|
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 May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:
Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR.
Fair point, but tyrannical dictators tend to have warped priorities when it comes to this stuff.
Regardless of this, I'd still love to know what it is people think they can do with guns to break a tyranny that they can't do without guns.
Gonna shoot police until there's none left then start on the military police? Assassinate the president and everyone else involved in the government?
|
On May 26 2018 01:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:
Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR.
Fair point, but tyrannical dictators tend to have warped priorities when it comes to this stuff. Regardless of this, I'd still love to know what it is people think they can do with guns to break a tyranny that they can't do without guns. Gonna shoot police until there's none left then start on the military police? Assassinate the president and everyone else involved in the government?
Probably because there's been multiple instances where the U.S. army for all it's military might struggle heavily against insurgents armed with nothing but homemade explosives and cold war era weapons. The U.S. military for example had major issues during the Vietnam War, Japan during WW2, and of course the recent examples of rooting out insurgents in their conflicts with certain Middle East countries/organizations.
|
On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:
People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule.
Typically tyrans have the support of the right to far right of their country (or far left for that matter but in the US it's going to be far right let's not kid ourselves), and that's the same people who tend to have the guns.
We will also require a very precise definition of tyranny, cause if that's just about taking power away from the people, there's a pretty good argument that it's already done, no matter how many guns are there.
|
Yeah, because europe has such a long history of tyranical government now that we all gave up our guns, right. And again, becauce i am asking this question everytime this argument pops up. Please explain, travis, in which scenario it would be useful for you to have a gun against the despotic government? What needs to happen that you think, now it's time i used my weapon on a representative of your government and what would you do?
And at ahswtine, so, just because you are not allowed to fire a grenade launcher does not mean your side of the argument does not have everything it ever wanted. Saying you should have silencers and carry permits so that you can give something back, is arguing in bad faith. It's like a slave owner arguing against the abolition of slavery because he didn't get anything back when he freed the slaves.
|
On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense. People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule. Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom. If we want to limit these tragic events as much as possible, we should be looking to solve the actual causes rather than limiting freedoms in response. Show nested quote +On May 25 2018 23:38 Plansix wrote:
I am not sure how the Swiss military works, but US troops that are active duty do not go home at the end of the day. They stay on base or wherever they are deployed. You are mistaken. Most Active Duty troops go home at the end of the day. If they happen to be deployed then yeah, it depends on the location and maybe they just stay on base, or at a hotel, or whatever. (Though they may also be renting a home at the deployment location). Really it depends on length of stay and location. Combat zones = probably stay on base. Safe first world nations (say, germany or UK or w/e) = probably have rented a house. Location just for training = probably staying at a hotel. For troops located stateside, most just go home at the end of the day. The only people living on base are new recruits, or a select few people in special positions (such as the base commander - he likely has a house on base).
I don't think tha'ts the strongest argument for minimal gun control; and at any rate it's simply not a strong argument from what I've seen. perhaps it is often dismissed because it's not a good argument.
do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism? [I may ignore others' arguments on this, as I'm looking at your argument/claim only]
|
|
|
On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:
Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense.
People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule.
Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom.
If we want to limit these tragic events as much as possible, we should be looking to solve the actual causes rather than limiting freedoms in response.
You’re right. That’s the biggest sticking point for me against outright repeal of the second amendment. Short of that, I’m all for discussions of what light restrictions can be agreed upon to limit illegal activity with the least harm to that important constitutional right.
|
On May 26 2018 02:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense. People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule. Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom. If we want to limit these tragic events as much as possible, we should be looking to solve the actual causes rather than limiting freedoms in response. On May 25 2018 23:38 Plansix wrote:
I am not sure how the Swiss military works, but US troops that are active duty do not go home at the end of the day. They stay on base or wherever they are deployed. You are mistaken. Most Active Duty troops go home at the end of the day. If they happen to be deployed then yeah, it depends on the location and maybe they just stay on base, or at a hotel, or whatever. (Though they may also be renting a home at the deployment location). Really it depends on length of stay and location. Combat zones = probably stay on base. Safe first world nations (say, germany or UK or w/e) = probably have rented a house. Location just for training = probably staying at a hotel. For troops located stateside, most just go home at the end of the day. The only people living on base are new recruits, or a select few people in special positions (such as the base commander - he likely has a house on base). I don't think tha'ts the strongest argument for minimal gun control; and at any rate it's simply not a strong argument from what I've seen. perhaps it is often dismissed because it's not a good argument. do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism?
I don't know, how about the American Revolutionary War?
Vietnamese uprising against French colonialism? Armed resistance movements in WW2 that were successful? The fact that the Afghans with minimal support from the U.S. were able to repel the Soviets?
|
I don't know where superstartran has to dig through to find random videos and reddit posts to support his claims, but here's the actual Swiss law on forbidden weapons (machine translated):
https://www.global-regulation.com/translation/switzerland/2974506/rs-514.54-federal-act-of-20-june-1997-on-weapons%252c-weapon-accessories-and-ammunition-%2528the-firearms%252c-mmt-act%2529.html
Art. dangerous objects
28a
Port the port of dangerous objects in places accessible to the public and detention of such objects in a vehicle are prohibited under the following conditions:
a. it can be plausibly that they are justified by use or maintenance in line with their destination;
b. There is reason to believe that the objects in question will be used in an abusive manner including to intimidate, threaten or hurt people.
Introduced by chapter I of the Federal ACT of 22 June 2007, in effect since Dec. 12. 2008 (RO 2008 5499 5405 art. 2 let. d;) FF 2006 2643).
Chapter 7 special permissions, control, administrative penalties and fees art. exceptional 28b Autorisations exceptional authorizations provided for in this Act may be granted only on the following conditions:
a. There are important reasons such as:
1. the requirements for the profession,
2. use for industrial purposes,
3. the compensation of a physical disability,
4. the constitution of a collection;
(b) any of the grounds referred to in art. 8, al. 2, is opposed; c. the other conditions provided by the law are met.
So yeah, you can own a forbidden weapon, but not for use, barring specific professional or physical requirements. Something that youtuber happily glossed over. And it's illegal to transport them in public.
On May 26 2018 02:43 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 02:29 zlefin wrote:On May 26 2018 01:24 travis wrote:Since we are temporarily on gun control, I will throw out that the strongest (and commonly dismissed argument) for no or extremely limited gun control is protection from authoritarianism. Despite the ridiculous arguments that millions of people make (somehow even some historians), the constitution is pretty clearly written and above that - the writers wrote other essays on their intent when creating the 2nd amendment. It's also common sense. People love to dismiss this argument, but it's basically an inevitability that if you take away the power of people to fight tyranny, then tyranny will eventually rule. Kwark made a post a couple weeks ago I actually really respected. He made the common sense statement that people typically don't come out and say. Some deaths due to tragic events are just the price of having the freedom. If we want to limit these tragic events as much as possible, we should be looking to solve the actual causes rather than limiting freedoms in response. On May 25 2018 23:38 Plansix wrote:
I am not sure how the Swiss military works, but US troops that are active duty do not go home at the end of the day. They stay on base or wherever they are deployed. You are mistaken. Most Active Duty troops go home at the end of the day. If they happen to be deployed then yeah, it depends on the location and maybe they just stay on base, or at a hotel, or whatever. (Though they may also be renting a home at the deployment location). Really it depends on length of stay and location. Combat zones = probably stay on base. Safe first world nations (say, germany or UK or w/e) = probably have rented a house. Location just for training = probably staying at a hotel. For troops located stateside, most just go home at the end of the day. The only people living on base are new recruits, or a select few people in special positions (such as the base commander - he likely has a house on base). I don't think tha'ts the strongest argument for minimal gun control; and at any rate it's simply not a strong argument from what I've seen. perhaps it is often dismissed because it's not a good argument. do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism? I don't know, how about the American Revolutionary War? Vietnamese uprising against French colonialism? Armed resistance movements in WW2 that were successful? The fact that the Afghans with minimal support from the U.S. were able to repel the Soviets?
I don't see how any of these examples have to do with household weapons. If anything, it's evidence that a nation can militarize without having guns in their closets.
|
On May 26 2018 02:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:I don't know where superstartran has to dig through to find random videos and reddit posts to support his claims, but here's the actual Swiss law on forbidden weapons (machine translated): Show nested quote +https://www.global-regulation.com/translation/switzerland/2974506/rs-514.54-federal-act-of-20-june-1997-on-weapons%252c-weapon-accessories-and-ammunition-%2528the-firearms%252c-mmt-act%2529.html
Art. dangerous objects
28a
Port the port of dangerous objects in places accessible to the public and detention of such objects in a vehicle are prohibited under the following conditions:
a. it can be plausibly that they are justified by use or maintenance in line with their destination;
b. There is reason to believe that the objects in question will be used in an abusive manner including to intimidate, threaten or hurt people.
Introduced by chapter I of the Federal ACT of 22 June 2007, in effect since Dec. 12. 2008 (RO 2008 5499 5405 art. 2 let. d;) FF 2006 2643).
Chapter 7 special permissions, control, administrative penalties and fees art. exceptional 28b Autorisations exceptional authorizations provided for in this Act may be granted only on the following conditions:
a. There are important reasons such as:
1. the requirements for the profession,
2. use for industrial purposes,
3. the compensation of a physical disability,
4. the constitution of a collection;
(b) any of the grounds referred to in art. 8, al. 2, is opposed; c. the other conditions provided by the law are met. So yeah, you can own a forbidden weapon, but not for use, barring specific professional or physical requirements. Something that youtuber happily glossed over. And it's illegal to transport them in public.
'Specific professional or physical requirements'
I hope you realize that the fact that he has two automatic weapons with silencers and laser slights attached should all but tell you it's not all that strict to get a weapon. Who am I going to believe, the guy that lives in Switzerland that owns the firearms and clearly knows the laws, or some guy from Canada?
It's not illegal to transport them in public; there's special permits and such that you apply for as r.Evo pointed out earlier. Yes you can't open carry, that's already been pointed out. I don't think a law saying 'you can't openly carry though' is going to prevent a mass shooter intent on killing everyone around him though.
But hey bro, it must be so difficult to obtain those weapons. I hope you know that in the U.S. getting such weapons/attachments could take you literally years.
|
Personal fire arms played a role in the US Revolution, but it is often over stated. The Continental Army did the majority of the fighting in the US revolution and personal fire arms played a small role in that. Every state regiment pre-revolution had a state funded armory, which varied in quality of equipment. Most citizen’s personal firearms were either old, out of date or just not battle worthy compared to their British opponents. They were serviceable, but quickly replaced by stolen British equipment.
|
On May 26 2018 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Personal fire arms played a role in the US Revolution, but it is often over stated. The Continental Army did the majority of the fighting in the US revolution and personal fire arms played a small role in that. Every state regiment pre-revolution had a state funded armory, which varied in quality of equipment. Most citizen’s personal firearms were either old, out of date or just not battle worthy compared to their British opponents. They were serviceable, but quickly replaced by stolen British equipment.
Personal firearms made up the bulk of militias that were the primary reason why the British had such a major issue. Harassment, guerrilla warfare, attacking of supply lines, etc. made life very difficult. The Continental Army itself was getting it's teeth literally kicked in for quite sometime, so to downplay the history of personal firearms in the Revolutionary war is hilarious.
Most militia utilized the early rifle variants, and only used smoothbore muskets when they were openly facing the British Army in the field due to how warfare worked back then (unload multiple volleys of musket fire, bayonet charge and break lines in order to force retreat or surrender). Of course, fighting the British army in the open field wasn't exactly the smartest idea (especially considering how undertrained most men were in that style of fighting). The long rifle did have its place in American History, and is credited as a factor in winning the war.
Consider also that a small American infantry unit (Morgan's Sharpshooters/whatever you'd like to call them) were also instrumental in winning the Battle of Saratoga (which is widely credited as a major turning point in the American Revolutionary War), I wouldn't say that personal arms were 'useless.'
|
On May 26 2018 02:01 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 01:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 26 2018 01:43 superstartran wrote:
Because governments typically don't use those things within urban cities because you'd literally be destroying your own infrastructure and it's immensely bad PR.
Fair point, but tyrannical dictators tend to have warped priorities when it comes to this stuff. Regardless of this, I'd still love to know what it is people think they can do with guns to break a tyranny that they can't do without guns. Gonna shoot police until there's none left then start on the military police? Assassinate the president and everyone else involved in the government? Probably because there's been multiple instances where the U.S. army for all it's military might struggle heavily against insurgents armed with nothing but homemade explosives and cold war era weapons. The U.S. military for example had major issues during the Vietnam War, Japan during WW2, and of course the recent examples of rooting out insurgents in their conflicts with certain Middle East countries/organizations.
Just being forced to engage in shootouts with every dissident you want to jail is a deterrent to would-be tyrants.
Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.
USA Today
A congressman from my state wrote an op ed arguing for confiscation by threat of criminal prosecution. That’s approaching the kinds of sentiments that you want an armed disincentive to counter.
|
On May 26 2018 03:03 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Personal fire arms played a role in the US Revolution, but it is often over stated. The Continental Army did the majority of the fighting in the US revolution and personal fire arms played a small role in that. Every state regiment pre-revolution had a state funded armory, which varied in quality of equipment. Most citizen’s personal firearms were either old, out of date or just not battle worthy compared to their British opponents. They were serviceable, but quickly replaced by stolen British equipment. Personal firearms made up the bulk of militias that were the primary reason why the British had such a major issue. Harassment, guerrilla warfare, attacking of supply lines, etc. made life very difficult. The Continental Army itself was getting it's teeth literally kicked in for quite sometime, so to downplay the history of personal firearms in the Revolutionary war is hilarious.
I am fully aware, I taught high school US history. Personal fire arms played a role in the overall fighting of the war. They did not win the war and never would have. After the war, when the unpaid soldiers marched on the meeting of the state congresses, they went straight for the local armory. Because they knew that is where the real weapons were.
|
On May 26 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 03:03 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Personal fire arms played a role in the US Revolution, but it is often over stated. The Continental Army did the majority of the fighting in the US revolution and personal fire arms played a small role in that. Every state regiment pre-revolution had a state funded armory, which varied in quality of equipment. Most citizen’s personal firearms were either old, out of date or just not battle worthy compared to their British opponents. They were serviceable, but quickly replaced by stolen British equipment. Personal firearms made up the bulk of militias that were the primary reason why the British had such a major issue. Harassment, guerrilla warfare, attacking of supply lines, etc. made life very difficult. The Continental Army itself was getting it's teeth literally kicked in for quite sometime, so to downplay the history of personal firearms in the Revolutionary war is hilarious. I am fully aware, I taught high school US history. Personal fire arms played a role in the overall fighting of the war. They did not win the war and never would have. After the war, when the unpaid soldiers marched on the meeting of the state congresses, they went straight for the local armory. Because they knew that is where the real weapons were.
Then you'd know that the Long Rifle was actually the traditional firearm for most frontiersmen and that it was an instrumental tool at the Battle of Saratoga. To believe that the militia simply 'traded away' for muskets is asinine. You only used muskets when trying to open fire with as many bullets as possible during initial battle engagements (and because it could fit bayonets, etc.)
If the goal was harassment and guerrilla warfare, the American Long Rifle which was the personal firearm for many hunters/frontiersman along Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. was far superior due to it's increased range and accuracy. Like I said, a small elite infantry unit utilized what was the every day American personal firearm for most hunters/frontiersman and was credited with being instrumental in the Battle of Saratoga. You can't say personal firearms didn't have a place.
Not to mention, most colonial infantry actually preferred using the French Charleville Musket over the Brown Bess due to it's lighter weight. It's just the Brown Bess was more widely utilized because of it's availability (British were bringing them over in the thousands, so.... yeah of course you're going to use them)
|
On May 26 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2018 03:03 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Personal fire arms played a role in the US Revolution, but it is often over stated. The Continental Army did the majority of the fighting in the US revolution and personal fire arms played a small role in that. Every state regiment pre-revolution had a state funded armory, which varied in quality of equipment. Most citizen’s personal firearms were either old, out of date or just not battle worthy compared to their British opponents. They were serviceable, but quickly replaced by stolen British equipment. Personal firearms made up the bulk of militias that were the primary reason why the British had such a major issue. Harassment, guerrilla warfare, attacking of supply lines, etc. made life very difficult. The Continental Army itself was getting it's teeth literally kicked in for quite sometime, so to downplay the history of personal firearms in the Revolutionary war is hilarious. I am fully aware, I taught high school US history. Personal fire arms played a role in the overall fighting of the war. They did not win the war and never would have. After the war, when the unpaid soldiers marched on the meeting of the state congresses, they went straight for the local armory. Because they knew that is where the real weapons were. Then you'd know that the Long Rifle was actually the traditional firearm for most frontiersmen and that it was an instrumental tool at the Battle of Saratoga. To believe that the militia simply 'traded away' for muskets is asinine. You only used muskets when trying to open fire with as many bullets as possible during initial battle engagements (and because it could fit bayonets, etc.) If the goal was harassment and guerrilla warfare, the American Long Rifle which was the personal firearm for many hunters/frontiersman along Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. was far superior due to it's increased range and accuracy. Like I said, a small elite infantry unit utilized what was the every day American personal firearm for most hunters/frontiersman and was credited with being instrumental in the Battle of Saratoga. You can't say personal firearms didn't have a place.
Yes, I am fully aware. However, the majority of weapons owned by the average colonial farmer were in poor repair and aged. You can read Washington’s writings about the disrepair of the weapons being provided and requesting money from congress to buy better weapons. The writings about the weapons of that era often leave out the realities that those weapons existed in. Very few militia troops were well equipped frontiersmen. Most were farmers who didn’t take great care of their family musket.
|
On May 26 2018 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2018 03:03 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Personal fire arms played a role in the US Revolution, but it is often over stated. The Continental Army did the majority of the fighting in the US revolution and personal fire arms played a small role in that. Every state regiment pre-revolution had a state funded armory, which varied in quality of equipment. Most citizen’s personal firearms were either old, out of date or just not battle worthy compared to their British opponents. They were serviceable, but quickly replaced by stolen British equipment. Personal firearms made up the bulk of militias that were the primary reason why the British had such a major issue. Harassment, guerrilla warfare, attacking of supply lines, etc. made life very difficult. The Continental Army itself was getting it's teeth literally kicked in for quite sometime, so to downplay the history of personal firearms in the Revolutionary war is hilarious. I am fully aware, I taught high school US history. Personal fire arms played a role in the overall fighting of the war. They did not win the war and never would have. After the war, when the unpaid soldiers marched on the meeting of the state congresses, they went straight for the local armory. Because they knew that is where the real weapons were. Then you'd know that the Long Rifle was actually the traditional firearm for most frontiersmen and that it was an instrumental tool at the Battle of Saratoga. To believe that the militia simply 'traded away' for muskets is asinine. You only used muskets when trying to open fire with as many bullets as possible during initial battle engagements (and because it could fit bayonets, etc.) If the goal was harassment and guerrilla warfare, the American Long Rifle which was the personal firearm for many hunters/frontiersman along Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. was far superior due to it's increased range and accuracy. Like I said, a small elite infantry unit utilized what was the every day American personal firearm for most hunters/frontiersman and was credited with being instrumental in the Battle of Saratoga. You can't say personal firearms didn't have a place. Yes, I am fully aware. However, the majority of weapons owned by the average colonial farmer were in poor repair and aged. You can read Washington’s writings about the disrepair of the weapons being provided and requesting money from congress to buy better weapons. The writings about the weapons of that era often leave out the realities that those weapons existed in. Very few militia troops were well equipped frontiersmen. Most were farmers who didn’t take great care of their family musket.
That I agree with; most of the farmers/urban citizens did not have well equipped firearms. But the Frontiersman who made up the bulk of militia that harassed the American Revolution did (as many signed up later on and became snipers/marksmen in the colonial army).
And yes, Washington's writings did mention about the weapons being awful for many militia, but he also did make a special effort to recruit many frontiersman in order to train them into snipers/sharpshooters. That personal firearm made key differences in a multitude of battles, I wouldn't underplay it's significance.
|
On May 26 2018 03:26 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 03:22 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2018 03:03 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Personal fire arms played a role in the US Revolution, but it is often over stated. The Continental Army did the majority of the fighting in the US revolution and personal fire arms played a small role in that. Every state regiment pre-revolution had a state funded armory, which varied in quality of equipment. Most citizen’s personal firearms were either old, out of date or just not battle worthy compared to their British opponents. They were serviceable, but quickly replaced by stolen British equipment. Personal firearms made up the bulk of militias that were the primary reason why the British had such a major issue. Harassment, guerrilla warfare, attacking of supply lines, etc. made life very difficult. The Continental Army itself was getting it's teeth literally kicked in for quite sometime, so to downplay the history of personal firearms in the Revolutionary war is hilarious. I am fully aware, I taught high school US history. Personal fire arms played a role in the overall fighting of the war. They did not win the war and never would have. After the war, when the unpaid soldiers marched on the meeting of the state congresses, they went straight for the local armory. Because they knew that is where the real weapons were. Then you'd know that the Long Rifle was actually the traditional firearm for most frontiersmen and that it was an instrumental tool at the Battle of Saratoga. To believe that the militia simply 'traded away' for muskets is asinine. You only used muskets when trying to open fire with as many bullets as possible during initial battle engagements (and because it could fit bayonets, etc.) If the goal was harassment and guerrilla warfare, the American Long Rifle which was the personal firearm for many hunters/frontiersman along Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. was far superior due to it's increased range and accuracy. Like I said, a small elite infantry unit utilized what was the every day American personal firearm for most hunters/frontiersman and was credited with being instrumental in the Battle of Saratoga. You can't say personal firearms didn't have a place. Yes, I am fully aware. However, the majority of weapons owned by the average colonial farmer were in poor repair and aged. You can read Washington’s writings about the disrepair of the weapons being provided and requesting money from congress to buy better weapons. The writings about the weapons of that era often leave out the realities that those weapons existed in. Very few militia troops were well equipped frontiersmen. Most were farmers who didn’t take great care of their family musket. That I agree with; most of the farmers/urban citizens did not have well equipped firearms. But the Frontiersman who made up the bulk of militia that harassed the American Revolution did (as many signed up later on and became snipers/marksmen in the colonial army). And yes, Washington's writings did mention about the weapons being awful for many militia, but he also did make a special effort to recruit many frontiersman in order to train them into snipers/sharpshooters. That personal firearm made key differences in a multitude of battles, I wouldn't underplay it's significance.
Yes, but again, they were not that great in number compared to the overall size of the war itself. We are talking about very small groups of militia remembers that harassed the British forces. It helped, but did not turn the tide of the war. I could make an argument that the war would have been won without them, since the main factor of the way was running out the public approval in the England for its cost politically and monetarily.
|
On May 26 2018 03:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2018 03:26 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:22 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2018 03:17 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:13 Plansix wrote:On May 26 2018 03:03 superstartran wrote:On May 26 2018 03:01 Plansix wrote:
Personal fire arms played a role in the US Revolution, but it is often over stated. The Continental Army did the majority of the fighting in the US revolution and personal fire arms played a small role in that. Every state regiment pre-revolution had a state funded armory, which varied in quality of equipment. Most citizen’s personal firearms were either old, out of date or just not battle worthy compared to their British opponents. They were serviceable, but quickly replaced by stolen British equipment. Personal firearms made up the bulk of militias that were the primary reason why the British had such a major issue. Harassment, guerrilla warfare, attacking of supply lines, etc. made life very difficult. The Continental Army itself was getting it's teeth literally kicked in for quite sometime, so to downplay the history of personal firearms in the Revolutionary war is hilarious. I am fully aware, I taught high school US history. Personal fire arms played a role in the overall fighting of the war. They did not win the war and never would have. After the war, when the unpaid soldiers marched on the meeting of the state congresses, they went straight for the local armory. Because they knew that is where the real weapons were. Then you'd know that the Long Rifle was actually the traditional firearm for most frontiersmen and that it was an instrumental tool at the Battle of Saratoga. To believe that the militia simply 'traded away' for muskets is asinine. You only used muskets when trying to open fire with as many bullets as possible during initial battle engagements (and because it could fit bayonets, etc.) If the goal was harassment and guerrilla warfare, the American Long Rifle which was the personal firearm for many hunters/frontiersman along Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. was far superior due to it's increased range and accuracy. Like I said, a small elite infantry unit utilized what was the every day American personal firearm for most hunters/frontiersman and was credited with being instrumental in the Battle of Saratoga. You can't say personal firearms didn't have a place. Yes, I am fully aware. However, the majority of weapons owned by the average colonial farmer were in poor repair and aged. You can read Washington’s writings about the disrepair of the weapons being provided and requesting money from congress to buy better weapons. The writings about the weapons of that era often leave out the realities that those weapons existed in. Very few militia troops were well equipped frontiersmen. Most were farmers who didn’t take great care of their family musket. That I agree with; most of the farmers/urban citizens did not have well equipped firearms. But the Frontiersman who made up the bulk of militia that harassed the American Revolution did (as many signed up later on and became snipers/marksmen in the colonial army). And yes, Washington's writings did mention about the weapons being awful for many militia, but he also did make a special effort to recruit many frontiersman in order to train them into snipers/sharpshooters. That personal firearm made key differences in a multitude of battles, I wouldn't underplay it's significance. Yes, but again, they were not that great in number compared to the overall size of the war itself. We are talking about very small groups of militia remembers that harassed the British forces. It helped, but did not turn the tide of the war. I could make an argument that the war would have been won without them, since the main factor of the way was running out the public approval in the England for its cost politically and monetarily.
Even having poor firearms is a major deterrent to England rolling over the colonies though. As you stated, the war was causing major issues for England both politically and monetarily, and even though initially the British were winning, it wasn't a land slide victory to cause a major collapse. Many of the initial militias were armed with their personal firearms initially before gaining hold of the Brown Bess; that in itself made things very difficult for the British army in general. The long rifle itself made key contributions in key conflicts, but even the every day old musket did enough to contribute to the war effort.
It's kind of like the Afghans during the Afghan Soviet War. It's not like the Afghans had state of the art technology, but they had enough personal firearms (and illegal weapons traded to them by various different countries) to stand up to the Soviet army enough to force them to withdraw eventually as it simply cost too much money, and was a political disaster. The point being that just having a large armed population is enough to deter governments/foreign entities from trying to do something stupid.
|
On May 26 2018 01:33 farvacola wrote:
That argument also looks far less attractive once it loses the thin veneer of constitution-speak and reveals itself for what it is, an argument that basically leads to "I want guns so I can kill police or other government employees in the event I consider their actions tyrannical."
Well, *I* certainly don't want guns to do any of that. I actually am disgusted by them. I just believe in freedom and logic (not saying I am more logical than anyone else - just saying that my belief that my position is logical is what motivates it).
It seems like you are using flowery language to try to try to disparage my position. Thin-veneer of constitution speak? What does that even mean. And as for where you say my argument leads - I would say it is unfair and lacks nuance or discrimination, but yeah ok lets go there anyways. You act like the concept in the quote is a bad thing. So, I ask why. The alternative is.. what exactly?
On May 26 2018 02:05 Nebuchad wrote:
Typically tyrans have the support of the right to far right of their country (or far left for that matter but in the US it's going to be far right let's not kid ourselves), and that's the same people who tend to have the guns.
We will also require a very precise definition of tyranny, cause if that's just about taking power away from the people, there's a pretty good argument that it's already done, no matter how many guns are there.
I think these are interesting points and I think both of them are strong in that the first one probably is generally true and that the second one is spot on with how you said it. To be honest, at the most basic level I believe people should be able to own guns because I believe in freedom (to everyone - you really don't need to bother arguing the semantics of the word "freedom" here). But as for the points you bring up, despite being good points, they are still "maybes" and "sort ofs". I believe "maybes" and "sort ofs" are good enough reasons to have a right, but not a good enough reason to strip it away.
On May 26 2018 02:20 Broetchenholer wrote:
Yeah, because europe has such a long history of tyranical government now that we all gave up our guns, right. And again, becauce i am asking this question everytime this argument pops up. Please explain, travis, in which scenario it would be useful for you to have a gun against the despotic government? What needs to happen that you think, now it's time i used my weapon on a representative of your government and what would you do?
I don't see the relevancy of gun control policies in Europe. Can you guarantee that every country with gun control won't become a tyranny at some point in the future? If not, then what is your point.
As for your hypothetical, I don't see myself shooting anyone. But let's say I was more like the type of person you are invisioning.
Well, a good example of when I might pull out a gun and shoot someone is when police or mercenaries come to my house in the middle of the night to remove me or a loved one for whatever reason you can imagine. And if you can't come up with reasons, then you lack imagination and knowledge of history.
Even better would be if I was a member of a *community* with guns. Then I could help my neighbor, and they could help me.
On May 26 2018 02:29 zlefin wrote:
do you have any actual evidence to backup your claim about it being effective at stopping tyranny/authoritarianism? [I may ignore others' arguments on this, as I'm looking at your argument/claim only]
On the scale of an entire nation....? I am assuming you don't want... the revolutionary war as an example. Clearly has only minimal relevance.
I am not knowledgeable enough to know if there is a good example. But I don't think it's a fair request. More like something to be debated.
Do you have any evidence it isn't effective at stopping tyranny?
edit: actually missed this reply. didn't want to skip anyone.
On May 26 2018 01:30 Jockmcplop wrote:
If your government has missile armed drones, tanks and planes with big nuclear bombs they have already taken away the power of the people to fight tyranny.
What could the American public do to fight tyranny with guns that they couldn't do without guns?
Well, it actually does become more complicated as technology advances. I don't think it's advanced to the point where guns are not an extreme deterrent yet, though.
Most of what you talk about assumes that the military backs the oppressors, which likely would not be the case. Also, most of these tools are very effective in wars, but less effective in guerrilla type environments and/or when you don't actually know who is on which side. What the american people could do with guns is protect themselves from mercenaries and special police forces (or normal police forces.. considering this is the U.S.). They also could raid locations and assassinate people. Oppressors would be under constant threat of assassination... from anyone, at any time. They wouldn't be able to go anywhere openly.
That said I think it is a valid point actually. My opinion is that it is likely that technology will eventually invalidate or change the nature of the "armed populace is a defense against tyranny" argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
