that Du Pont was't set up until 1802 can you think of something really important the French gave you ? Well more than important as in absolutely essential.

Reverend Joe

06-03-2009, 09:58

:laugh4:
It was. Also I took the liberty of removing your unnecessary smilies.

Considerinng that Du Pont was't set up until 1802 can you think of something really important the French gave you ? Well more than important as in absolutely essential.
Yeah... loans. Aside from some maritime support, that was it. The French only engaged the British on land a few times, and even then I wouldn't count it as their actions were entirely inconsequential as compared to the American forces. And in fact, the French gave us so much money that it ruined them financially, eventually leading to the collapse of their government.

Where do you get your history anyway? The Big Book of Being Arrogant Towards Americans?

LittleGrizzly

06-03-2009, 10:20

Reverend Joe

06-03-2009, 10:56

and went on to defeat them once again in the Napoleonic conflict?

People keep bringing up this Napoleon conflict as proof of Britians superority, its nice and the compliment is appreciated but unless my history is well off we may have had a little help from one or two minor powers that might have just given us the edge...

Ok i did a little reading up to try and figure out what Tribesman is talking about...

Are you talking about the yorktown campaign ?

Well, I brought up the Napoleonic conflict because Britain's use of sea power was one of the main factors in the eventual defeat of Napoleon, as he was unable to press his advantage overseas, especially in a conquest of England. On the land, yes, England needed help, but it was the naval power that made her the greatest military power of the day, and anyhow her soldiers were patently better than the American troops in standard combat, at least until we had enough experience to fight back.

I really don't know what Tribesman is talking about. I suspect he is basing his entire argument on Yorktown which is terribly inaccurate as it was the only time that a major French force assisted the Colonies.

Or maybe he is arguing that the French supplied us with guns, in which case he is only reinforcing my argument, because of the French armed our populace, and that saved us the war, wouldn't that prove the point of a well-armed populace?

Tribesman

06-03-2009, 14:18

It was. Also I took the liberty of removing your unnecessary smilies.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Yeah... loans. Aside from some maritime support, that was it.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Blimey I thought the earlier discussions about the 1812 war were funny but this really beats it hands down :2thumbsup:

Are you talking about the yorktown campaign ?
No I am talking about the vital support the continental got from a European superpower . What did America lack ,by lack I mean having pretty much bugger all at all ? Its something that when lacking means all the guns in the world are useless . Du Ponts later business venture should be a good enough clue.
Though I do find it really funny that Napoleon has been mentioned twice .Napoleonic France was in existance after France had bankrupted itself defeating Britain

drone

06-03-2009, 15:15

Tribesman is talking about gunpowder. The Du Pont chemical company we know and love today was the first full scale manufacturer of gunpowder in the US. They didn't get started until 1802, so during the war the Continentals were reliant on either French supplies or captured magazines.

Reverend Joe

06-03-2009, 17:49

:stunned: :stare: :wall: ARE YOU SERIOUS?! THAT'S YOUR BIG ARGUMENT AS TO WHY A MILITIA IS USELESS?!

I wish I could find this as funny as you do but that's the dumbest argument I've heard so far. So they needed foreign magazines. So what?! Who isn't reliant on foreign supplies at one point or another?! It absolutely does not disprove my argument that it was the Militia won the war, because they fired the goddamn magazines. Did major French armies go toe-to-toe with the British? No. Did French fleets blockade Britain en masse? No. The American Militia went toe-to-toe with the British army, and after they figured out how to beat them with militia tactics, they beat them fair and square.

Besides which, you know who else depended on getting their supplies from overseas? The damn British, that's who. And I would think that having to either capture your magazines or smuggle them in would say a lot about the tenacity of your milita army, as opposed to the complacent regulars who were used to regular supplies of the stuff.

Anyhow, in the event of a war, I would fully expect American Partisans to do perfectly well with smuggled/captured arms and ammunition. No, it wouldn't be easy, but it would still work.

Your ace in the hole was a freakin' two of diamonds, Tribes.

Tribesman

06-03-2009, 19:48

Tribesman is talking about gunpowder.
That is one aspect of it . Since the Americans relied on French weapon supplies French money French troops the French navy French political power and prettty much all things French .
Well , apart from the Northwestern campaigh which was reliant on Spanish support .

ARE YOU SERIOUS?! THAT'S YOUR BIG ARGUMENT AS TO WHY A MILITIA IS USELESS?!

No that isn't the arguement.

Besides which, you know who else depended on getting their supplies from overseas? The damn British, that's who.
Well done you got something right , though of course the French were stopping the British from getting those supplies wasn't they:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually looking at that post you made you seem to contradict yourself a hell of a lot , but I suppose thats normal when you are trying to defend mythical history

Crazed Rabbit

06-03-2009, 20:33

No that isn't the arguement.

Then what is your argument? Lay it out and quit hiding behind a wall of smilies.

There's nothing clever about laughing at a person and saying they don't understand when most of your posts consist of smilies and vague references. Oh, wait, you'll post more smilies and claim I ought to do research because apparently being comprehensible is a big problem for you.

In the end, your claim that I was posting "absolute bollox" is wrong.
What I said:

Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

The British had just won what Winston Churchill called the first world war, gained most of France's colonies in the New World, and had great control over the seas.

Did France help? Yes, they helped. But it was the Americans who initiated the conflict and were able to provide enough resistance that France and others began to openly assist them. In the first military engagement, the battles of Lexington and Concord, it was the armed American citizenry - the militia - that defeated a detachment of British soldiers. If the rebels hadn't been able to provide enough military resistance to prevent Britain from occupying all of the colonies, then the international assistance wouldn't have mattered.

Now, let's look at the second amendment - drafted by the founding fathers after the war. They secured the right of the people to keep and bear arms because they believed that a bulwark against tyranny. They lived in the war and understood how the common man owning a gun had affected the war.

CR

Rhyfelwyr

06-03-2009, 20:35

Whoever is right in this historical debate, surely it's irrelevant given the nature of warfare today?

drone

06-03-2009, 20:44

Whoever is right in this historical debate, surely it's irrelevant given the nature of warfare today?

What is the nature of warfare today?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-03-2009, 21:14

Well its not the case that making guns illegal stops all criminals getting them... its also a common fallacy that all criminals can still get guns whether they are illegal or not...

In britian for example there are plenty of criminals not armed with guns, i imagine there could be a few reasons for that to be the case, such as harder to get as theres less guns in the country, less likely to want a gun as you probably won't be up against one, ect. but i can't paticularly think of many factors outside of our guns laws why US criminals would arm up with guns and UK criminals wouldn't...

Earth to Grizzly... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6180559.stm)

I've posted that link before. Your criminals can get guns. Why they do or don't has, obviously, little or nothing to do with your gun laws. And you could get one just as easily if you spent a little bit of time looking. All the drug dealers you claim to know of could probably recommend someone to you if you bothered to ask.

:rolleyes:

If women everywhere were crying out for guns and saying they needed them to have any chance to defend themselves i may be swayed by that argument but women seem at the very least less into guns than men...

You know, some women do. You know, women who actually want to defend themselves. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312951507/paxtonquigley-20) Women who don't share your often laughable and sometimes disturbing phobia of firearms.

Sensible women.

Reverend Joe

06-03-2009, 21:47

CR, would you mind terribly taking up the fight against the Tribescoat? I really have no idea how to redress his claims. They're just... bizarre... and very smiley infected.

Edit: wait, let me try...

That is one aspect of it . Since the Americans relied on French weapon supplies French money French troops the French navy French political power and prettty much all things French .
Well , apart from the Northwestern campaigh which was reliant on Spanish support .

No. We greatly benefitted from French loans and gunpowder, but the rest... no. The French navy wasn't very successful, their troops didn't do doodley-squat and French political power was only helpful in keeping France from getting invaded because other European countries declared they would support France in the case of an invasion. The Americans did all the fighting and, as CR pointed out, the fact that they fought for so long, and with such surprising success (although not exactly stellar) was the key to their victory, as they proved themselves able to defeat Britain in the long term.

Well done you got something right , though of course the French were stopping the British from getting those supplies wasn't they:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Actually looking at that post you made you seem to contradict yourself a hell of a lot , but I suppose thats normal when you are trying to defend mythical history

No, the French were not that successful. Read a book. And I'm not being contradictory; now you're just making stuff up.

No that isn't the arguement.

Well then, thanks for wasting my time.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-03-2009, 22:03

That is one aspect of it . Since the Americans relied on French weapon supplies French money French troops the French navy French political power and prettty much all things French .
Well , apart from the Northwestern campaigh which was reliant on Spanish support .

I'm not denying that the French (and Dutch and Spanish) contributed heavily to the colonial cause. What you're ignoring is there wouldn't have been any support if the local militias had been crushed early on. It wasn't until 1777 after the Saratoga campaign that the French openly backed the colonials, and that's two years of fighting, much of it done with American militia armed with personal weapons.

Reverend Joe

06-03-2009, 22:07

I'm not denying that the French (and Dutch and Spanish) contributed heavily to the colonial cause. What you're ignoring is there wouldn't have been any support if the local militias had been crushed early on. It wasn't until 1777 after the Saratoga campaign that the French openly backed the colonials, and that's two years of fighting, much of it done with American militia armed with personal weapons.

Give no quarter to the Tribescoat!

I really shouldn't be drunk at 5 in the afternoon. :laugh4:

Meneldil

06-04-2009, 00:30

As a sidenote, France sent 10000 regulars in America, which accounts for more or less half of the total amount of professional soldiers on the US' side.

That, and the whole fleet, which was for once kind of successful at fighting the British navy (must have been the first and last time since the 14th century).

Anyway, had Great Britain decided to commit all of its force to the fight, the war of independance would have been lost, with or without France, Spain and Holland help.
15.000 british soldiers and 30.000 mercenaries were sent in America, while Britain could easily have fielded 5 times this number.

Tribesman

06-04-2009, 02:51

I'm not denying that the French (and Dutch and Spanish) contributed heavily to the colonial cause
Some people are, indeed Revered Joe seem to be thouroughly clueless about the revolutionary war

What you're ignoring is there wouldn't have been any support if the local militias had been crushed early on.
But the support was there from the start, thats the whole point.

It wasn't until 1777 after the Saratoga campaign that the French openly backed the colonials
What is the key word there ?

So since most people seem to have forgotten where this started....

Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

That statement is bollox . Britain was not the greatest mititary power in the world asit was thoroughly screwed Navy wise as a result of the seven years war and Army wise as a result of the ongoing conflicts in India . The citizens with guns can have achieved bugger all without the support of global superpowers which they got right from the very start of the conflict.

Crazed Rabbit

06-04-2009, 05:46

Ah, and we are reminded why tribesy so infrequently actually posts an argument:

That statement is bollox . Britain was not the greatest mititary power in the world asit was thoroughly screwed Navy wise as a result of the seven years war and Army wise as a result of the ongoing conflicts in India . The citizens with guns can have achieved bugger all without the support of global superpowers which they got right from the very start of the conflict.

Gee, I suppose the nations on the losing side of the seven years war came out of it significantly better than the winners. I suppose it was those other nations that prevented the British troops in some coastal cities from marching out and dominating the countryside of the colonies, and not armed Americans.
:rolleyes:
Posting scads of smilies in reply to anything you disagree with doesn't make you right, no matter how hard you believe. Now, various people have posted arguments and reasons supporting our argument. That's about the longest stretch of anything resembling an argument you've posted here, and it seems based just on your beliefs and your unceasing need to disagree with me.

CR

LittleGrizzly

06-04-2009, 06:11

I've posted that link before. Your criminals can get guns. Why they do or don't has, obviously, little or nothing to do with your gun laws. And you could get one just as easily if you spent a little bit of time looking.

Yes becuase we have huge numbers of gun crimes.... no wait a second... almost had me...

All the drug dealers you claim to know of could probably recommend someone to you if you bothered to ask.

Earth to EMFM don't believe everything you see about drug dealers in hollywood, real lifes a little different.

You know, some women do. You know, women who actually want to defend themselves. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312951507/paxtonquigley-20) Women who don't share your often laughable and sometimes disturbing phobia of firearms.

You know, some women don't. You know, women who don't want almost anyone getting thier hands on guns. Women who don't share your always hysterical and mostly disturbing love of firearms.

I don't know if you noticed the really important part of my sentence If women everywhere were crying out for guns your link doesn't seem to disprove that so im still fairly happy with that point i made

Well thanks for the abuse anyway... always feel charitable coming down to someone elses level...

Tribesman

06-04-2009, 10:03

Gee, I suppose the nations on the losing side of the seven years war came out of it significantly better than the winners.
Gee I suppose the winners in the Revlutionary war came out better too ...oh sorry they came out bankrupt didn't they .

So Rabbit what did Britain win in the seven years war?
Oh they won the wonderful prize of errrrr.....more very expensive wars to fight didn't they.:dizzy2:

Rhyfelwyr

06-04-2009, 15:36

Crazed Rabbit

06-04-2009, 18:08

Gee I suppose the winners in the Revlutionary war came out better too ...oh sorry they came out bankrupt didn't they .

So Rabbit what did Britain win in the seven years war?
Oh they won the wonderful prize of errrrr.....more very expensive wars to fight didn't they.:dizzy2:

Again, you dodge the issue of whether the British came out better than the losers, specifically the French, after the war. The British won virtual control of India, in terms of European countries, by crippling the French presence there. They also gained most of France's colonies in the New World. Did you really not know that?

France lost those territories and had greater financial difficulties than Britain. And even your attempt to dodge the issue is weak - yes the US was greatly in debt when it was formed, but they had gained a new nation. Turned out better than losing.

So I suppose this will be a new round of tribesy arguing; you ignore most of a post in order to reply to the one bit you have some snarky comment for. You don't even try to defend your argument. You've lost.

CR

Tribesman

06-07-2009, 23:04

Didn't Britain win Quebec and other areas from the French, and several Caribbean islands from the Spanish?
Yes and no .

Again, you dodge the issue of whether the British came out better than the losers, specifically the French, after the war. The British won virtual control of India, in terms of European countries, by crippling the French presence there. They also gained most of France's colonies in the New World. Did you really not know that?

Too funny .
So Rabbit in the time frame we are talking of what was the price of winning that 7 years war and what was the massive outlay afterwards involved in trying to secure those "gains" ? Why was one of those "gains"(or several if you really want to get historical) part of Britains defeat (you might get lots of pointers in the peace treaty that ended the American revolution).
The really funny thing is that britains effforts to secure a sort of victory in world power games that led to an overstretch that was compounded by the overstetch of trying to secure the gains which resulted in a revolution against the measures that were to pay for the liabilties the "victory" entailed

France lost those territories and had greater financial difficulties than Britain.
Smilies don't seem to be working , so I laugh my arse off in the face of your pathetic nonsense that has no relation to historical reality .
Think about it Rabbit , lucrative distant outposts do in the very long term have great returns , but in the short/medium term they are nothing but a very expensive and very troublesome liability

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-08-2009, 06:08

Especially when occupied with well-armed riff-raff who think they're equal to Englishmen. ~;)

Banquo's Ghost

06-08-2009, 07:44

Smilies don't seem to be working , so I laugh my arse off in the face of your pathetic nonsense that has no relation to historical reality .

I realise just how traumatic the loss of smileys must be, but there's still no excuse to write beastly things about fellow members.

Less hostility please. From all contributors.

Louis VI the Fat

06-08-2009, 14:04

The question is not whether Great Britain was a greater power than France in 1776. The question is, was France two or three times more powerful than Great Britain?

The world was different in 1776. Britain had only just started its long demographic and industrial revolution. (Before someone mentions that 'long' and 'revolution' is stoopid, the tension between the two words is quite deliberate)

The story of Britain is not that of an ancient Great Power. The story is about the ascendency of a country of medium size and import to the world's greatest empire over the period of three centuries.

The comparison between France and Britain isn't crucial. More important is the difference between Britain and the US. In 1776, the American colonies were a small country, about the size and importance of Belgium. Great Britain was a medium power on the rise. How the first overcame the latter needs to be explained. Which I am not going to do here.
Nor anywhere else for that matter, since I do not know the first thing about it.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Very few tyrannical regimes have little support amongst the populace. On the contrary. Tyranny is not two hundred against two million. It is two hundred against one million with the full support of the other one million*, whom somehow have been persuaded into voluntarily aiding their own oppression.
(*this 1 million customarily consists of the usual suspects of infatilodytes, of lovers of authority, of these slaves who prefer the distinction of being owned by the largest slaveholder over personal freedom)

In this sense, an armed populace is neither solution nor prevention. It will only determine the ferocity of the civil war.

In the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and others, later mystification and simplication described the revolutions in terms of 'the people' assuming control against a small tyranical regime. This is not the case. Both were civil wars. Their revolutions spread from a small minority. To a large extent, they were forced upon the majority.

The American loyalists were armed just as well as the independentalists. (Which is not a proper English word, but the term for those colonists seeking independence escapes me at the moment)

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

In my favourite reading of the Second Amendment, the consequence of the amendment is accepted. One does not have a right to bear arms in and of itself. There's no free ride. Instead, a well-regulated militia will safeguard the freedom of the state. Join, take up your responsibility in this manner, and you can be an armed citizen.

This is the interpretation in places like Switzerland. A conscription army, made up of citizens. And those that have joined have the right (and the duty) to be an armed citizen.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I agree with the premise of this thread. Of all the pro-gun arguments, the argument that it protects against tyranny is the weakest.

Crazed Rabbit

06-08-2009, 17:35

Too funny .
So Rabbit in the time frame we are talking of what was the price of winning that 7 years war and what was the massive outlay afterwards involved in trying to secure those "gains" ? Why was one of those "gains"(or several if you really want to get historical) part of Britains defeat (you might get lots of pointers in the peace treaty that ended the American revolution).
The really funny thing is that britains effforts to secure a sort of victory in world power games that led to an overstretch that was compounded by the overstetch of trying to secure the gains which resulted in a revolution against the measures that were to pay for the liabilties the "victory" entailed
Ah - again you dodge the issue of whether whether France or Britain was better off. You again don't talk about the difficulties facing the French and instead talk about what the British faced many years after the war. So the British raised taxes after the war - that doesn't mean they were a less powerful nation than other nations who also had financial difficulties. The seven years war began a series of decisions for Britain that led to the Revolution. But that doesn't mean they came out of the seven years war worse off or that they were less powerful than France.

Smilies don't seem to be working , so I laugh my arse off in the face of your pathetic nonsense that has no relation to historical reality .
Think about it Rabbit , lucrative distant outposts do in the very long term have great returns , but in the short/medium term they are nothing but a very expensive and very troublesome liability

Aww, how cute. You think I give a care about what you think.

More of your eloquent thoughts. And I wonder why people would ever think about disagreeing with such a powerful, witty mind.
I'll just link to here: http://www.answers.com/topic/seven-years-war

The Seven Years War had thus established Britain's maritime and colonial dominance over her Bourbon rivals, and after 1763 she was clearly Europe's leading commercial and imperial power. Within Europe, by contrast, no such clear-cut result was apparent. Yet the political consequences of the continental fighting were in some ways even more momentous. The survival of Prussia and the military victories won by Russia established these two states as continental great powers. France by contrast had been defeated in both struggles, while the war's enormous cost was a major source of the massive financial problems of the Bourbon monarchy during the next generation which made a major contribution to the outbreak of the French Revolution of 1789.

Bibliography

* Dorn, W. L., Competition for Empire, 1740-1763 (New York, 1940).
* Duffy, Christopher, Frederick the Great: A Military Life (London, 1985).
* Middleton, Richard, The Bells of Victory: The Pitt-Newcastle Ministry and the Conduct of the Seven Years' War, 1757-1762 (Cambridge, 1985).
* Peters, Marie, The Elder Pitt (London, 1998).
* Showalter, Dennis E., The Wars of Frederick the Great (London, 1996)

So we're in the familiar spot of me actually providing evidence and links and everything and you using your primary debating tactic of insulting your opponent and disagreeing with them in vague ways. Gee, I didn't see that coming!

In my favourite reading of the Second Amendment, the consequence of the amendment is accepted. One does not have a right to bear arms in and of itself. There's no free ride. Instead, a well-regulated militia will safeguard the freedom of the state. Join, take up your responsibility in this manner, and you can be an armed citizen.

I'm afraid that's the wrong reading. The people who wrote the amendment did not think of the militia as something you joined, but something that you (well, all adult males, but in these progressive times we could surely include all adults) were a part of. The militia isn't the army or the national guard.

CR

Reverend Joe

06-08-2009, 18:12

This is the interpretation in places like Switzerland. A conscription army, made up of citizens. And those that have joined have the right (and the duty) to be an armed citizen.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I agree with the premise of this thread. Of all the pro-gun arguments, the argument that it protects against tyranny is the weakest.
I think, Louis, that you have a point. However, I would clarify it with what Rabbit said:

I'm afraid that's the wrong reading. The people who wrote the amendment did not think of the militia as something you joined, but something that you (well, all adult males, but in these progressive times we could surely include all adults) were a part of. The militia isn't the army or the national guard.

CR
On the other hand, though, I am bothered by people who wantonly hoard guns in some misguided attempt to "protect" themselves. While I agree that the "Militia" is simply the armed populace as a whole, I also think that people have a responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm. They should know, for example, how to use it properly, and how to defend themselves properly.

The best way to ensure this, in my view, is to have voluntary firearms training classes, preferably hosted by people who know what the hell they're talking about. In return, these classes could be Government-funded, and the people who attend them could expect some kind of reward from the Government; say, a Jury-style payment for attending the classes at night, or a tax credit. Again, they should be voluntary, because mandatory classes will be another loophole allowing the Government to restrict gun ownership through burdensome regulation. Hopefully, though, these classes would encourage the Militia to be "well-regulated."

Another way in which the "well-regulated" doctrine could be upheld is by offering further classes on irregular warfare. These, predictably, would not be affiliated with the government, but they would provide those interested in fullfilling their duties as members of the militia with the knowledge of how to properly engage in warfare, whether as the result of an invading foreign power or as the result of a civil war or insurrection. I know, it sounds ridiculous and slightly dangerous to arm the people against the government, but better that the people at least have a chance, so that the government will always have that doubt in mind when trying to strip people of their rights.

Tribesman

06-08-2009, 21:04

Ah - again you dodge the issue of whether whether France or Britain was better off.
So you are having difficulty reading .

You think I give a care about what you think.

The problem here Rabbit is that you are unable to think and are far too wrapped up in the militia myth to see anything.
Britain financed another countries war and didn't get its money back .
Britain gained some "assets" that were very very expensive to maintain so they "won" a liabilty , it was the effort of trying to secure those "assets" plus the loss of the loans that left Britain worse off.

Ariovistus Maximus

06-09-2009, 01:16

@ LittleGrizzly:

Perhaps we should all remember that you are from U.K.

So U.K.'s political climate is hardly a convincing argument for greater gun control in the U.S.

Perhaps British women couldn't care less about guns. In the U.S., the movement is growing rapidly.

Anyways, LG, you are a great deal more reasonable than some gun control proponents, and have presented your case very well. :bow:

Smilies don't seem to be working , so I laugh my arse off in the face of your pathetic nonsense that has no relation to historical reality .

OK I have to confess that in all honesty I found this to be hilariously funny, even though when I consider the context it is rather pointless. Not a viable argument, but when taken by itself, quite funny.

So, Tribesman, tell you what; we'll give you one count.

Since the U.S. won the war, it was more powerful than G.B.

However, that needs to be conditioned BIG TIME.

The American force was ultimately more powerful that the force that Britain sent over.

Overall, however, G.B. completely dwarfed the colonies in every way.

Thus, the observation that the British weren't technically the most powerful nation in the world is completely semantic in nature; a play with words.

And even if G.B. HADN'T been "most powerful" it isn't as if the colonies were even in the top 10!!!

However you look at it, the colonists schooled a much tougher power.

And again (moving away from the revolution) I remind you all that the Japanese avoided an invasion of Continental U.S. because so many people carried guns. That is only 60-some years ago. ;)

Although the armed citizenry might not win in the end, is that a reason for not trying???

Just the fact that we MIGHT try is enough to discourage the power-hungry, if for nothing more than the massive inconvenience it will cause him.

Crazed Rabbit

06-09-2009, 01:41

On the other hand, though, I am bothered by people who wantonly hoard guns in some misguided attempt to "protect" themselves. While I agree that the "Militia" is simply the armed populace as a whole, I also think that people have a responsibility that comes with carrying a firearm. They should know, for example, how to use it properly, and how to defend themselves properly.

In my experience, most people with large amounts of firearms tend to know a lot about using them. Indeed, knowing how to use them and taking them to the range is the appeal of owning many firearms.

The best way to ensure this, in my view, is to have voluntary firearms training classes, preferably hosted by people who know what the hell they're talking about. ...

Another way in which the "well-regulated" doctrine could be upheld is by offering further classes on irregular warfare. ...

Sounds good to me.

CR

Ariovistus Maximus

06-09-2009, 02:12

In my experience, most people with large amounts of firearms tend to know a lot about using them. Indeed, knowing how to use them and taking them to the range is the appeal of owning many firearms.

Yes.

The people who are most afraid of guns have hardly even touched one before.

Quite simple, really. Ignorance of anything usually leads you to be cautious or even scared of it.

Also, people have taken Hollywood and mainstream media hook, line, and sinker.

People with guns do NOT behave like Bruce Willis. People are so saturated with television that they actually start to believe it.

And do you know why shootings are in the news?

Because they're relatively rare!!! Do you wonder why they don't televise every automotive death? Because there are so many! The news shows you what is unusual because it will capture your interest.

So they won't tell you about the 1000s of car accidents this year; they'll tell you about the 100-odd people that have been murdered with "assault" weapons this year.

And they don't very often mention any of the approximately 20000 people who use guns in home defense (in the US) annually.

Ariovistus Maximus

06-09-2009, 02:15

Another way in which the "well-regulated" doctrine could be upheld is by offering further classes on irregular warfare. ...

Ironically, this will never happen because the government is too scared that such things would weaken its control over the people.

As far as gun classes, why don't they standardize them? Almost like driver's ed.

Of course, if people knew more about guns, they wouldn't be swayed so easily by the mind-numbing spam put out by news services...

Evil_Maniac From Mars

06-09-2009, 02:37

Once again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Tribesman

06-09-2009, 14:49

And again (moving away from the revolution) I remind you all that the Japanese avoided an invasion of Continental U.S. because so many people carried guns. That is only 60-some years ago. ;)

Thats another myth. The Japanese never had the logistical capabilty to even attempt such an invasion.
But apart from that nugget a decent post Maximus .
One question though , did Brazil defeat the one of the most powerful nations in the 1940s ? Or was its actual contribution pretty negligable since it had the aid of several global superpowers?
Bit like the militia isn't it.
Oh and just curious . Why are your approximate annual home defence figures only a miniscule tiny fraction of those which Rabbit frequently has claimed occur.

KukriKhan

06-09-2009, 15:11

Thats another myth.

Not to interrupt, but as a side-point, I think you 'misunderestimate' the value of "myth". Myth does not always = Lie.

Ariovistus Maximus

06-09-2009, 16:18

Thats another myth. The Japanese never had the logistical capabilty to even attempt such an invasion.
But apart from that nugget a decent post Maximus .

Hmmm; I guess we get into epistemology a bit there because we seem to doubt each others' sources of knowledge.

One question though , did Brazil defeat the one of the most powerful nations in the 1940s ? Or was its actual contribution pretty negligable since it had the aid of several global superpowers?
Bit like the militia isn't it.

This is a skillful use of comparison on your part, however it is rather inconsistent:

The US had no other allies beyond perhaps those who sympathized with their cause. No other major nation did anything.

Also, the war was FOUGHT in the US, and the US INITIATED the war.

In 1776, it was the US (let's say for example, 20th overall in the global scale of military capacity), and France (2nd at the very best, and I wouldn't necessarily rate France over Prussia or Russia without a lot of research).

Now, to the comparison:

Brazil declared war in 1944 I think, well after the outcome was largely decided. i.e., after they didn't have to worry about being punished for siding against Germany (no offence Brazilians).

Also, there was no fighting that I've ever heard of that occurred in S. America that was directly related to WWII.

So Brazil was completely out of the fighting; obviously a massive inconsistency.

Lastly, Brazil fought alongside 45 other countries, including the US, GB, USSR, France, China, India, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Greece, Norway, the Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Philippines, and Italy (switched sides in '44 or '45).

The Axis Powers consisted of Germany, Italy, Japan, Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland, and Siam. Most of these had been defeated already by the time of Brazil's entry.

Therefore, making this comparison is like saying that sleeping in a garage makes you a car.

Oh and just curious . Why are your approximate annual home defence figures only a miniscule tiny fraction of those which Rabbit frequently has claimed occur.

Because government would rather scan for aliens, whine about carbon emissions, and kow-tow to terrorists than fulfill its roll of protecting its citizens?

Beats me.

Tribesman

06-09-2009, 20:31

Hmmm; I guess we get into epistemology a bit there because we seem to doubt each others' sources of knowledge.

The eastern plans never encompassed anything beyond the Western Aleutians , Hawai and Johnson island were included as possible outposts for a while but in reality were well beyond the Japanese capabilities for them to be remotely sustainable .

The US had no other allies beyond perhaps those who sympathized with their cause. No other major nation did anything.

Ah but they did , France and Spain were assisting them from the very start

Reverend Joe

06-09-2009, 21:43

Once again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

I find it amusing that two bizarre magicians have said some of the most intelligent stuff I have ever heard.

Major Robert Dump

06-11-2009, 01:49

I find it amusing that two bizarre magicians have said some of the most intelligent stuff I have ever heard.

Penn & Teller did like a lot of "pundits" and got their foot in the door by being entertainers, then once they had a fan base, started in with the politics and investigative journalism.

Penn and Tellers "bull****" series is actually one of the most consistent, entertaining, politically incorrect programs I have ever see. They call a spade a spade, even if I don't always agree with them. I do, however, feel they have a bit of libertarian tilt, which really turns me on. I particulalry liked their program on PETAs hypocrisy, alternative medicine and the green movement.

On a side note, they ruined my honeymoon. There we were, in the hotel room, my wife never having seen an episode, and i see one is coming on so I convince her to watch it with me. Turns out to be the episode that argues porn is not bad....first 10 minutes about 5000 breasts and lots of talk of cheap sex etc.....had to turn the channel...wife hates me.....