The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Not all guns should be registered, in my opinion.

---

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

Quote:

---

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.]

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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

Quote:

---

This thread is why I don't like to post in the Backroom anymore

---

I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

you have to pass a background check.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

But then couldn't anyone buy a gun?

---

This is your answer:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ||Lz3||

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

: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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I didn't realise you posted in the backroom anyway

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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!

@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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

@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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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:

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

:beadyeyes2:

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

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil Maniac

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 ?

---

France? Do I get a cookie?

[QUOTE=PowerWizard;2249377]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.

Quote:

---

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!!!"

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

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...

Quote:

---

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:

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

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!

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ariovistus Maximus

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.

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...

nvm

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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...

You live in the UK?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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:

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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

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.

: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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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

---

No that isn't the arguement.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

---

What is the nature of warfare today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

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...

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:

Quote:

---

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. Women who don't share your often laughable and sometimes disturbing phobia of firearms.

Sensible women.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

No that isn't the arguement.

---

Well then, thanks for wasting my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

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!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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....

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

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

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. 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...

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

---

Didn't Britain win Quebec and other areas from the French, and several Caribbean islands from the Spanish? I remember coming across this in my history course, since it led to some government-backed emigration from Scotland to those newly-acquired regions in order to form strategic settlements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

Quote:

---

Didn't Britain win Quebec and other areas from the French, and several Caribbean islands from the Spanish?

---

Yes and no .

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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.

Quote:

---

Ah - again you dodge the issue of whether whether France or Britain was better off.

---

So you are having difficulty reading .

Quote:

---

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.

@ 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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

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.

Quote:

---

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