|
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 April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society?
It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism.
Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid.
|
On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights.
God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional.
|
Owning a weapon was always expression of fear.
|
On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional.
I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable.
Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl.
Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:04 Silvanel wrote:
Owning a weapon was always expression of fear.
I'll have to disagree strongly on that one. Owning a weapon can be an expression of fear, it can also be an expression of self-reliance, independence, and responsibility.
|
On April 11 2013 23:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:36 Silvanel wrote:
The problem isnt the fact that owning a gun will help You in VERY LIKELY event of US army turning on its people. I am not denying that in this circumstances it good to have a gun (if You wish to fight). The problem is that: so easy access to guns icnreases to likelyhood of You dieing in gun related accident or crime ten or even twenty times.
And it affects everyone in Your country, even if Your peace loving neighboor despise guns, nothing protects him or his child from Your 4 year old son grabbing a gun and taking them down. Following simple gun safety rules would prevent a 4 year old from ever getting his hands on a gun. And you're right, the likelihood of dying from a gunshot is increased. It's something we're willing to accept in the US, agree or disagree with it.
But people don't follow the rules, which is why the rules need to
1. Have an actual regulatory body
2. Be easier to enforce
3. Come with harsher punishments
|
On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded?
Were the police on the Jews' side in Nazi Germany? How about the police in Maoist China, were they on the side of the capitalists? Did the police in Iraq side with the Kurds?
|
On April 12 2013 00:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:36 Silvanel wrote:
The problem isnt the fact that owning a gun will help You in VERY LIKELY event of US army turning on its people. I am not denying that in this circumstances it good to have a gun (if You wish to fight). The problem is that: so easy access to guns icnreases to likelyhood of You dieing in gun related accident or crime ten or even twenty times.
And it affects everyone in Your country, even if Your peace loving neighboor despise guns, nothing protects him or his child from Your 4 year old son grabbing a gun and taking them down. Following simple gun safety rules would prevent a 4 year old from ever getting his hands on a gun. And you're right, the likelihood of dying from a gunshot is increased. It's something we're willing to accept in the US, agree or disagree with it. But people don't follow the rules, which is why the rules need to 1. Have an actual regulatory body 2. Be easier to enforce 3. Come with harsher punishments
But people do follow the rules far more often than they do not, which is why we don't need authoritarian regulatory bodies sending police into people's homes without cause to check up on whether they're storing their firearms properly. Harsher punishments are a mixed bag at decreasing crime or socially unwanted behavior.
|
On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl.
So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights.
|
On April 12 2013 00:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society? It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism. Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid.
Well then i missunderstood your sentence where you said you like that [the goverment?] fears you because you have a gun like they have [equalizer].
|
On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights.
This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it:
What are they teaching in schools these days?
What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up.
What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state.
Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity.
|
On April 12 2013 00:27 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society? It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism. Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid. Well then i missunderstood your sentence where you said you like that [the goverment?] fears you because you have a gun like they have [equalizer].
No, you didn't misunderstand the language at all. You just can't comprehend the cultural meaning.
|
On April 12 2013 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:27 Nachtwind wrote:On April 12 2013 00:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society? It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism. Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid. Well then i missunderstood your sentence where you said you like that [the goverment?] fears you because you have a gun like they have [equalizer]. No, you didn't misunderstand the language at all. You just can't comprehend the cultural meaning.
I try. My weapon as citizen is my voice, the media, demonstrations, strike and my vote for elections. That should the only weapons a democracy should need in my eyes.
|
On April 11 2013 23:22 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 11:13 Sermokala wrote:On April 11 2013 11:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 11 2013 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:On April 11 2013 10:21 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 10:14 Millitron wrote:On April 11 2013 10:09 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 10:06 Fruscainte wrote:On April 11 2013 10:00 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 09:45 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
Didn't Germany have a period there where the government, institutions, and police couldn't be trusted? Are you saying you have a period of time now in the US that´s compareable to our situation in the past? Uh, I believe he's saying that you never know what can happen with governments going batshit insane in small amounts of time and you of all people should know that. Not that our political climate is like nazi germany. Ya, well i think the next hitler won´t rise in our land because we learned like you said "we of all people should know". Nontheless the question is indicating that you guys are thinking you are overtaken by a hitler like person in the next time. Cause of that impression i requestioned. Doesn't matter if or when I think it will happen. The problem is that it could happen some time in the future, and we should always be able to deal with it in the event that it happens. They have oxygen masks for every seat in airliners in case of depressurization, even though its extremely unlikely that they'll ever be used. I'm not some paranoid psycho who thinks Obama is the anti-christ, and wants to take all our freedoms away, but I'm also not naive enough to think its impossible for a dictator to rise in the US. Does many americans share your opinion? Why are you so obsessed with lumping americans together as some group of psychos? The 2nd Amendment was put specifically in place to prevent government tyranny. When you ask the purpose of it, we're going to say "to stop government tyranny". It doesn't mean we think that Obama is the anti-christ or a dictator is going to rise up anytime soon or ever. It means it's a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, jets can not stand on the corner of a street and a battleship can not kick down your door at 3AM. Police are needed for a police state, and there will always be exponentially more people than the police. The only way for a police state to work is for the police to have automatic weapons and for the people to have nothing but their limp dicks, but enforcing a police state is a lot more risky when every citizen could have a glock in their coat pocket and a shotgun in their home. A Government for the people by the people. The only way for that statement to be true is if the people have the same ability to fight back as the government they elect. Its silly to think the 2nd amendment will protect us from tyrrany. Iraq was the 4th most powerful army on earth and it crumpled in a week. If the US army wanted to wipe out Americans--having guns will not stop them. rofl iraq was far far far far away from ever being mentioned as having a powerful military. Where on gods green earth did you get that from? I doubt they had the 4th most powerful army in the non isreal arab states (iran saudies egypt to name a few). Even then the sheer extent of how big the USA is would make it impossible for any force to hold down. Yeah planes and tanks are powerful but they're extremely expensive and would be so insanely spread out that they would be a non factor. The entire extent of a Europa country is the size of one or another us state and we have a ton of those states. They teach us how to make shaped charges in high school and have all the ingredients to make them in our house's and our hardware stores. The rual areas will be kept safe from trryany with the 2nd amendment. You shouldnt discuss things You have no clue about. He is only slighlty incorrect, Iraq had very powerfull army. Pre First Gulf War it was fourth largest army in the world with 1 000 000soldiers. With tons of modern and advanced weaponery (mainly from Soviet Union). During the second war they still had ~400 000 soldiers although their equipment was not that good anymore and morale were terrible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army#Invasion_of_Kuwait_and_the_Persian_Gulf_WarHis point still stands, if US army somehow turned against ordianary Americans rifles and machineguns wont help You much. Yeah it will be easier to organize resistance since weapons are everywhere but it wouldn't help much.
You shouldn't discuss things you have no idea what your talking about. Iraq didn't even have an air force during the gulf wars. From the very wiki link that you seem to trust so much it says that most of that million man army was poorly trained and equipped conscripts.
They had T-55's from WW2 still running in their military. Some of them had the newer chinese tanks from the 1960's. All of these were going up against the USA M1 abrams tank that had been built to start with in the 1980's. They had steel penetrator rounds against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_Armour (it didn't go well for those WW2 tanks). The Iraq army had AK-47's from you know 1947. The us military had M-16's that they were trained to shoot and had actualy accuracy on them.
You didn't even read the wiki article you linked and yet your trying to be a dick to me and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Those abrums tanks run on jet fuel (tbh they're badass enough to use any type of fuel but it doesn't get as good gas mileage then with jet fuel) and can't go very far which means they won't be anywhere out in the rual areas of even Vietnam from back in the day let alone being worth anything in city streets.
|
On April 12 2013 00:38 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:27 Nachtwind wrote:On April 12 2013 00:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society? It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism. Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid. Well then i missunderstood your sentence where you said you like that [the goverment?] fears you because you have a gun like they have [equalizer]. No, you didn't misunderstand the language at all. You just can't comprehend the cultural meaning. I try. My weapon as citizen is my voice, the media, demonstrations, strike and my vote for elections. That should the only weapons a democracy should need in my eyes.
Hopefully someday humans will live in societies where that's true.
|
On April 11 2013 23:02 Velr wrote:
Yeah, i'm sure your military and it's tanks are scared shitless by your guns.
+ Show Spoiler [stahp] +On April 11 2013 11:18 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 11:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 11 2013 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:On April 11 2013 10:21 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 10:14 Millitron wrote:On April 11 2013 10:09 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 10:06 Fruscainte wrote:On April 11 2013 10:00 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 09:45 Millitron wrote:On April 11 2013 09:24 Nachtwind wrote:
You people in the us must fear your goverment, your institutions, your police and even your neighbors? How come? Didn't Germany have a period there where the government, institutions, and police couldn't be trusted? Are you saying you have a period of time now in the US that´s compareable to our situation in the past? Uh, I believe he's saying that you never know what can happen with governments going batshit insane in small amounts of time and you of all people should know that. Not that our political climate is like nazi germany. Ya, well i think the next hitler won´t rise in our land because we learned like you said "we of all people should know". Nontheless the question is indicating that you guys are thinking you are overtaken by a hitler like person in the next time. Cause of that impression i requestioned. Doesn't matter if or when I think it will happen. The problem is that it could happen some time in the future, and we should always be able to deal with it in the event that it happens. They have oxygen masks for every seat in airliners in case of depressurization, even though its extremely unlikely that they'll ever be used. I'm not some paranoid psycho who thinks Obama is the anti-christ, and wants to take all our freedoms away, but I'm also not naive enough to think its impossible for a dictator to rise in the US. Does many americans share your opinion? Why are you so obsessed with lumping americans together as some group of psychos? The 2nd Amendment was put specifically in place to prevent government tyranny. When you ask the purpose of it, we're going to say "to stop government tyranny". It doesn't mean we think that Obama is the anti-christ or a dictator is going to rise up anytime soon or ever. It means it's a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, jets can not stand on the corner of a street and a battleship can not kick down your door at 3AM. Police are needed for a police state, and there will always be exponentially more people than the police. The only way for a police state to work is for the police to have automatic weapons and for the people to have nothing but their limp dicks, but enforcing a police state is a lot more risky when every citizen could have a glock in their coat pocket and a shotgun in their home. A Government for the people by the people. The only way for that statement to be true is if the people have the same ability to fight back as the government they elect. Its silly to think the 2nd amendment will protect us from tyrrany. Iraq was the 4th most powerful army on earth and it crumpled in a week. If the US army wanted to wipe out americans--having guns will not stop them. And Vietnam was a total shithole, what's your point? Yeah you just struck a nerve, so prepare for a wall. That was an organized military. Want to know how well we handled guerilla combatants? Iraq in the midst of the Conflict had 2,500 enemy combatants. At its height in 2010, they had 10,000. Ten. Thousand. That's it. During the midst, and height of the conflict in the mid 2000's with the Conflict only 2500 were doing that much damage that required a troop surge of the most powerful military on Earth to handle it. Imagine a million. Imagine a million people resisting government control over themselves, which is perfectly reasonable in our country. It might be upwards of 10 million or more depending on how serious it got. What would our government do? Go around kicking in doors? Yeah that'll go well. They going to go around and start shooting up civilian rallies and shit with tanks blowing up peoples houses with jets, causing the inevitable collateral damage? Do you think that troops would, in large, shoot their own countrymen down? Do you think that shit will fly? No of course not. In fact thousands of troops would dissent as well. You see soldiers are all volunteer and they all take an oath to protect the people and the Constitution. I know plenty of men and women who serve in the military personally, some liberal and some conservative but I know for a god damn fact not a single one of them would ever follow an order to kill a fellow American. We aren't in 1860 anymore, a revolution wouldn't start as an official secession with an organized military. We were the most powerful military on Earth when we were in Vietnam and even though we killed a ludicrous amount of Vietnamese, we still lost every damn objective we were aspiring for and had to pull out of the country due to major dissent amongst our own. The same would happen here. I said it before and I'll say it again. A jet can not stand on street corners enforcing non-assembly edicts. An aircraft carrier can not kick down your door at 3AM to search your house for contraband materials or anti-social propaganda. A fighter jet and aircraft carrier and tank is useless for maintaining a police state. Police are needed for a police state and the people will always outnumber the police. And if you think the average citizen can't take out a tank, I can tell you right now how to make an IED connected to a tree and pressure trap in the road that will disable any armored vehicle permanently with shit you can buy at any Wal-Mart. You think hunting Al Queda in an open fucking desert where we can use shit like FLIR effectively was hard? How about hunting dissenters in urban centers and forests and marshes and URBAN CENTERS. With millions of innocents in them. Imagine 100 people with sniper rifles and automatic weapons in, say, New York City. Imagine those 100 people were dedicated to causing as much havoc and as much social unrest as possible. You think that would be something easy to clearly stamp out? The problem with guerilla warfare versus conventional warfare is that guerilla's are the people, and unless you are willing to genocide all the people to get all the guerilla's, the guerilla's can hide among the people and there's not a damn thing you can do. There WILL be collateral, and you WILL be blamed for it, and even more people will continue to rise up against the government because of such. Don't believe me? Look at Syria. A small little rebellion against one of the most organized military's in the Middle East that started out with a few hundred, maybe a few thousand doing basic disruption and dissent operations and having their doors kicked down and shit. Not much they can do. That spiraled out of control into a full on organized rebellion that is now taking on that army of tanks, jets, and helicopters. A rebellion that is winning and owns half the country. You think Vietnam was bad? You think people got pissed off when we were getting our asses kicked in a country halfway across the world? How about Vietnam on our own soil. Yeah let's see how well that goes. The government isn't stupid. Politicians aren't stupid. They wouldn't dare try to do shit like you describe if there is any level of gun freedom in this country.
I'm genuinely confused by the way why we're discussing apples to oranges here. The United States would not be invading a country of any sort in the event of a revolution. Why don't we look at more pertinent examples like Syria, Egypt, and Vietnam? Saying that revolutions could never happen in the modern world because tanks, jets, and trained soldiers is beyond fucking ignorant of the reality going on around you right now and recent history.
|
On April 12 2013 00:12 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? Were the police on the Jews' side in Nazi Germany? How about the police in Maoist China, were they on the side of the capitalists? Did the police in Iraq side with the Kurds?
The police were actually very much on the side of the citizens of Germany at the time 
The Nazi party had men stationed *with* the police departments to enforce rules that the police were not happy with.
Eventually the SS was put together to do the hounding instead of the police and so on and so forth.
I know where you're getting at, but Germany's a pretty bad example for that being that the Nazi's *had* to create a new police force to do the job the police just wasn't trusted to do. And I don't know much about China's revolution except for the part that it was a people's revolution where the government had a large citizen support with them--so that's a pretty bad example too...
But you're right about the Kurds. Other than the fact that the moment that happened the US showed up and cut down an army of a million men into less 400,000 in two weeks--so... that's not really applicable either....
|
On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:25 gedatsu wrote:On April 12 2013 00:09 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 00:03 Jormundr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:30 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:On April 11 2013 23:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Most of them would be on our side so it's not really much of an issue but yes I'm sure that they would be apprehensive about trying to use armor in urban combat, as any competent officer would be. Infantry > tanks in cities. If most of them would be on your side anyway, your argument just imploded? In this hypothetical situation, I'd rather be able to defend myself than hope that in this 6 million square mile country of 300+ million people there was a military unit loyal to the people nearby to defend me. The efficacy of francs-tireurs isn't relevant as to whether we should be able to have the arms to become francs-tireurs anyway. We (all humans) have a God-given, natural right to freedom and liberty and a God-given, natural right to defend our persons, our homes, our families, and our rights. God-given rights? That's hilariously delusional. I think you're missing the point. That's why I said natural as well. Rights independent of any human authority. No human has the right to take them away. They are not given, they are not creations of man. They exist and are inalienable. Come on, the idea of God-given or natural rights being something governments couldn't stomp all over was one of the greatest intellectual and civic achievements of the Enlightenment, and you're sitting there being a sarcastic jerk simply because God was mentioned. Sorry that religion apparently has the same effect on you as being sneered at by another one of the Cool Girls has on a 15 year old Cool Girl. So they were in fact given to you by the intellectuals of the Enlightenment era. I.e. not by nature. Right cannot be independent of human authority, because they exist only in relation to human authority. At any point in time, the people with the biggest guns could decide to walk all over your "inalienable rights", and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it except say "b-b-but God gave me rights". There's no such thing as natural rights. This is a very real, very serious question, and I mean it: What are they teaching in schools these days? What you just wrote is a fantastic example of why God-given or natural rights are necessary and real, and why they form the backbone of our Western civilization. You've written an excellent deconstruction that leaves us with nothing civilized to lean on, nothing but our right arms holding our society up. What you are describing is what Churchill called scientific barbarism. Another way to say it is that old classic, 'might means right.' We've tried to raise our societies above that state. Natural rights are quite real, they cannot be given, they cannot be taken away. Many men and women have died to make that so. To make your cynicism a luxury rather than a necessity.
I disagree in principle, because it is the society which you live in that gives you rights. Had society given you other rights, you would have thought of them as being as natural as the sunlight.
Say you were born naturally free. Far away from any other person. Just you and your freedom (no, I'm serious). You live in and live off nature. There is plant life and vegetation, and animals etc. You make it by your own and you are free. No one to answer to or no one to even suggest what you should do. You have no rights. But you have freedom. My point is that freedom is not a right outside of society. Also, back to the hermit in the woods. Where does gun policy become a right? Poor guy is free, but has no guns. Obviously there can be freedom without guns.
I'm not sure if I'm "picking it apart" or simply pointing out that the rights you talk about are rights you have taken, and in fact weren't born with.
Then one could argue that society is part of nature, and everything you do and steal and take is simply you using the tools that nature gave you, and so even stealing is completely natural. But would you call it a right? The right to steal. Well, society puts you in jail (potentially). But you still have the "right" to freedom to steal, to put it like that. If nature gave you even one right, it must have given you all of them.
Also, this has nothing to do with school.
Edit: Also, why do you say that many people have died for these rights, which you claim that no one can take away. What's true for one continent isn't universally true and a reflection of Gods will.
What if I told you that your right to freedom is indirectly killing people on other continents?
|
On April 12 2013 00:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:22 Silvanel wrote:On April 11 2013 11:13 Sermokala wrote:On April 11 2013 11:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 11 2013 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:On April 11 2013 10:21 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 10:14 Millitron wrote:On April 11 2013 10:09 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 10:06 Fruscainte wrote:On April 11 2013 10:00 Nachtwind wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying you have a period of time now in the US that´s compareable to our situation in the past?
Uh, I believe he's saying that you never know what can happen with governments going batshit insane in small amounts of time and you of all people should know that. Not that our political climate is like nazi germany. Ya, well i think the next hitler won´t rise in our land because we learned like you said "we of all people should know". Nontheless the question is indicating that you guys are thinking you are overtaken by a hitler like person in the next time. Cause of that impression i requestioned. Doesn't matter if or when I think it will happen. The problem is that it could happen some time in the future, and we should always be able to deal with it in the event that it happens. They have oxygen masks for every seat in airliners in case of depressurization, even though its extremely unlikely that they'll ever be used. I'm not some paranoid psycho who thinks Obama is the anti-christ, and wants to take all our freedoms away, but I'm also not naive enough to think its impossible for a dictator to rise in the US. Does many americans share your opinion? Why are you so obsessed with lumping americans together as some group of psychos? The 2nd Amendment was put specifically in place to prevent government tyranny. When you ask the purpose of it, we're going to say "to stop government tyranny". It doesn't mean we think that Obama is the anti-christ or a dictator is going to rise up anytime soon or ever. It means it's a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, jets can not stand on the corner of a street and a battleship can not kick down your door at 3AM. Police are needed for a police state, and there will always be exponentially more people than the police. The only way for a police state to work is for the police to have automatic weapons and for the people to have nothing but their limp dicks, but enforcing a police state is a lot more risky when every citizen could have a glock in their coat pocket and a shotgun in their home. A Government for the people by the people. The only way for that statement to be true is if the people have the same ability to fight back as the government they elect. Its silly to think the 2nd amendment will protect us from tyrrany. Iraq was the 4th most powerful army on earth and it crumpled in a week. If the US army wanted to wipe out Americans--having guns will not stop them. rofl iraq was far far far far away from ever being mentioned as having a powerful military. Where on gods green earth did you get that from? I doubt they had the 4th most powerful army in the non isreal arab states (iran saudies egypt to name a few). Even then the sheer extent of how big the USA is would make it impossible for any force to hold down. Yeah planes and tanks are powerful but they're extremely expensive and would be so insanely spread out that they would be a non factor. The entire extent of a Europa country is the size of one or another us state and we have a ton of those states. They teach us how to make shaped charges in high school and have all the ingredients to make them in our house's and our hardware stores. The rual areas will be kept safe from trryany with the 2nd amendment. You shouldnt discuss things You have no clue about. He is only slighlty incorrect, Iraq had very powerfull army. Pre First Gulf War it was fourth largest army in the world with 1 000 000soldiers. With tons of modern and advanced weaponery (mainly from Soviet Union). During the second war they still had ~400 000 soldiers although their equipment was not that good anymore and morale were terrible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army#Invasion_of_Kuwait_and_the_Persian_Gulf_WarHis point still stands, if US army somehow turned against ordianary Americans rifles and machineguns wont help You much. Yeah it will be easier to organize resistance since weapons are everywhere but it wouldn't help much. You shouldn't discuss things you have no idea what your talking about. Iraq didn't even have an air force during the gulf wars. From the very wiki link that you seem to trust so much it says that most of that million man army was poorly trained and equipped conscripts. They had T-55's from WW2 still running in their military. Some of them had the newer chinese tanks from the 1960's. All of these were going up against the USA M1 abrams tank that had been built to start with in the 1980's. They had steel penetrator rounds against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_Armour (it didn't go well for those WW2 tanks). The Iraq army had AK-47's from you know 1947. The us military had M-16's that they were trained to shoot and had actualy accuracy on them. You didn't even read the wiki article you linked and yet your trying to be a dick to me and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Those abrums tanks run on jet fuel (tbh they're badass enough to use any type of fuel but it doesn't get as good gas mileage then with jet fuel) and can't go very far which means they won't be anywhere out in the rual areas of even Vietnam from back in the day let alone being worth anything in city streets.
Sigh, please mods forgive me for prolonging this offtopic discussion. I feel that TL users need to see how deluded this guy is (and unable to read sources). In spoilers to not pollute thread anymore.
+ Show Spoiler +from http://csisdev.forumone.com/files/media/csis/pubs/iraq88-93.pdfpage 77 and on, to quote some better parts 955 000 soldiers, 5700 tanks (20% T-72), 800-1200 scuds, BMParmored fighting vehicles, French GCT self-propelled howitzers, and Austrian GHN-45 towed howitzers ,3000 heavy tank transporters. It also had at least 3,500 to 4,000 other armored vehicles.The Iraqi army had large numbers of anti-tank weapons including AT-3 Saggers , AT-4 Spigots , SS-11s , Milans , and HOTs . Iraq had one of the most formidable artillery forces in the world. Its major tube artillery included 3,000 to 5,000 towed and 500 self-propelled weapons. Army had 490 helicopters, of which 190 were attack helicopters 7000 antiaircraft guns. They were powerfull, but they faced first and third army in the world at that time (US and British), they had no chance. That more than anything shows the power of US army, how fast so powerfull and heavy investing in military countrywas droped to its knees
|
On April 12 2013 00:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2013 23:22 Silvanel wrote:On April 11 2013 11:13 Sermokala wrote:On April 11 2013 11:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 11 2013 10:25 Fruscainte wrote:On April 11 2013 10:21 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 10:14 Millitron wrote:On April 11 2013 10:09 Nachtwind wrote:On April 11 2013 10:06 Fruscainte wrote:On April 11 2013 10:00 Nachtwind wrote:
[quote]
Are you saying you have a period of time now in the US that´s compareable to our situation in the past?
Uh, I believe he's saying that you never know what can happen with governments going batshit insane in small amounts of time and you of all people should know that. Not that our political climate is like nazi germany. Ya, well i think the next hitler won´t rise in our land because we learned like you said "we of all people should know". Nontheless the question is indicating that you guys are thinking you are overtaken by a hitler like person in the next time. Cause of that impression i requestioned. Doesn't matter if or when I think it will happen. The problem is that it could happen some time in the future, and we should always be able to deal with it in the event that it happens. They have oxygen masks for every seat in airliners in case of depressurization, even though its extremely unlikely that they'll ever be used. I'm not some paranoid psycho who thinks Obama is the anti-christ, and wants to take all our freedoms away, but I'm also not naive enough to think its impossible for a dictator to rise in the US. Does many americans share your opinion? Why are you so obsessed with lumping americans together as some group of psychos? The 2nd Amendment was put specifically in place to prevent government tyranny. When you ask the purpose of it, we're going to say "to stop government tyranny". It doesn't mean we think that Obama is the anti-christ or a dictator is going to rise up anytime soon or ever. It means it's a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, jets can not stand on the corner of a street and a battleship can not kick down your door at 3AM. Police are needed for a police state, and there will always be exponentially more people than the police. The only way for a police state to work is for the police to have automatic weapons and for the people to have nothing but their limp dicks, but enforcing a police state is a lot more risky when every citizen could have a glock in their coat pocket and a shotgun in their home. A Government for the people by the people. The only way for that statement to be true is if the people have the same ability to fight back as the government they elect. Its silly to think the 2nd amendment will protect us from tyrrany. Iraq was the 4th most powerful army on earth and it crumpled in a week. If the US army wanted to wipe out Americans--having guns will not stop them. rofl iraq was far far far far away from ever being mentioned as having a powerful military. Where on gods green earth did you get that from? I doubt they had the 4th most powerful army in the non isreal arab states (iran saudies egypt to name a few). Even then the sheer extent of how big the USA is would make it impossible for any force to hold down. Yeah planes and tanks are powerful but they're extremely expensive and would be so insanely spread out that they would be a non factor. The entire extent of a Europa country is the size of one or another us state and we have a ton of those states. They teach us how to make shaped charges in high school and have all the ingredients to make them in our house's and our hardware stores. The rual areas will be kept safe from trryany with the 2nd amendment. You shouldnt discuss things You have no clue about. He is only slighlty incorrect, Iraq had very powerfull army. Pre First Gulf War it was fourth largest army in the world with 1 000 000soldiers. With tons of modern and advanced weaponery (mainly from Soviet Union). During the second war they still had ~400 000 soldiers although their equipment was not that good anymore and morale were terrible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army#Invasion_of_Kuwait_and_the_Persian_Gulf_WarHis point still stands, if US army somehow turned against ordianary Americans rifles and machineguns wont help You much. Yeah it will be easier to organize resistance since weapons are everywhere but it wouldn't help much. You shouldn't discuss things you have no idea what your talking about. Iraq didn't even have an air force during the gulf wars. From the very wiki link that you seem to trust so much it says that most of that million man army was poorly trained and equipped conscripts. They had T-55's from WW2 still running in their military. Some of them had the newer chinese tanks from the 1960's. All of these were going up against the USA M1 abrams tank that had been built to start with in the 1980's. They had steel penetrator rounds against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_Armour (it didn't go well for those WW2 tanks). The Iraq army had AK-47's from you know 1947. The us military had M-16's that they were trained to shoot and had actualy accuracy on them. You didn't even read the wiki article you linked and yet your trying to be a dick to me and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about? Those abrums tanks run on jet fuel (tbh they're badass enough to use any type of fuel but it doesn't get as good gas mileage then with jet fuel) and can't go very far which means they won't be anywhere out in the rual areas of even Vietnam from back in the day let alone being worth anything in city streets.
My point was that 1,000,000 men armed with military gear and some level of military training could not and cannot touch the US army. What will guys with pistols and hunting rifles do that tanks cannot?
The reason occupations don't work is not because of firepower--occupations don't work because in a globilized society the only way to win the fight within the occupation is to lose support from everyone else outside the occupation ie--genocide. You can't force a population to be happy and supportive. And the moment you stop pointing your guns at them they simply emigrate.
If you keep guns on them then you're spending double the resources for half the output plunging your country into poverty--suddenly you have no income to maintain the occupation and people emigrate anyway. You have no outside support and you have a dwindling economic base. *That* is the reason occupations don't work. We no longer live in the imperial age where people don't care that England has enslaved India. Nations care, trade deals get changed, economic pacts get broken, bad things happen to your country.
What protects us from tyranny is that it is damn expensive to be tyrannical and the only people in today's modern age blood thirsty enough for that would much rather have controlling share of Walmart than to run a nation.
You know how North Korea maintained its tyranny? Kim convinced them to love him as God. He didn't take guns and pointed it at his people, he did what all Bolshevik revolutions did and gave guns to the people to point at each other.
Anyway, sorry to be a dick, but telling him (and me) that Iraq was not a powerful army simply because they were no match compared to America is a joke. Of course they're no match for America--the American army is unmatched! No army matches america. And to think that a bunch of guys with hunting rifles is what keeps the American government honest is just a joke.
I am a big believer in the 2nd Amendment, but I'm also a believer in physics. Owning a .22 caliber is less useful than owning a WW2 tank when it comes to fighting against the american military.
|
On April 12 2013 00:32 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:27 Nachtwind wrote:On April 12 2013 00:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 11 2013 23:57 Nachtwind wrote:
So to ensure democracy in your land as people you use weapons and fear as a pillar of your society? It seems to be mostly Germans that ask this question and I don't understand why it is Germans in particular that ask it so often. No, fear is not a pillar of our society. Yes, weapons are a pillar of our society. Most of us over here happen to think that the guy who has 30 rifles in his basement because he's paranoid about the government is a guy who has issues, not a paragon of patriotism. Do you worry about being robbed constantly? No. Neither do we. I don't know when owning a gun became an expression of fear, but that just makes no sense to me. Americans do not buy guns because they are constantly afraid. Well then i missunderstood your sentence where you said you like that [the goverment?] fears you because you have a gun like they have [equalizer]. No, you didn't misunderstand the language at all. You just can't comprehend the cultural meaning.
He didn't misunderstand, he just places less value in what you value.
To him, if you need guns to maintain something--then you don't really have it. You feel that guns are simply a show, that you do have it, and a symbol of you having it is the gun. And he's asking why you should have such a dangerous symbol that can hurt people, and you're saying that it keeps your rights safe. And he's asking "are your rights unsafe? are they in danger? do you really have them?" And you're going "you just can't comprehend the cultural meaning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
