|
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 12 2013 00:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:10 Jormundr wrote: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.
If you're already following the rules--then a regulatory body has no effect on you.
If you're not following the rules--then you're a danger to society.
And there are more (and better) ways to regulate outside of sending a police officer inside the house of a known armed individual. (try getting volunteers for that! lol)
We simply treat it like we treat cars. You need a license, yearly gear tests, yearly registrations, regular updates and tests to prove that you are still responsible enough and trained enough to use said object. Cops don't show up to my house to check my car and its pretty damn regulated.
Its like having a police force. The hope is that you never need them, not that they will be useful.
|
On April 12 2013 01:24 Cutlery wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote: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?
It does have a lot to do with the shitty education in most Western countries not just the US. To have such a cynical reductionist and above all else narrow worldview is a failure of education.
So, according to you, the only thing real is the state of nature, and everything else is just a construct. Well, human society isn't built on that idea. Other societies that aren't built on the idea of natural rights that currently exist right now particularly Muslim societies are in upheaval precisely because the people want those rights.
Also, universal, inalienable rights are universal and inalienable. Moral relativism and "what's true for one continent isn't universally true" are a bane on civilization.
It's not about whether a government can physically strip those rights away. It's about your view of government and what it can and cannot do and why. Natural rights exist independent of authority; they exist within and from the individual. If a government denies them, it has no right to existence.
I don't understand your question. Please explain.
|
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?
remember guys, if the jews had had guns hitler would have never won a democratic election.
|
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
From 27 September to 1 October, Syrian government forces, backed by tanks and helicopters, led a major offensive on the town of Al-Rastan in Homs province, which had been under opposition control for a couple weeks.[161] There were reports of large numbers of defections in the city, and the FSA reported it had destroyed 17 armoured vehicles during clashes in Rastan, using RPGs and booby traps.[162] One rebel brigade reported that it killed 80 loyalist soldiers in fighting.[163] A defected officer in the Syrian opposition claimed that over a hundred officers had defected as well as thousands of conscripts, although many had gone into hiding or home to their families, rather than fighting the loyalist forces.[162] The 2011 Battle of Rastan between the government forces and the FSA was the longest and most intense action up until that time. After a week of fighting, the FSA was forced to retreat from Rastan.[151] To avoid government forces, the leader of the FSA, Col. Riad Asaad, retreated to the Turkish side of Syrian-Turkish border.[164]
Jesus Christ, stop treating an insurgency like a fucking conventional war. Of course this is a battle they lost, but it shows a very important fact -- that they could hold up a damn good fight and there are countless other stories of them winning in cities in the revolution. It is not. It is the farthest thing from that. There is a difference between having an offensive against a countries military that has a distinct leader and has regimentation and fighting a group of people with no direct leader, who are sparsed out across your entire home country. I said it in my first post on this and I'll say it again -- it is VERY easy to make a booby trap to take out a tank. I made an example with a tree, there are hundreds of things you can do. You don't need to destroy the tank, you need to immobilize it or disable its gun. This is incredibly easy believe it or not.
Syria, as of 2011 (when the revolution began), had roughly 300,000 troops and 300,000 reserves with a paramilitary force of ~100,000 as well. They have modern tanks, modern helicopters, modern jets, and modern weapons with modern training systems for them. They are losing this war. Now imagine a similar number of troops not against the ~100,000 rebels in the country, but well over a million. Potentially 10 million that would take part in this if shit hit the fan completely. There are hundreds of Syrian troops and officers defecting every god damn day to the rebels.
Saying a revolution can not occur or succeed because of tanks and jets is beyond the most ignorant fucking thing ever.
|
On April 12 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie 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. 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."
Nope.
And if that's what he believes, it's even more silly than I thought. Do I really not have this computer because I need electricity to run it?
Guns are not a show. They are not a symbol. They are guns.
I am not saying that in response to his questions. I answered his questions, he still didn't get it, so I chalk it up to a cultural difference that he cannot comprehend. Private ownership of guns is both a right and a safeguard of rights. Are our rights unsafe? Are they in danger? It doesn't matter one way or the other. Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them.
|
On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar.
|
On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers? Show nested quote +From 27 September to 1 October, Syrian government forces, backed by tanks and helicopters, led a major offensive on the town of Al-Rastan in Homs province, which had been under opposition control for a couple weeks.[161] There were reports of large numbers of defections in the city, and the FSA reported it had destroyed 17 armoured vehicles during clashes in Rastan, using RPGs and booby traps.[162] One rebel brigade reported that it killed 80 loyalist soldiers in fighting.[163] A defected officer in the Syrian opposition claimed that over a hundred officers had defected as well as thousands of conscripts, although many had gone into hiding or home to their families, rather than fighting the loyalist forces.[162] The 2011 Battle of Rastan between the government forces and the FSA was the longest and most intense action up until that time. After a week of fighting, the FSA was forced to retreat from Rastan.[151] To avoid government forces, the leader of the FSA, Col. Riad Asaad, retreated to the Turkish side of Syrian-Turkish border.[164] Jesus Christ, stop treating an insurgency like a fucking conventional war. Of course this is a battle they lost, but it shows a very important fact -- that they could hold up a damn good fight and there are countless other stories of them winning in cities in the revolution. It is not. It is the farthest thing from that. There is a difference between having an offensive against a countries military that has a distinct leader and has regimentation and fighting a group of people with no direct leader, who are sparsed out across your entire home country. I said it in my first post on this and I'll say it again -- it is VERY easy to make a booby trap to take out a tank. I made an example with a tree, there are hundreds of things you can do. You don't need to destroy the tank, you need to immobilize it or disable its gun. This is incredibly easy believe it or not. Syria, as of 2011 (when the revolution began), had roughly 300,000 troops and 300,000 reserves with a paramilitary force of ~100,000 as well. They have modern tanks, modern helicopters, modern jets, and modern weapons with modern training systems for them. They are losing this war. Now imagine a similar number of troops not against the ~100,000 rebels in the country, but well over a million. Potentially 10 million that would take part in this if shit hit the fan completely. There are hundreds of Syrian troops and officers defecting every god damn day to the rebels. Saying a revolution can not occur or succeed because of tanks and jets is beyond the most ignorant fucking thing ever.
They're getting a lot of support and supplies from American and European nations and if I recall correctly France and (Britain?) also provided air support for a lengthy period of time.
So yeah, it's easy to fight tanks when you have supplies coming in for free and planes flying for free.
|
On April 12 2013 01:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. 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." Nope. And if that's what he believes, it's even more silly than I thought. Do I really not have this computer because I need electricity to run it? Guns are not a show. They are not a symbol. They are guns. I am not saying that in response to his questions. I answered his questions, he still didn't get it, so I chalk it up to a cultural difference that he cannot comprehend. Private ownership of guns is both a right and a safeguard of rights. Are our rights unsafe? Are they in danger? It doesn't matter one way or the other. Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them.
I don't have a gun--does that mean I don't have rights?
If the price of rights is having the vigilance to keep them and I don't have a gun--am I to assume I have no rights?
EDIT:
If guns are just your property and you don't believe the US Government should be able to define what property you can or can't have I understand that--but its this whole "keep vigilance" thing that i believe is confusing people.
|
On April 12 2013 01:57 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar.
Your post makes absolutely no sense and you are completely ignoring the question.
How can you truthfully say that a country can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it. That is the only question you have to answer.
On April 12 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers? From 27 September to 1 October, Syrian government forces, backed by tanks and helicopters, led a major offensive on the town of Al-Rastan in Homs province, which had been under opposition control for a couple weeks.[161] There were reports of large numbers of defections in the city, and the FSA reported it had destroyed 17 armoured vehicles during clashes in Rastan, using RPGs and booby traps.[162] One rebel brigade reported that it killed 80 loyalist soldiers in fighting.[163] A defected officer in the Syrian opposition claimed that over a hundred officers had defected as well as thousands of conscripts, although many had gone into hiding or home to their families, rather than fighting the loyalist forces.[162] The 2011 Battle of Rastan between the government forces and the FSA was the longest and most intense action up until that time. After a week of fighting, the FSA was forced to retreat from Rastan.[151] To avoid government forces, the leader of the FSA, Col. Riad Asaad, retreated to the Turkish side of Syrian-Turkish border.[164] Jesus Christ, stop treating an insurgency like a fucking conventional war. Of course this is a battle they lost, but it shows a very important fact -- that they could hold up a damn good fight and there are countless other stories of them winning in cities in the revolution. It is not. It is the farthest thing from that. There is a difference between having an offensive against a countries military that has a distinct leader and has regimentation and fighting a group of people with no direct leader, who are sparsed out across your entire home country. I said it in my first post on this and I'll say it again -- it is VERY easy to make a booby trap to take out a tank. I made an example with a tree, there are hundreds of things you can do. You don't need to destroy the tank, you need to immobilize it or disable its gun. This is incredibly easy believe it or not. Syria, as of 2011 (when the revolution began), had roughly 300,000 troops and 300,000 reserves with a paramilitary force of ~100,000 as well. They have modern tanks, modern helicopters, modern jets, and modern weapons with modern training systems for them. They are losing this war. Now imagine a similar number of troops not against the ~100,000 rebels in the country, but well over a million. Potentially 10 million that would take part in this if shit hit the fan completely. There are hundreds of Syrian troops and officers defecting every god damn day to the rebels. Saying a revolution can not occur or succeed because of tanks and jets is beyond the most ignorant fucking thing ever. They're getting a lot of support and supplies from American and European nations and if I recall correctly France and (Britain?) also provided air support for a lengthy period of time. So yeah, it's easy to fight tanks when you have supplies coming in for free and planes flying for free.
Except that's not true at all. Yeah we're feeding them weapons, because guess what, unlike us, they don't have a lot of weapons over there. They also happen to live in a shitty desert and don't have Wal-Marts and Publix's on every street corner so they don't exactly have the best access to food. You're dodging the point here by arguing complete irrelevancies. These are people who are on their own fighting the regime, getting some supplies from the outside world. But even now countries like France are embargoing the rebels too.
|
On April 12 2013 02:01 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar. Your post makes absolutely no sense and you are completely ignoring the question. How can you truthfully say that a country can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it. That is the only question you have to answer. Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers? From 27 September to 1 October, Syrian government forces, backed by tanks and helicopters, led a major offensive on the town of Al-Rastan in Homs province, which had been under opposition control for a couple weeks.[161] There were reports of large numbers of defections in the city, and the FSA reported it had destroyed 17 armoured vehicles during clashes in Rastan, using RPGs and booby traps.[162] One rebel brigade reported that it killed 80 loyalist soldiers in fighting.[163] A defected officer in the Syrian opposition claimed that over a hundred officers had defected as well as thousands of conscripts, although many had gone into hiding or home to their families, rather than fighting the loyalist forces.[162] The 2011 Battle of Rastan between the government forces and the FSA was the longest and most intense action up until that time. After a week of fighting, the FSA was forced to retreat from Rastan.[151] To avoid government forces, the leader of the FSA, Col. Riad Asaad, retreated to the Turkish side of Syrian-Turkish border.[164] Jesus Christ, stop treating an insurgency like a fucking conventional war. Of course this is a battle they lost, but it shows a very important fact -- that they could hold up a damn good fight and there are countless other stories of them winning in cities in the revolution. It is not. It is the farthest thing from that. There is a difference between having an offensive against a countries military that has a distinct leader and has regimentation and fighting a group of people with no direct leader, who are sparsed out across your entire home country. I said it in my first post on this and I'll say it again -- it is VERY easy to make a booby trap to take out a tank. I made an example with a tree, there are hundreds of things you can do. You don't need to destroy the tank, you need to immobilize it or disable its gun. This is incredibly easy believe it or not. Syria, as of 2011 (when the revolution began), had roughly 300,000 troops and 300,000 reserves with a paramilitary force of ~100,000 as well. They have modern tanks, modern helicopters, modern jets, and modern weapons with modern training systems for them. They are losing this war. Now imagine a similar number of troops not against the ~100,000 rebels in the country, but well over a million. Potentially 10 million that would take part in this if shit hit the fan completely. There are hundreds of Syrian troops and officers defecting every god damn day to the rebels. Saying a revolution can not occur or succeed because of tanks and jets is beyond the most ignorant fucking thing ever. They're getting a lot of support and supplies from American and European nations and if I recall correctly France and (Britain?) also provided air support for a lengthy period of time. So yeah, it's easy to fight tanks when you have supplies coming in for free and planes flying for free. Except that's not true at all. Yeah we're feeding them weapons, because guess what, unlike us, they don't have a lot of weapons over there. They also happen to live in a shitty desert and don't have Wal-Marts and Publix's on every street corner so they don't exactly have the best access to food.
Egypt didn't rise up because of guns--they rose up because of social media.
Syria did not rise up because of guns, they rose up because of french air support and american allowing them to not need a base of operations or economic stability.
|
On April 12 2013 02:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:01 Fruscainte wrote:On April 12 2013 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar. Your post makes absolutely no sense and you are completely ignoring the question. How can you truthfully say that a country can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it. That is the only question you have to answer. On April 12 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers? From 27 September to 1 October, Syrian government forces, backed by tanks and helicopters, led a major offensive on the town of Al-Rastan in Homs province, which had been under opposition control for a couple weeks.[161] There were reports of large numbers of defections in the city, and the FSA reported it had destroyed 17 armoured vehicles during clashes in Rastan, using RPGs and booby traps.[162] One rebel brigade reported that it killed 80 loyalist soldiers in fighting.[163] A defected officer in the Syrian opposition claimed that over a hundred officers had defected as well as thousands of conscripts, although many had gone into hiding or home to their families, rather than fighting the loyalist forces.[162] The 2011 Battle of Rastan between the government forces and the FSA was the longest and most intense action up until that time. After a week of fighting, the FSA was forced to retreat from Rastan.[151] To avoid government forces, the leader of the FSA, Col. Riad Asaad, retreated to the Turkish side of Syrian-Turkish border.[164] Jesus Christ, stop treating an insurgency like a fucking conventional war. Of course this is a battle they lost, but it shows a very important fact -- that they could hold up a damn good fight and there are countless other stories of them winning in cities in the revolution. It is not. It is the farthest thing from that. There is a difference between having an offensive against a countries military that has a distinct leader and has regimentation and fighting a group of people with no direct leader, who are sparsed out across your entire home country. I said it in my first post on this and I'll say it again -- it is VERY easy to make a booby trap to take out a tank. I made an example with a tree, there are hundreds of things you can do. You don't need to destroy the tank, you need to immobilize it or disable its gun. This is incredibly easy believe it or not. Syria, as of 2011 (when the revolution began), had roughly 300,000 troops and 300,000 reserves with a paramilitary force of ~100,000 as well. They have modern tanks, modern helicopters, modern jets, and modern weapons with modern training systems for them. They are losing this war. Now imagine a similar number of troops not against the ~100,000 rebels in the country, but well over a million. Potentially 10 million that would take part in this if shit hit the fan completely. There are hundreds of Syrian troops and officers defecting every god damn day to the rebels. Saying a revolution can not occur or succeed because of tanks and jets is beyond the most ignorant fucking thing ever. They're getting a lot of support and supplies from American and European nations and if I recall correctly France and (Britain?) also provided air support for a lengthy period of time. So yeah, it's easy to fight tanks when you have supplies coming in for free and planes flying for free. Except that's not true at all. Yeah we're feeding them weapons, because guess what, unlike us, they don't have a lot of weapons over there. They also happen to live in a shitty desert and don't have Wal-Marts and Publix's on every street corner so they don't exactly have the best access to food. Egypt didn't rise up because of guns--they rose up because of social media. Syria did not rise up because of guns, they rose up because of french air support and american allowing them to not need a base of operations or economic stability.
In 2012, the United States,[10] United Kingdom[11] and France[12] provided opposition forces with non-lethal military aid, including communications equipment and medical supplies. The U.K. was also reported to have provided intelligence support from its Cyprus bases, revealing Syrian military movements to Turkish officials, who then pass on the information to the FSA.[13] The CIA was reported to be involved in covert operations along the Turkish-Syrian border, where agents investigated rebel groups, recommending arms providers which groups to give aid to. Agents also helped opposition forces develop supply routes, and provided them with communications training.[14] Furthermore the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) monitors Syrian army movement, eavesdrops on phone calls and radio traffic within Syria from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and from an Alster class reconnaissance ship cruising off the Syrian coast. According to reports by Bild, the BND maintains a network of informers within the Baathist administration second to none among NATO services.[15]
I see nothing about french planes going in and bombing the shit out of Syria.
Hm.
Syria rose up because they are under an oppressive regime and it is living proof that the people can stand up to tanks, jets, and battleships no matter how much you try to make everything in the modern world about troop numbers.
|
On April 12 2013 02:01 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar. Your post makes absolutely no sense and you are completely ignoring the question. How can you truthfully say that a country can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it. That is the only question you have to answer.
His point is that that question is relatively useless; you aren't referencing "a country", you are referencing the United States. Therefore, it makes more sense to ask
"How can you truthfully say that the United States can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it."
Still a clumsy sentence, but the point is that this comparison is lacking in many ways.
|
If history tells us anything about rebellion its safe to assume military will splinter and it won't be us army vs civilians with pea shooters, it will be civilians fighting alongside the military on both sides.
|
On April 12 2013 02:06 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 02:01 Fruscainte wrote:On April 12 2013 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar. Your post makes absolutely no sense and you are completely ignoring the question. How can you truthfully say that a country can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it. That is the only question you have to answer. On April 12 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers? From 27 September to 1 October, Syrian government forces, backed by tanks and helicopters, led a major offensive on the town of Al-Rastan in Homs province, which had been under opposition control for a couple weeks.[161] There were reports of large numbers of defections in the city, and the FSA reported it had destroyed 17 armoured vehicles during clashes in Rastan, using RPGs and booby traps.[162] One rebel brigade reported that it killed 80 loyalist soldiers in fighting.[163] A defected officer in the Syrian opposition claimed that over a hundred officers had defected as well as thousands of conscripts, although many had gone into hiding or home to their families, rather than fighting the loyalist forces.[162] The 2011 Battle of Rastan between the government forces and the FSA was the longest and most intense action up until that time. After a week of fighting, the FSA was forced to retreat from Rastan.[151] To avoid government forces, the leader of the FSA, Col. Riad Asaad, retreated to the Turkish side of Syrian-Turkish border.[164] Jesus Christ, stop treating an insurgency like a fucking conventional war. Of course this is a battle they lost, but it shows a very important fact -- that they could hold up a damn good fight and there are countless other stories of them winning in cities in the revolution. It is not. It is the farthest thing from that. There is a difference between having an offensive against a countries military that has a distinct leader and has regimentation and fighting a group of people with no direct leader, who are sparsed out across your entire home country. I said it in my first post on this and I'll say it again -- it is VERY easy to make a booby trap to take out a tank. I made an example with a tree, there are hundreds of things you can do. You don't need to destroy the tank, you need to immobilize it or disable its gun. This is incredibly easy believe it or not. Syria, as of 2011 (when the revolution began), had roughly 300,000 troops and 300,000 reserves with a paramilitary force of ~100,000 as well. They have modern tanks, modern helicopters, modern jets, and modern weapons with modern training systems for them. They are losing this war. Now imagine a similar number of troops not against the ~100,000 rebels in the country, but well over a million. Potentially 10 million that would take part in this if shit hit the fan completely. There are hundreds of Syrian troops and officers defecting every god damn day to the rebels. Saying a revolution can not occur or succeed because of tanks and jets is beyond the most ignorant fucking thing ever. They're getting a lot of support and supplies from American and European nations and if I recall correctly France and (Britain?) also provided air support for a lengthy period of time. So yeah, it's easy to fight tanks when you have supplies coming in for free and planes flying for free. Except that's not true at all. Yeah we're feeding them weapons, because guess what, unlike us, they don't have a lot of weapons over there. They also happen to live in a shitty desert and don't have Wal-Marts and Publix's on every street corner so they don't exactly have the best access to food. Egypt didn't rise up because of guns--they rose up because of social media. Syria did not rise up because of guns, they rose up because of french air support and american allowing them to not need a base of operations or economic stability. Show nested quote +In 2012, the United States,[10] United Kingdom[11] and France[12] provided opposition forces with non-lethal military aid, including communications equipment and medical supplies. The U.K. was also reported to have provided intelligence support from its Cyprus bases, revealing Syrian military movements to Turkish officials, who then pass on the information to the FSA.[13] The CIA was reported to be involved in covert operations along the Turkish-Syrian border, where agents investigated rebel groups, recommending arms providers which groups to give aid to. Agents also helped opposition forces develop supply routes, and provided them with communications training.[14] Furthermore the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) monitors Syrian army movement, eavesdrops on phone calls and radio traffic within Syria from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and from an Alster class reconnaissance ship cruising off the Syrian coast. According to reports by Bild, the BND maintains a network of informers within the Baathist administration second to none among NATO services.[15] I see nothing about french planes going in and bombing the shit out of Syria. Hm. Syria rose up because they are under an oppressive regime and it is living proof that the people can stand up to tanks, jets, and battleships no matter how much you try to make everything in the modern world about troop numbers.
http://atlanticsentinel.com/2013/03/britain-france-challenge-german-policy-in-syria/
"By 2011, the French role had changed. With Britain, it pushed aggressively for military intervention in Libya where opposition forces tried to topple the dictatorship of Muammar al-Gaddafi. Air support from mainly France, the United Kingdom and the United States as well as Qatar enabled the rebels to succeed."
Also, the type of support the rebels are getting
"Britain’s foreign secretary William Hague told lawmakers last week that his government was expanding its “technical assistance” to Syrian opposition forces, including the supply of armored vehicles and body armor."
They also are getting rocket propelled anti-aircraft weapons.
So no, a bunch of dudes with hunting rifles don't do anything. Tanks, planes, and rockets is what's keeping the rebels alive.
|
On April 12 2013 02:09 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:01 Fruscainte wrote:On April 12 2013 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar. Your post makes absolutely no sense and you are completely ignoring the question. How can you truthfully say that a country can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it. That is the only question you have to answer. His point is that that question is relatively useless; you aren't referencing "a country", you are referencing the United States. Therefore, it makes more sense to ask "How can you truthfully say that the United States can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it." Still a clumsy sentence, but the point is that this comparison is lacking in many ways.
It's a perfectly apt comparison.
Let me make this clear, I don't think it would be easy or it would be a landslide victory for the people. It would probably be bloodier than our first Civil War, don't get me wrong on that. There will be massive deaths on our side and massive civilian deaths and massive military deaths. It will be incredible amounts of suffering and may never actually have any real resolution if it were to happen. However, one thing is clear -- a country can not oppress a people who are armed simply because they have tanks, jets, and battleships. The people, especially if they are already armed to the teeth, are not something you can push around so simply just because of a perceived technological advantage.
t's a give and take. We may not have enough power to necessarily overthrow our military, but the military certainly does not have enough power to suppress the people.
@ above
You're acting like tens of thousands in the U.S. already don't own heavy amounts of explosives, anti-tank weaponry, armor piercing bullets, and kevlar body armor. Oh wait that's exactly what plenty of people already have. I like when you are talking about gun control and PROTECT THE CHILDREN, everyone has an automatic deadly military grade assault weapon. But when we start talking about revolution and protecting against the government, everyone has singleshot .22 hunting rifle.
|
On April 12 2013 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. 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." Nope. And if that's what he believes, it's even more silly than I thought. Do I really not have this computer because I need electricity to run it? Guns are not a show. They are not a symbol. They are guns. I am not saying that in response to his questions. I answered his questions, he still didn't get it, so I chalk it up to a cultural difference that he cannot comprehend. Private ownership of guns is both a right and a safeguard of rights. Are our rights unsafe? Are they in danger? It doesn't matter one way or the other. Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them. I don't have a gun--does that mean I don't have rights? If the price of rights is having the vigilance to keep them and I don't have a gun--am I to assume I have no rights? EDIT: If guns are just your property and you don't believe the US Government should be able to define what property you can or can't have I understand that--but its this whole "keep vigilance" thing that i believe is confusing people.
Why would not having a gun mean you don't have rights? I don't own a gun, I don't think I have no rights.
I believe (no, wait, I know) I already agreed with a long list of behaviors that can be used before violence (with a gun or not) to safeguard rights - so why are you asking these questions? Why is it always the same questions, and why are they always so dumb?
If some people think that the author and guarantor of their rights is the government, they can go do that. I do not and tens of millions of other Americans don't either. My rights don't come from the government, the government's privileges come from me. If I don't do my own part to keep them from being abridged, chances are someday there won't be enough people left who care enough to pick up the slack for people who don't do their own part and our freedoms will waste away. And when all the things we've constructed to resolve disputes - personal, political (domestic and international) - without violence fails, that's why people should have a right to a gun if they wish to have one. World War I was supposed to be The War to End All Wars. The end of the Cold War was supposed to be The End of History. Nothing is guaranteed.
|
On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers? Show nested quote +From 27 September to 1 October, Syrian government forces, backed by tanks and helicopters, led a major offensive on the town of Al-Rastan in Homs province, which had been under opposition control for a couple weeks.[161] There were reports of large numbers of defections in the city, and the FSA reported it had destroyed 17 armoured vehicles during clashes in Rastan, using RPGs and booby traps.[162] One rebel brigade reported that it killed 80 loyalist soldiers in fighting.[163] A defected officer in the Syrian opposition claimed that over a hundred officers had defected as well as thousands of conscripts, although many had gone into hiding or home to their families, rather than fighting the loyalist forces.[162] The 2011 Battle of Rastan between the government forces and the FSA was the longest and most intense action up until that time. After a week of fighting, the FSA was forced to retreat from Rastan.[151] To avoid government forces, the leader of the FSA, Col. Riad Asaad, retreated to the Turkish side of Syrian-Turkish border.[164] Jesus Christ, stop treating an insurgency like a fucking conventional war. Of course this is a battle they lost, but it shows a very important fact -- that they could hold up a damn good fight and there are countless other stories of them winning in cities in the revolution. It is not. It is the farthest thing from that. There is a difference between having an offensive against a countries military that has a distinct leader and has regimentation and fighting a group of people with no direct leader, who are sparsed out across your entire home country. I said it in my first post on this and I'll say it again -- it is VERY easy to make a booby trap to take out a tank. I made an example with a tree, there are hundreds of things you can do. You don't need to destroy the tank, you need to immobilize it or disable its gun. This is incredibly easy believe it or not. Syria, as of 2011 (when the revolution began), had roughly 300,000 troops and 300,000 reserves with a paramilitary force of ~100,000 as well. They have modern tanks, modern helicopters, modern jets, and modern weapons with modern training systems for them. They are losing this war. Now imagine a similar number of troops not against the ~100,000 rebels in the country, but well over a million. Potentially 10 million that would take part in this if shit hit the fan completely. There are hundreds of Syrian troops and officers defecting every god damn day to the rebels. Saying a revolution can not occur or succeed because of tanks and jets is beyond the most ignorant fucking thing ever.
No, saying that you're going to fight the military with hand guns and hunting rifles is the dumbest thing ever. The military is currently running its own dictatorship in Egypt. As you even said yourself the Syrian military has been defecting to FSA every single day. This has nothing to do with an argument about a civilian population winning a battle against its military. This is still just military vs military, thus your argument loses its weight.
Let me explain it simply: In any sort of civil war involving OUR military, the military will be the deciding factor.
|
On April 12 2013 01:25 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 00:40 Sermokala wrote: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:
[quote]
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 3 SaAT-grges , 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
they had 5500 artillery guns and were one of the most formidable artillery forces in the world? 5700 tanks 80% of which were from WW2 and had no planes. You physically can't fight an actual modern setpeice battle without planes. the choppers are irrelevant when they can be swatted out of the sky like a bug. you can't have artillery being a factor when they've already been bombed to hell by bombers that don't even have to worry about anything coming from the ground anymore. Those at4 anti tank missles you linked were made by the soviet union that can't touch a modern tanks armor. ss11's were made in 1956. millans were made to fight the soviet tanks that the iraq's used as well as those HOTs that you linked as well. None of them make any different to a M1 abrums or a challenger tank so they have no use at all.
They had no response to tanks or an air force of any kind and you would still rank them as 4th strongest in the world? Literally who do you think was weaker then them at the time? Poland was still probably worlds ahead of iraq at the first gulf war. The strength of the us military should be making it a stronger case for why people should be allowed to have guns. If the military ever had to fight the us people we'd have a hell of a lot more then a million people and a hell of a lot more training and motivation to fight then the iraq people did for some dictator that most of them hated. (and now we're back on topic)
|
On April 12 2013 02:01 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:
You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers?
because america is like egypt, literally minutes away from the next semi-christian dictator who is the puppet of a foreign regime. these examples are clearly similar. Your post makes absolutely no sense and you are completely ignoring the question. How can you truthfully say that a country can never rise up against its government because the government has tanks and jets when countries like Egypt and Syria have and are doing it. That is the only question you have to answer. Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 01:50 Fruscainte wrote:You guys saying "LOL TANKS AND JETS" still haven't explained how revolutions occurred and succeeded in Egypt and how a revolution is occurring in Syria right now and is winning. How people with nothing but hunting rifles and what we deem as "assault weapons" took on that country with tanks, helicopters, and trained soldiers? From 27 September to 1 October, Syrian government forces, backed by tanks and helicopters, led a major offensive on the town of Al-Rastan in Homs province, which had been under opposition control for a couple weeks.[161] There were reports of large numbers of defections in the city, and the FSA reported it had destroyed 17 armoured vehicles during clashes in Rastan, using RPGs and booby traps.[162] One rebel brigade reported that it killed 80 loyalist soldiers in fighting.[163] A defected officer in the Syrian opposition claimed that over a hundred officers had defected as well as thousands of conscripts, although many had gone into hiding or home to their families, rather than fighting the loyalist forces.[162] The 2011 Battle of Rastan between the government forces and the FSA was the longest and most intense action up until that time. After a week of fighting, the FSA was forced to retreat from Rastan.[151] To avoid government forces, the leader of the FSA, Col. Riad Asaad, retreated to the Turkish side of Syrian-Turkish border.[164] Jesus Christ, stop treating an insurgency like a fucking conventional war. Of course this is a battle they lost, but it shows a very important fact -- that they could hold up a damn good fight and there are countless other stories of them winning in cities in the revolution. It is not. It is the farthest thing from that. There is a difference between having an offensive against a countries military that has a distinct leader and has regimentation and fighting a group of people with no direct leader, who are sparsed out across your entire home country. I said it in my first post on this and I'll say it again -- it is VERY easy to make a booby trap to take out a tank. I made an example with a tree, there are hundreds of things you can do. You don't need to destroy the tank, you need to immobilize it or disable its gun. This is incredibly easy believe it or not. Syria, as of 2011 (when the revolution began), had roughly 300,000 troops and 300,000 reserves with a paramilitary force of ~100,000 as well. They have modern tanks, modern helicopters, modern jets, and modern weapons with modern training systems for them. They are losing this war. Now imagine a similar number of troops not against the ~100,000 rebels in the country, but well over a million. Potentially 10 million that would take part in this if shit hit the fan completely. There are hundreds of Syrian troops and officers defecting every god damn day to the rebels. Saying a revolution can not occur or succeed because of tanks and jets is beyond the most ignorant fucking thing ever. They're getting a lot of support and supplies from American and European nations and if I recall correctly France and (Britain?) also provided air support for a lengthy period of time. So yeah, it's easy to fight tanks when you have supplies coming in for free and planes flying for free. Except that's not true at all. Yeah we're feeding them weapons, because guess what, unlike us, they don't have a lot of weapons over there. They also happen to live in a shitty desert and don't have Wal-Marts and Publix's on every street corner so they don't exactly have the best access to food. You're dodging the point here by arguing complete irrelevancies. These are people who are on their own fighting the regime, getting some supplies from the outside world. But even now countries like France are embargoing the rebels too.
They are also getting a lot of support from Islamist paramilitary groups and training from foreign special forces. The Syrian rebels are not winning anything with their rifles, just as the Libyans did not. Heck, since we are talking about guns in the USA you should know better than anyone about foreign intervention being the most important factor in a successful revolution.
|
On April 12 2013 02:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 02:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 12 2013 01:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 12 2013 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. 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." Nope. And if that's what he believes, it's even more silly than I thought. Do I really not have this computer because I need electricity to run it? Guns are not a show. They are not a symbol. They are guns. I am not saying that in response to his questions. I answered his questions, he still didn't get it, so I chalk it up to a cultural difference that he cannot comprehend. Private ownership of guns is both a right and a safeguard of rights. Are our rights unsafe? Are they in danger? It doesn't matter one way or the other. Do we really have them? Yes. And vigilance is the price of keeping them. I don't have a gun--does that mean I don't have rights? If the price of rights is having the vigilance to keep them and I don't have a gun--am I to assume I have no rights? EDIT: If guns are just your property and you don't believe the US Government should be able to define what property you can or can't have I understand that--but its this whole "keep vigilance" thing that i believe is confusing people. Why would not having a gun mean you don't have rights? I don't own a gun, I don't think I have no rights. I believe (no, wait, I know) I already agreed with a long list of behaviors that can be used before violence (with a gun or not) to safeguard rights - so why are you asking these questions? Why is it always the same questions, and why are they always so dumb? If some people think that the author and guarantor of their rights is the government, they can go do that. I do not and tens of millions of other Americans don't either. My rights don't come from the government, the government's privileges come from me. If I don't do my own part to keep them from being abridged, chances are someday there won't be enough people left who care enough to pick up the slack for people who don't do their own part and our freedoms will waste away. And when all the things we've constructed to resolve disputes - personal, political (domestic and international) - without violence fails, that's why people should have a right to a gun if they wish to have one. World War I was supposed to be The War to End All Wars. The end of the Cold War was supposed to be The End of History. Nothing is guaranteed.
the problem is that you are implying there is such a thing as a right you have, a natural right that can not be taken away no matter what because that's what "natural right" implies, a right that stands above everything a government could possibly do to you or someone else.
You guys are fine with death penalty so cleary not even that can be considered a natural right although it's the closest thing to such a thing by far.
Frankly speaking it's quite obvious that there can't be more than 1 "most important" right that can not be altered no matter what, which means if you're trying to figure out which one is more important you WILL end up with realising that one has to be altered if you're tossing them against each other. So "natural rightS" isn't possible by definition. A single natural right is possible in theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
