• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:35
CEST 03:35
KST 10:35
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202561RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update The StarCraft 2 GOAT - An in-depth analysis The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time EWC 2025 details: $700k total prize; GSL, DH Dallas confirmed
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 684 users

Heller vs. DC Decision - Page 7

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 11 Next All
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
June 27 2008 15:12 GMT
#121
Shit. With all those criminals out there armed with handguns I'm going to need an automatic rifle to defend myself. But what if they get one too.... Maybe a rocket launcher would do the trick. There again, if I can get one of those legally so can criminals. There is only one solution, plant a nuke under every city and give each citizen remote access to the nuke beneath their city. Nobody would dare touch you because with your dying breath you'd take them (and everyone else in the city) with you. This therefore solves the problem of murder.
Unless of course a madman or a criminal got their hands on the trigger and just detonated it for V Tech style thrills. But these are criminals we're talking about. They don't obey the laws preventing law abiding men from accessing nukes because they have level 18 criminal powers. So they're going to nuke us whether us citizens have access to nukes or not. All these weapon control laws are doing is denying honest citizens the opportunity to defend themselves.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Jibba
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States22883 Posts
June 27 2008 15:18 GMT
#122
On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2008 22:23 Jibba wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:56 Funchucks wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix.


If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols
Sounds good to me.

If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment.

That too.

In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance."

I read it all. Somehow "conventional hunting equipment" doesn't make a compelling argument.
ModeratorNow I'm distant, dark in this anthrobeat
Funchucks
Profile Joined June 2007
Canada2113 Posts
June 27 2008 15:29 GMT
#123
On June 28 2008 00:18 Jibba wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:
On June 27 2008 22:23 Jibba wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:56 Funchucks wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix.


If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols
Sounds good to me.

If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment.

That too.

In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance."

I read it all. Somehow "conventional hunting equipment" doesn't make a compelling argument.

First of all, you're dodging the "semi-automatic pistol = safer than the alternative" argument.

Secondly, you're not addressing the "semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have only a slightly faster rate of fire than the alternative" argument. You apparently have no trouble advocating the confiscation of a whole category of legitimate sporting equipment which is very rarely used in crime and does not make criminals significantly more effective or dangerous.
I serve my houseguests slices of butter.
Haemonculus
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States6980 Posts
June 27 2008 16:08 GMT
#124


I <3 WKUK
I admire your commitment to being *very* oily
rpf
Profile Blog Joined January 2007
United States2705 Posts
June 27 2008 16:10 GMT
#125
On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2008 22:23 Jibba wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:56 Funchucks wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix.


If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols
Sounds good to me.

If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment.

That too.

In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance."

You catch on quick.
On June 27 2008 17:46 zatic wrote:
"Gun Control: It worked for Hitler and the KKK!"
This is so unbelievably stupid. You can do much better I think.

How is it stupid? It did work for them Hitler slaughtered people en masse after disarming them, and the KKK pushed for gun control laws to disarm African-Americans so they could lynch them without resistance.

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.


On June 27 2008 17:46 zatic wrote:
I am rather indifferent to gun control. However, rpf, can you please give me your position on the following reasoning:

If a criminal watches me getting money from an ATM and now wants to rob me, he will probably threaten me with whatever weapon he has and take my money. I am unarmed, robbed, alive.
Now, if the mugger has good reason to assume I am armed and trained to use a gun, why would he take chances? He will stab/shoot me in the back straight away and take my money. I am armed, robbed, dead.

Essentially, this assumes that if there is gun control, an illegally armed criminal feels he has the upper hand and can use thread instead of actual violence. Please don't give me counter examples where I could have shot the criminal but address this specific point.
You contradict yourself a little bit.

Either you're carrying concealed or you're open carrying. If the former, the robber doesn't know if you're armed at all, and if the latter, they know you're carrying.

Now, I don't claim to know how criminals think, but I highly doubt one of them is going to commit murder for the money you just got out of the ATM to go to the movies.

Besides, you can't use deadly force to defend property, and they know that.

I understand the point you're getting at, but then again, carrying a sidearm has little to do with stopping crime. It's about having the option to defend yourself if needed. If you're unarmed, and someone tries to kill you, you're fucked--plain and simple. If you're armed, at least you can try. It doesn't guarantee you'll live, or won't be seriously injured, but you can try.

On June 27 2008 21:29 AdamBanks wrote:
@ rpf

I didnt say if you don't think like me your wrong. I said if you think/believe something incorrectly you are wrong.
As for defending youself, we don't need guns to do that. Thats been proven numerous times.

Who's protecting criminals and how are they doing it ? you think stricter gun laws protect criminals ? hardly....usually stricter laws make it more difficult to be a criminal; speaking from personal experience.

You love guns, its cool and im alright with that. But honestly do you really believe that without guns you would be worse off? I doubt it, having a gun doesnt make it less likely your gonna get robbed or shot, it just means you have the option to get in a gunfight, or to kill some tweeked out crack head. Your no safer, its all in your head.

You don't NEED a gun to defend yourself, but it's a fuckload better than the obligatory baseball bat behind your bedroom door that's used to go investigate the sounds in the kitchen.

Without guns, we'd just be another disarmed society. Right now, the UK, a couple of other countries in Europe and N. Korea, if I remember correctly, are the only societies that have been disarmed. The others are long gone, since they were massacred. No thanks.

Oh, and I'm not sure what you don't understand about "dead guy no kill me." If someone tries to kill me, I'm going to try to kill him first (which is perfectly within the law). If he's dead, he can't kill me.

Guns don't make you safe at all--they just give you the ability to fight back on even ground. A 115 lb. woman can't fight off a 250 lb. rapist--but a .38 +P to the cranium will.

On June 27 2008 22:24 Jibba wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 27 2008 17:10 rpf wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
Not to mention the issue of gun shows, and not the totally awesome kind.

What issue? I see you've fallen victim to rumors spread intentionally by the Brady Campaign. There is no "gun show issue."

Moron. Dense moron. It was a reason to post the Todd. And private sales do occur at gun shows, classified, etc. They are a problem.

Wrong. Oh, how I love ignorance.

Private sales are LEGAL.

/palmface

On June 28 2008 00:12 Kwark wrote:
Shit. With all those criminals out there armed with handguns I'm going to need an automatic rifle to defend myself. But what if they get one too.... Maybe a rocket launcher would do the trick. There again, if I can get one of those legally so can criminals. There is only one solution, plant a nuke under every city and give each citizen remote access to the nuke beneath their city. Nobody would dare touch you because with your dying breath you'd take them (and everyone else in the city) with you. This therefore solves the problem of murder.
Unless of course a madman or a criminal got their hands on the trigger and just detonated it for V Tech style thrills. But these are criminals we're talking about. They don't obey the laws preventing law abiding men from accessing nukes because they have level 18 criminal powers. So they're going to nuke us whether us citizens have access to nukes or not. All these weapon control laws are doing is denying honest citizens the opportunity to defend themselves.

I would respond, but I noticed you're from the UK, which means you voluntarily allowed yourself to be disarmed.

If you're ever invaded, or subject to the will of a tyrannical leader, don't call us.

On June 28 2008 00:29 Funchucks wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 28 2008 00:18 Jibba wrote:
On June 28 2008 00:08 Funchucks wrote:
On June 27 2008 22:23 Jibba wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:56 Funchucks wrote:
On June 27 2008 14:06 Jibba wrote:
The underlying problems in D.C. and other super heavy crime cities need to be addresses, but overall throughout the country I think there's a lot less bad guys than people believe and I still don't see how semi-automatic weapons fit into the mix.


If you're specifically against semi-automatic pistols
Sounds good to me.

If you're specifically against semi-automatic rifles or shotguns, you're against very conventional and common hunting equipment.

That too.

In other words, "I didn't read any of it, am not interested in hearing any facts that will make anything I said seem foolish, and will continue to hold views based on ignorance."

I read it all. Somehow "conventional hunting equipment" doesn't make a compelling argument.

First of all, you're dodging the "semi-automatic pistol = safer than the alternative" argument.

Secondly, you're not addressing the "semi-automatic rifles and shotguns have only a slightly faster rate of fire than the alternative" argument. You apparently have no trouble advocating the confiscation of a whole category of legitimate sporting equipment which is very rarely used in crime and does not make criminals significantly more effective or dangerous.

Well, Jibba doesn't understand any of what you said. He thinks any firearm is a threat to society purely for existing. He makes no distinction between the law-abiding and the criminals.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
a-game
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
Canada5085 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-06-27 16:31:35
June 27 2008 16:28 GMT
#126
rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country?

the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive (i'm not suggesting the alive scenario is better) and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours?
you wouldnt feel that way if it was your magical sword of mantouchery that got stolen - racebannon • I am merely guest #13,678!
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
June 27 2008 16:31 GMT
#127
lol

rpf is rising quickly on the cute meter
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
June 27 2008 16:34 GMT
#128
If we're ever invaded I'll be sure to leave it to the professionals to do the shooting. Or if needed, I'll sign up. The idea that in this day and age the average civilian needs to stroll around his town with a gun on the off chance that the redcoats attack is a little silly. I think it safe to conclude that the liklihood of your town being on the front line of a war with the army nowhere to be found is relatively low.
As for tyrannical leaders, an advantage of being the country with the finest democratic tradition in the world with the most stable and effective democracy is that it just doesn't come up much. And to be honest, it hasn't for you. The 13 colonies enjoyed a per capita income higher than England at the time of the rebellion and paid roughly 5% of the tax of your English equivalents. It was never a question of tyranny, it was a question of Government style. Our Parliament in Westminster is a Unitary body, ie it is the sole lawmaking body in the United Kingdom from which all other bodies draw their authority. Documents like the Magna Carta enshrined this. However in emulating the British democracy the colonies were attempting to Federate, ie have a separate body of lawmaking within England. It's one of the ironies of the American Revolution. It was not about taxation, nor about tyranny but rather about a constitutional quirk in which the childs attempt to mimic the father forced them into conflict.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Mindcrime
Profile Joined July 2004
United States6899 Posts
June 27 2008 16:35 GMT
#129
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country?

the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours?


The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR.
That wasn't any act of God. That was an act of pure human fuckery.
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-06-27 16:45:57
June 27 2008 16:39 GMT
#130
On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country?

the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours?


The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR.

The USSR weren't really trying and the militias were being armed by Western powers (they didn't have those Stinger missiles for duck hunting). If it came down to it they could have killed every man, woman and child in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks. If you're really trying to suggest that a modern army would be stopped by hunting rifles and handguns you're delusional. For the "armed citizens are useful in defence" argument to hold any water then they need to have access to the latest weaponry. Tanks, aircraft, missiles and all. They had unlimited access at the time the constitution was made and it was the intent of the writers that they should have. So to use the defence argument you need to be in favour of absolutely unrestricted access to military hardware.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Ghin
Profile Blog Joined January 2005
United States2391 Posts
June 27 2008 16:39 GMT
#131
On June 28 2008 01:31 oneofthem wrote:
lol

rpf is rising quickly on the cute meter


you are probably the biggest troll on this forum and i have no idea why you arent banned.

everything you post is total nonsense
Legalize drugs and murder.
Mindcrime
Profile Joined July 2004
United States6899 Posts
June 27 2008 16:51 GMT
#132
On June 28 2008 01:39 Kwark wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote:
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country?

the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours?


The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR.

The USSR weren't really trying and the militias were being armed by Western powers (they didn't have those Stinger missiles for duck hunting). If it came down to it they could have killed every man, woman and child in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks.


And why didn't they? The answer is that the price was too high.

That wasn't any act of God. That was an act of pure human fuckery.
a-game
Profile Blog Joined December 2004
Canada5085 Posts
June 27 2008 16:55 GMT
#133
On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country?

the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours?


The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR.

ok well i think there's a difference between an "armed" western civilian who values life and an RPG-wielding jihadist lol.
you wouldnt feel that way if it was your magical sword of mantouchery that got stolen - racebannon • I am merely guest #13,678!
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
June 27 2008 16:57 GMT
#134
On June 28 2008 01:39 Ghin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 28 2008 01:31 oneofthem wrote:
lol

rpf is rising quickly on the cute meter


you are probably the biggest troll on this forum and i have no idea why you arent banned.

everything you post is total nonsense

brilliant. how can i argue against that
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
June 27 2008 17:00 GMT
#135
On June 28 2008 01:51 Mindcrime wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 28 2008 01:39 Kwark wrote:
On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote:
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country?

the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours?


The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR.

The USSR weren't really trying and the militias were being armed by Western powers (they didn't have those Stinger missiles for duck hunting). If it came down to it they could have killed every man, woman and child in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks.


And why didn't they? The answer is that the price was too high.



In what? They could bomb every town to rubble without losing a single man to handguns. They could drive their tanks over everyone. Or they could just utilise a few nukes. The cost certainly would not have been too high in Soviet dead. The problem was that committing genocide was not in the interests of the Soviets, just as it is not in the interests of the Americans in Iraq. But don't confuse unwillingness to win with inability. And don't for one minute think that fear of a man wielding a shotgun is what stopped them from genocide.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-06-27 17:07:55
June 27 2008 17:07 GMT
#136
Basically, a legally armed militia is a threat only to an invading power who is reluctant to hit you very hard and is armed with technology that would put WW2 powers to shame. And when you're relying more on the good will of your invaders than upon your own threat for victory it's rather less impressive. Of course an illegally armed militia, say with main battle tanks and a smattering of artillery would be far easier to justify for defence. Throw in a few helicopter gunships and a few years military training and I'd think twice before invading. But there again they already did that. It's called the army and you have one.

In short, there is absolutely no defence justification for a militia.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Mindcrime
Profile Joined July 2004
United States6899 Posts
June 27 2008 17:10 GMT
#137
On June 28 2008 02:00 Kwark wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 28 2008 01:51 Mindcrime wrote:
On June 28 2008 01:39 Kwark wrote:
On June 28 2008 01:35 Mindcrime wrote:
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
rpf are you trying to say that owning firearms will prevent you from being ruled by a tyrannical leader, or will prevent nations from successfully militarily invading your country?

the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.

i'm not saying there's no merit to being a prickly cactus rather than easy pickings, but are you somehow under the impression that you owning a firearm is going to prevent a military from ultimately doing whatever the heck it wants to you and your neighbours?


The militias in Afghanistan weren't crushed by the USSR.

The USSR weren't really trying and the militias were being armed by Western powers (they didn't have those Stinger missiles for duck hunting). If it came down to it they could have killed every man, woman and child in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks.


And why didn't they? The answer is that the price was too high.



In what? They could bomb every town to rubble without losing a single man to handguns. They could drive their tanks over everyone. Or they could just utilise a few nukes. The cost certainly would not have been too high in Soviet dead. The problem was that committing genocide was not in the interests of the Soviets, just as it is not in the interests of the Americans in Iraq. But don't confuse unwillingness to win with inability. And don't for one minute think that fear of a man wielding a shotgun is what stopped them from genocide.


Who said anything about inability?
That wasn't any act of God. That was an act of pure human fuckery.
Funchucks
Profile Joined June 2007
Canada2113 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-06-27 20:10:17
June 27 2008 17:16 GMT
#138
On June 28 2008 01:34 Kwark wrote:
It's one of the ironies of the American Revolution. It was not about taxation, nor about tyranny but rather about a constitutional quirk in which the childs attempt to mimic the father forced them into conflict.

I don't think it was that simple.

There were four great profits in the American Revolution:
1) no more drain of taxation to be spent outside of America
2) repudiation of debts (esp. to the Crown)
3) "manifest destiny" - the freedom of powerful Americans to slice up the rest of the continent for themselves
4) security of human property

As I understand it, the British government was in a state of financial trouble and moral upheaval. Taxes were likely to rise, slaves were in danger of being freed, debts were being called in, and a moratorium was placed on expansion into indian territory (less out of moral concerns or respect for treaties, and more out of fear of the cost of a frontier war).

People whose families had gone to America full of ambition and dreams of unlimited scope were being reined in and harnessed up to help solve the problems of the Motherland, and to respect its changing moral standards (which were gradually shifting against colonialism and slavery).

They weren't willing to accept that. They tried to solve it by gaining more government influence, and were stubbornly treated as mere subordinates. Since neither side would give way, rebellion followed.
I serve my houseguests slices of butter.
Funchucks
Profile Joined June 2007
Canada2113 Posts
June 27 2008 17:44 GMT
#139
On June 28 2008 02:07 Kwark wrote:
Basically, a legally armed militia is a threat only to an invading power who is reluctant to hit you very hard and is armed with technology that would put WW2 powers to shame. And when you're relying more on the good will of your invaders than upon your own threat for victory it's rather less impressive. Of course an illegally armed militia, say with main battle tanks and a smattering of artillery would be far easier to justify for defence. Throw in a few helicopter gunships and a few years military training and I'd think twice before invading. But there again they already did that. It's called the army and you have one.

In short, there is absolutely no defence justification for a militia.

An army fights in uniform and is non-productive. It can be eliminated without harming the value of the country it defends.

An armed populace (militia, in the constitutional parlance) stubbornly opposed to occupation makes control of settled areas infeasible and rural areas hazardous. There's a sniper in every window. You'd have to depopulate the area to get any profit out of it, and that would:
a) be very expensive,
b) destroy most of the value of a country, and
c) unite most of the world against you for your demonic inhumanity.
I serve my houseguests slices of butter.
BlackJack
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States10495 Posts
June 27 2008 18:48 GMT
#140
On June 28 2008 01:28 a-game wrote:
the only difference between an armed populace and an unarmed populace in those scenarios would be that the unarmed populace would be alive (i'm not suggesting the alive scenario is better) and occupied whereas the armed populace would be dead. a motley assortment of citizens bearing firearms won't actually successfully stand up to a military you do realize - they'd simply be a bit more of a nuisance to succumb.


I bet our military is wishing the insurgents in Iraq shared your beliefs hehe
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 11 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 8h 25m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 166
RuFF_SC2 44
Vindicta 42
NoRegreT_ 36
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3491
Sexy 26
Terrorterran 7
Icarus 6
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1059
Counter-Strike
Fnx 2572
Stewie2K543
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King201
Other Games
summit1g12316
tarik_tv11427
shahzam563
C9.Mang0222
ViBE213
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick880
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 81
• davetesta36
• RyuSc2 26
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 77
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4443
• Stunt149
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
8h 25m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
12h 25m
CSO Cup
14h 25m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
16h 25m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 7h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 12h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 16h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.