|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2012 06:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not. In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war.
Again, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the recent civilian uprisings in the middle east say otherwise.
|
On February 20 2012 06:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
[...]
Ah, sorry nevermind, i made a mistake. I thought you were on the pro-gun site. I guess i need to take a break after reading so much.
Still, i will use this space to say that im really glad to live in a society where guns dont happen to be in my daily life. I dont really need to worry about meeting a burglar with a gun or being accidently shot on my way home at night because they thought i was a thief or something.
On February 20 2012 04:29 Chanted wrote:
I think people in the US are stuck in a "loop" that us europeans probably really cannot understand. In Norway nobody I know owns a gun, maybe one or 2 have hunting weapons, but I cant think of anyone I know who has a gun. The knowledge that (almost) nobody owns a gun here, makes it alot easier for us.
I think that in the US, safety is tied up to owning a gun, and also the knowledge that "everyone" has a gun making it harder to be that person who says, oh lets try and change this, I dont need a gun, only to get gunned down or shot in his home by a criminal.
I think Chanted has a point there.
|
On February 20 2012 06:43 TheDraken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
wow. thats a insane argument.
1. you get armed for the case of fighting your gov in case of a civil war? seriously how paranoid are you?
2. its pointless. there is one thing that keeps the military from crushing all kinds of revolts : morals and the rest of the world. do you really think a few rifles will change ANYTHING against a military that can make your whole city a flat surface within 30 minutes?
um, since the running theme for our country for the past 300 years has been throwing up a middle finger to the big man? culturally america touts personal independence, and that includes independence from some government bureaucrat telling you what to do. plus, there's something that feels very american about owning a rifle. like a good old M1 might as well have a decal of an eagle with AMERICA FUCK YEAH seared into its chest. it's a culture thing. and i don't get why people keep saying we only have a "few" rifles. we own TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY MILLION firearms. that's 270,000,000 guns as of 2010. the american military owns 4 million. sure they have shit like tanks and stuff, but i almost guarantee we have rednecks stocked with RPGs and grenades.
i fully realize its a cultural thing. thats why i wrote in my first post here that its pointless to argue about this again anyways. but still its always a hot topic so im still here ~~
about the rednecks and tanks.. well i dont know. but a tank is truly something scary.
On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is.
well its a different situation and "hold" depends on how you wanna look at it. its almost impossible to fully control a country ,esp at such a remote location. also as i said before morals and the rest of the world looking is still the strongest defense for civilians in a military vs rest situation.
if we ignore any hesitation caused by morals and potential punishmend by other countries and add that we are talking about the strongest military force in the world fighting on home turf against mostly untrained civilians without any heavy armor or aircraft(or AA) i dont think its even close. how long do you think a bunch of modern bombers/choppers need to completly destroy the average 25k people town?
its not a question if they can, its just a question how far the military would go to win.
|
On February 20 2012 06:50 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. ok every country who has ever attempted to occupy afghanistan has failed... i don't really think it's a good benchmark for military prowess.. that said, no one wants revolution in the US, luckily for the world it will never happen
Alexander the Great was the only successful conquer of the Afghanistan region, and he succeeded through mass genocide of the populace. That alone should have tipped people off that it's not an easily conquerable land. So it IS doable...but not reasonable in modern terms.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On February 20 2012 06:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not. In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war.
I don't disagree - what you are saying only enforces my viewpoint anyway.
On remark though: There is no true modern war outside of computer games and Tom Clancy novels. There is only asymmetrical warfare. Which over the last 70 years scores at something like 90-2 for the "weaker" side, and there is every reason to assume a government turning tyrannical against an armed people would make that 91-2.
|
On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is.
Those same afghans were getting completely butchered by russians until appropriately armed in their last war. And the death ratio of soldier to afghan enemy is orders of magnitude larger than during the american revolution. Ultimately any civil war in US would be decided by the international armies or diplomacy rather than militias. Millitary technology has rendered personally armed militias obsolete.
|
On February 20 2012 06:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not. In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war. Again, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the recent civilian uprisings in the middle east say otherwise.
They don't "say" what you're implying. All that is shown is that a civilian uprising can't be quelled by simply having an army present. This isn't rocket science. But what does that matter? That same argument could be made for a population who had nothing bot molatov cocktails. If a group is bent on putting up resistance, short of wiping everybody out (which isn't something normally done outside of genocides), it cant be done. Weaponry has little to do with that, but rather ideals.
As for those middle east uprisings, they say EXACTLY what I am trying to say. It's up to the military to defy orders to turn against the population.
|
On February 20 2012 06:51 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:43 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 06:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
wow. thats a insane argument.
1. you get armed for the case of fighting your gov in case of a civil war? seriously how paranoid are you?
2. its pointless. there is one thing that keeps the military from crushing all kinds of revolts : morals and the rest of the world. do you really think a few rifles will change ANYTHING against a military that can make your whole city a flat surface within 30 minutes?
um, since the running theme for our country for the past 300 years has been throwing up a middle finger to the big man? culturally america touts personal independence, and that includes independence from some government bureaucrat telling you what to do. plus, there's something that feels very american about owning a rifle. like a good old M1 might as well have a decal of an eagle with AMERICA FUCK YEAH seared into its chest. it's a culture thing. and i don't get why people keep saying we only have a "few" rifles. we own TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY MILLION firearms. that's 270,000,000 guns as of 2010. the american military owns 4 million. sure they have shit like tanks and stuff, but i almost guarantee we have rednecks stocked with RPGs and grenades. i fully realize its a cultural thing. thats why i wrote in my first post here that its pointless to argue about this again anyways. but still its always a hot topic so im still here ~~ about the rednecks and tanks.. well i dont know. but a tank is truly something scary. Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. well its a different situation and "hold" depends on how you wanna look at it. its almost impossible to fully control a country ,esp at such a remote location. also as i said before morals and the rest of the world looking is still the strongest defense for civilians in a military vs rest situation. if we ignore any hesitation caused by morals and potential punishmend by other countries and add that we are talking about the strongest military force in the world fighting on home turf against mostly untrained civilians without any heavy armor or aircraft(or AA) i dont think its even close. how long do you think a bunch of modern bombers/choppers need to completly destroy the average 25k people town? its not a question if they can, its just a question how far the military would go to win.
Its not about whether they have morals weak enough to butcher civilians, its a matter of if that fits with their end-game. Do they want to control the country? Of course they do, otherwise they wouldn't be oppressing it in the first place. If they want to control it, they have NOTHING to gain by blowing it all up. They CANNOT bring their full capability to bear, because if they did they would also be destroying everything they hoped to gain.
|
On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:
Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is.
Not sure what Syria is up to but our mighty US army is busy trying to win the hearts and mind of people. If the mission is "go kill everyone" and crush their army, Afghanistan will be looking very different. In fact, the army probably will barely be in there, the airforce would have leveled most of the country by now.
In a civil war, it gets ugly and people be killing and dying. Most of the "rednecks" with a basement with enough arms to overthrow most third world countries do not live in strategic areas that factions will be trying to control, those will be the major metropolitan areas, probably DC specifically. But the US military shooting other Americans in an organized faction is not likely. They are more likely to desert and join their faction of choice rather then mobilizing entirely for one side. The regular army is not allowed to deploy in the US without approval, the National Guard can though but most of them are already home so they will be joining whatever faction their hometown sides with. The regular US army is a hodgepodge of people from all over the nation, so when given conflicting orders (either by their superiors or they feel are unlawful) it is unlikely they will be following the orders of a government that has lost the confidence of the people. At worst they will return home to vote and at best, simply stay in garrison, lock it down, and await orders that make sense.
Should Americans have weapons in event of a civil war/homeland invasion/2012/zombie apocalypse? I say rather be prepared then sorry.
|
On February 20 2012 02:53 Hertzy wrote:
I personally believe that, in a perfect world, the law enforcement alone would be capable of wielding all the violence needed to keep society safe.
The whole point of people having guns is to defend themselves in the event that law enforcement becomes corrupt and turns against us. At least that's the idea in America. If the government gets too full of themselves, the people need to be able to fight back. Our country was born from a revolution, and it will be revived by a revolution if necessary. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
|
Of course, it's not a question in my mind. For any Canadians who aren't aware, I'm glad to inform you that we've begun the process of dismantling the gun control in this country with the ending of the long gun registry. If any Canadians are against our insane gun laws, you should make sure this success isn't the last and write to your MPs as well as donate to Canadian pro-gun organizations. Unfortunately, the Conservatives, still aren't supporting gun rights on a philosophical level, but hopefully we can convince them, as well as Canadians otherwise.
|
On February 20 2012 06:54 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not. In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war. I don't disagree - what you are saying only enforces my viewpoint anyway. On remark though: There is no true modern war outside of computer games and Tom Clancy novels. There is only asymmetrical warfare. Which over the last 70 years scores at something like 90-2 for the "weaker" side, and there is every reason to assume a government turning tyrannical against an armed people would make that 91-2.
Once again, it depends on what "winning" means. A government, ultimately, can not suppress civil unrest for all times. There is no model that exists for a society that can successfully do that outside of science fiction novels and movies. You could argue that North Korea is that way, but there simply too poor and starving to actively resist. And even then, there are still segments of people who try to escape, so they simply know they can't fight, but are still resisting the government's rule.
This has nothing to do with an armed citizenry though. People will resist their oppressors and this can be taken to a philosophical level, the technology which they use to resist is ultimately meaningless.
|
On February 20 2012 06:55 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:51 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 06:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not. In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war. Again, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the recent civilian uprisings in the middle east say otherwise. They don't "say" what you're implying. All that is shown is that a civilian uprising can't be quelled by simply having an army present. This isn't rocket science. But what does that matter? That same argument could be made for a population who had nothing bot molatov cocktails. If a group is bent on putting up resistance, short of wiping everybody out (which isn't something normally done outside of genocides), it cant be done. Weaponry has little to do with that, but rather ideals. As for those middle east uprisings, they say EXACTLY what I am trying to say. It's up to the military to defy orders to turn against the population.
And if that uprising can't be quelled quickly enough, the Military, with its huge logistical overhead, will be attritioned into defeat well before the populace. I agree it would take longer against a military on its home turf, but it would still happen, especially since they'd also have to defend all their production as well, unlike in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
All you have to do is put up resistance longer than the government is willing to deal with it. Add in the fact that the more they try to deal with it, the more rebels they'll breed, and you have practically the opposite of what you said. Instead of it being hopeless for the populace, its hopeless for the military. They WILL lose, it's only a matter of time.
|
On February 20 2012 07:01 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:55 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 20 2012 06:51 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 06:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not. In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war. Again, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the recent civilian uprisings in the middle east say otherwise. They don't "say" what you're implying. All that is shown is that a civilian uprising can't be quelled by simply having an army present. This isn't rocket science. But what does that matter? That same argument could be made for a population who had nothing bot molatov cocktails. If a group is bent on putting up resistance, short of wiping everybody out (which isn't something normally done outside of genocides), it cant be done. Weaponry has little to do with that, but rather ideals. As for those middle east uprisings, they say EXACTLY what I am trying to say. It's up to the military to defy orders to turn against the population. And if that uprising can't be quelled quickly enough, the Military, with its huge logistical overhead, will be attritioned into defeat well before the populace. I agree it would take longer against a military on its home turf, but it would still happen, especially since they'd also have to defend all their production as well, unlike in Afghanistan and Vietnam. All you have to do is put up resistance longer than the government is willing to deal with it. Add in the fact that the more they try to deal with it, the more rebels they'll breed, and you have practically the opposite of what you said. Instead of it being hopeless for the populace, its hopeless for the military. They WILL lose, it's only a matter of time.
Bolded for emphasis. A populace holding out against an evil government is about a will to continue fighting, the weapons they implement might be more/less damaging, but it's simply about existing. Guns are not part of that equation until you add them to it.
|
Zurich15313 Posts
On February 20 2012 06:59 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:54 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not. In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war. I don't disagree - what you are saying only enforces my viewpoint anyway. On remark though: There is no true modern war outside of computer games and Tom Clancy novels. There is only asymmetrical warfare. Which over the last 70 years scores at something like 90-2 for the "weaker" side, and there is every reason to assume a government turning tyrannical against an armed people would make that 91-2. Once again, it depends on what "winning" means. A government, ultimately, can not suppress civil unrest for all times. There is no model that exists for a society that can successfully do that outside of science fiction novels and movies. You could argue that North Korea is that way, but there simply too poor and starving to actively resist. And even then, there are still segments of people who try to escape, so they simply know they can't fight, but are still resisting the government's rule. This has nothing to do with an armed citizenry though. People will resist their oppressors and this can be taken to a philosophical level, the technology which they use to resist is ultimately meaningless.
I don't think we are really disagreeing over anything.
I also said my ideal was an armed and aware population. The "aware" part might be just more important than the stacks of guns, just as you say.
Initially I was just disagreeing with people who reject the whole idea of armed civil uprising by pointing to the prowess of the regular army, which I find absurd given the countless instances over the past 70 years where we could see how that works out.
|
I keep my savings in a safe, next to a gun. Anyone who keeps their savings in their home should have a gun. Anyone who has a family and lives in a shady area should have a gun. In my personal opinion, every American should have a gun period and be taught proper gun safety from a young age, but I can understand why some people don't want anything to do with them.
I think as long as any government is allowed to have guns, I should be able to have one too.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 20 2012 04:13 DOUDOU wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:55 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
our single greatest talent and driving force for invention and progress is, and always will be, death. how do you guys wants to get taken seriously after writing this? it's like you want everyone in the world to think that every american is a gun nutjob Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:53 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:50 Bagration wrote:
You can't ban guns across a nation as diverse in the US because of different lifestyles. A guy living in Manhattan does not really need a gun, but a guy who lives in Arctic Alaska might need a gun, especially if he needs to hunt for food. There should not be one single solution for everyone. Why wouldn't a guy living in Manhattan not need a gun? What if someone breaks into his house? What if he's walking down the street and a gang banger or mugger starts threatening him? happened to me again tuesday night far west fantasy again "i leave in the fear of everyone, so i want to be prepared to every single shit that might happen" you got life wrong Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:28 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:26 farvacola wrote:On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote:
Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime.
The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime. You say that as though gun prevalence clearly plays an insignificant role in the genesis of crime, when that could not be farther from the case. More guns = Less crime AND more open government AND more freedom Less guns = More crime AND more authoritarian government AND less freedom more guns = less crime: wooh, probably should back your sayings with something dude, in my records, USA is proving this wrong Less guns = More crime: ...yeah, sure...still, i think not letting any crazy nutjob getting his hand on something designed to kill might help reducing crimes Less guns = less freedom: oh please, didn't you forbid your kids to run with scissors? well americans are the kids, scissors are weapons, and europeans are your wise parents Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 04:05 Trollk wrote:On February 20 2012 03:53 Yongwang wrote:
What if someone breaks into his house? What if he's walking down the street and a gang banger or mugger starts threatening him? If someone breaks into his house, a dog has more effect in preventing burglary and is equally as effective as a gun in defending my home. If you are walking down the street and you are being threated by a mugger, you have a pretty high chance that the mugger has a gun too. If he does, then you would have to be a trained gunuser, who practises regularly in shooting and pulling a gun in order to have a respectable chance of winning the standoff against that mugger. It would be convenient just to hand over your wallet. It might seem 'cowardly' or 'chickenish' but dead heros don't live. That's not true at all. I don't have a link at this time, but a few years ago there was something on the news where reporters asked a bunch of convicted burglars what they feared. They pretty much all said that what they were afraid of the most was gun owning civilians. yes, you are right, burglars are more scared of gun nutjobs than dogs, and so am i thing is, in europe, we also have burglars, you know, but few of them really carry firearms, because they know they have fewer chances the house they break into is guarded with someone with a gun in the first place that's why there's just less people killed by firearms here and for the record, burglars usually are just afraid of people/being noticed, and target empty houses when a burglar entered my house (years ago), i was there (2nd floor), at first i thought it was my brother coming back home from party at 4am, but the guy just was yelling in the house asking if anybody was home he ran away when he heard me walking down the stairs he had a gigantic crowbar (used it to open the door), could have crushed my head, he just ran away
Way to not only ignore the rest of my post, but also miss the fact I am talking about the human race in general. What made you think I was trying to describe Americans as gun nuts anyways??
I was stating that as a negative trait, as well. I wasn't saying that "killing people and coming up with new ways to do it has us making new inventions, so killing is ok". I was saying that we, as a race, are the killers, not guns. We have killed throughout history and will continue to do so, with or without guns. Therefore, ah screw it. Read the rest of my post. I don't feel like writing what I said all over again.
|
On February 20 2012 07:04 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 07:01 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 06:55 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 20 2012 06:51 Millitron wrote:On February 20 2012 06:47 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 20 2012 06:42 zatic wrote:On February 20 2012 06:36 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On February 20 2012 06:24 TheDraken wrote:On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. no. the military has 4 million guns. the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles. i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again. tanks helicopters jets bombs a few abrams can level your average small town alone. 10 trained soldiers are as good as 50+ random dudes with random small guns and hunting rifles. sorry, no. Your mighty US army can't even hold Afghanistan against a sorry bunch of ragheads armed entirely with small arms. Assad is currently losing his country against civilians armed with small arms against a regular army. An armed (and trained, admittedly) population is not something any government would want to go against. They could only lose. The argument isn't as absurd as you seem to think it is. Both Afghanistan for America and the Revolutionary War from the British perspective have everything to do with what "winning" means. The American military could absolutely level all of Afghanistan and its inhabitants. But that's not their goal. Similarly, the British could have 100% wiped the floor with America had they committed more resources and that was their end game... but it, similarly, was not. In true modern war, if the government wanted to actively turn on its citizens in America, it would be up to the Military to defy the orders, not the populace to win in some civil war. Again, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and all the recent civilian uprisings in the middle east say otherwise. They don't "say" what you're implying. All that is shown is that a civilian uprising can't be quelled by simply having an army present. This isn't rocket science. But what does that matter? That same argument could be made for a population who had nothing bot molatov cocktails. If a group is bent on putting up resistance, short of wiping everybody out (which isn't something normally done outside of genocides), it cant be done. Weaponry has little to do with that, but rather ideals. As for those middle east uprisings, they say EXACTLY what I am trying to say. It's up to the military to defy orders to turn against the population. And if that uprising can't be quelled quickly enough, the Military, with its huge logistical overhead, will be attritioned into defeat well before the populace. I agree it would take longer against a military on its home turf, but it would still happen, especially since they'd also have to defend all their production as well, unlike in Afghanistan and Vietnam. All you have to do is put up resistance longer than the government is willing to deal with it. Add in the fact that the more they try to deal with it, the more rebels they'll breed, and you have practically the opposite of what you said. Instead of it being hopeless for the populace, its hopeless for the military. They WILL lose, it's only a matter of time. Bolded for emphasis. A populace holding out against an evil government is about a will to continue fighting, the weapons they implement might be more/less damaging, but it's simply about existing. Guns are not part of that equation until you add them to it.
I would say that having guns would make the time required shorter, as it becomes more expensive for the government to enforce its position if the people can put up a better opposition. The most important part IS the will to continue, but having the weapons to do so makes it easier to keep that will alive. People are more likely to fight for a cause that doesn't seem hopeless, and guns help in that regard.
|
On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed.
Only the idiots among us worry about that. Don't believe everything you hear.
|
Europeans have killed millions with guns for centuries. Why the sudden change of heart just because you can't do that anymore?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
