Chefelf.com Night Life: Why legalize assault weapons? - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (21 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

Why legalize assault weapons?

#271 User is offline   Casual Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: 28-December 07
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:That place thats close to the thing you know the one
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 07 June 2009 - 11:00 AM

Wow debates happen across a geological time frame here don't they? You guys were arguing these points last time I was here. ermm.gif
QUOTE (arien @ Jun 29 2008, 03:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So this baby, while still inside its mother, murdered his twin brother and STOLE HIS PENIS.

That is one badass baby.

0

#272 User is offline   Dr Lecter Icon

  • Almighty God Of All Morals
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,132
  • Joined: 03-January 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Crawley/Hull
  • Country:United Kingdom

Posted 15 August 2009 - 06:46 PM

1. You're more likely to be the victim of a shooting if you own a gun.
2. More deaths are caused by accidental shootings in homes with guns, than homicides by intruders.
3. Almost all random shootings take place with legally purchased guns.
4. Assault rifles? Unless you're living in a heavily fortified villa, with the threaten of paramilitary attack at any moment, you don't need an assault rifle. If you still say you do, I think the IRS needs to check you out since you must be a drug lord (or in one of those paramilitary organisations).
5. Seriously, assault rifles? There's a simple reason they only use them in war zones: They shoot through fucking everything. It's not unknown for a bullet to pass through the bodies of two people and still go through a wall and injure/kill a innocent bystander.
6. We all know what the real reason you guys want guns for, you guys are still afraid we're going to come back over and claim the place for the crown? Well it's not true, honestly you can put the damn guns away, hasn't it been long enough? ( :innocent: )
7. Well.... Ok ok, actually screw it... the truth is I've been sent to try and convince you guys to lay down your arms so that the Crown can crush the American Revolution at last. Happy now?
0

#273 User is offline   Hotbox Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 02-July 09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:moss eisley
  • Interests:games, comedy from brass eye to buster keaton, getting stuff free, asian chicks and danger wanking.
  • Country:Thailand

Posted 24 August 2009 - 04:48 AM

If guns were legal i'd have less enemies...and i'd be single, chaching!

This post has been edited by Hotbox: 24 August 2009 - 04:48 AM

0

#274 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 26 March 2010 - 09:30 AM

The Wild West analogy is on my side. The Wild West was wild because there weren't enough law enforcement because it wasn't feasible. The thing that kept bandits away and towns under control was armed vigilantes. The former Wild West, that is to say the current State of California and the surrounding shitfests, is in the same predicament now where you have police officers who are only good at tazering schizophrenics and responding to a crime half an hour after its taken place. And only a moron would think you can have a cop on every corner or have enough to police officers to effectively police the entire city, state and country. Even in countries without the problems America has, the dependence on police and the taking of arms results in massive crime hikes. The police, in the end, are only good for enforcing the government's authority and even in that they suck unless they have some sort of sleazy secret service backing them up.
Of course you can also wipe out the local "negro" and "latino" populations. That'd bring crime right down. But I guess that's not an option because people have turned into giant gaping vaginas while the only people with balls wear their cap backwards, their pants around their knees and refer to each other in a derogatory fashion.
And I take back what I wrote about not allowing shotguns and explosives. Allow everything. Fuck the supposed consequences. You people have to stop being such fucking pussies. (And stupid, uppity middleclass douchebags.)

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 26 March 2010 - 09:31 AM

"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#275 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 28 March 2010 - 12:46 AM

I have walked around, at night, with a camera, and photogrpahed buildings and alleyways and street art and so on in poor areas of Californian neighbourhoods. I have encountered folks smoking away on crack pipes who have - generally in a polite tone - asked that I not photpgraph them. I have done this without a bodyguard or a gun. I have not been threatened, though sometimes I was asked for money.

The "Wild West" ran about 2-3 years. And it was "wild" because businessmen and governments were capturing and "taming" territory. Some of their efforts necessitated murdering natives; some necessitated murdering rivals. Since everyone had a gun, they had to be more brutal than otherwise; since everyone had a gun, also, many simple arguments turned violent. Laws and gun control redued the gun deaths. I don;t see how this analogy is on your side. As an analogy for potential corruption and the need for well-armed militias it is reasonable, sure. But there is NOTHING that any militia can do with rifles and handguns (or even assault rifles) against the military power of the US Army. Gun ownership is not a defence against tyrrany. It is only an opportuntiy for people to kill themselves accidentally. If everyone had a gun at all times, people would be shooting one another for talking in movie theatres.

Again, we have lots of guns in Canada. To get a gun license, you have to take a course in gun safety. And in no provicnce is it ever permissable to carry a loaded gun in public (excepting of course the woods and firing ranges). We have significantly fewer accidental deaths.

The police cannot stop gun deaths from occuring; their purpose is to investigate them and to make arrests after the fact. They are about 50% effective in this, which is pretty good. Their existence is a deterrant, and they are better than nothing. But the real way to reduce gun deaths is to reduce the number of guns.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#276 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 28 March 2010 - 06:50 AM

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 28 March 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

I have walked around, at night, with a camera, and photogrpahed buildings and alleyways and street art and so on in poor areas of Californian neighbourhoods. I have encountered folks smoking away on crack pipes who have - generally in a polite tone - asked that I not photpgraph them. I have done this without a bodyguard or a gun. I have not been threatened, though sometimes I was asked for money.

You don't live in those neighbourhoods. You don't have to put up with the problems gangs, petty criminals and the like create. These gangs and criminals aren't your idolized gangsters from American cinemas. They'd sell you and your family if they had the chance and a willing buyer. You're Irish, right? I'm sure you can sympathize with that if you know anything about early (that is to say before the half-arsed attempt at colonization by the English/Scottish) Irish history, unless all you know is that lame propaganda churned out by Irishmen living abroad.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 28 March 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

The "Wild West" ran about 2-3 years. And it was "wild" because businessmen and governments were capturing and "taming" territory. Some of their efforts necessitated murdering natives; some necessitated murdering rivals. Since everyone had a gun, they had to be more brutal than otherwise; since everyone had a gun, also, many simple arguments turned violent. Laws and gun control redued the gun deaths. I don;t see how this analogy is on your side. As an analogy for potential corruption and the need for well-armed militias it is reasonable, sure. But there is NOTHING that any militia can do with rifles and handguns (or even assault rifles) against the military power of the US Army. Gun ownership is not a defence against tyrrany. It is only an opportuntiy for people to kill themselves accidentally. If everyone had a gun at all times, people would be shooting one another for talking in movie theatres.

Let's look at the real situation that America is in, shall we? There are approximately 4,000,000 soldiers which can be called up by the government if there is any widespread "civil" disorder in the "mainland" or "homeland." That's assuming all 4,000,000 would put the government ahead of their families and local communities. That's also assuming that the government is willing to abandon all foreign bases and that the various levels of government would be unified in all this. How many armed citizens are there? There's no exact number but it's said to be over a hundred million, certainly in the tens of millions. Militias are ad hoc organizations made by an armed populace in order to respond to a threat. If you honestly think that mercenaries (because that's all they'd be if they started shooting their fellow countrymen for doing what their ancestors advocated) can fight a war against a heavily armed (since assault rifles are sold en masse in America, lawfully or not) native population which outnumbers them at least 22 to 1, you might be repeating bullshit rhetoric rather than being pragmatic about this. This is without taking into account that the average professional soldier costs exponentially more than the average militiaman or that weapons can easily be smuggled across the “border” of America, which is doubly true when the whole country is in a state of “civil” unrest or “civil” war. Also without taking into account that the army has clearly shown that it's completely useless in a war that's even slightly “unconventional” in the past. Not to mention how easily RPGs, LAWs, mines and IEDs can destroy helicopters, tanks, APCs and fortifications. I could go on and on but I think I'll stop. Everything, and I mean everything, points to the government not only losing, but losing so quickly and so horrifically that it probably won't even be classified as a war, but rather a popular coup.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 28 March 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

Again, we have lots of guns in Canada. To get a gun license, you have to take a course in gun safety. And in no provicnce is it ever permissable to carry a loaded gun in public (excepting of course the woods and firing ranges). We have significantly fewer accidental deaths.

America isn't Canada. Not in the slightest.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 28 March 2010 - 03:46 PM, said:

The police cannot stop gun deaths from occuring; their purpose is to investigate them and to make arrests after the fact. They are about 50% effective in this, which is pretty good. Their existence is a deterrant, and they are better than nothing. But the real way to reduce gun deaths is to reduce the number of guns.

You know what's a better deterrent? Armed victims.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#277 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 28 March 2010 - 02:19 PM

Quote

The former Wild West, that is to say the current State of California and the surrounding shitfests, is in the same predicament now where you have police officers who are only good at tazering schizophrenics and responding to a crime half an hour after its taken place.


So, basically, youre equating modern day california with the American West of 100+ years ago, and the reason for the analogy is that cops tazered people in both? Or that they arrived late to crimes? If they did that in the wild west, why were there so many shoot outs? Also, why are there no longer criminal groups of bank robbers, etc who commit multiple bank robberies and high profile thefts? Hint: There arent because your analogy is wrong.

Quote

Even in countries without the problems America has, the dependence on police and the taking of arms results in massive crime hikes.


Name one where the hikes in crime rate werent due to unemployment or governmental turmoil. Where, in fact, people suddenly got up and said "well, we're living comfortable lives, but look! only police are enforcing the laws, let's go do some pirating!"

Quote

The police, in the end, are only good for enforcing the government's authority and even in that they suck unless they have some sort of sleazy secret service backing them up.


I would like to posit that the police are good for more than that. One day I was walking home from work along a dark road and a policeman stopped and gave me a ride home after making sure I wasnt a stalker or something. Also, as someone who was walking along a road, I enjoy traffic laws and their enforcement. Is the speed limit meant to keep people subservient? If I dont stop at a stop sign does it bring us one step closer to the 1-% flat tax corporate-anarchy civilization?

Quote

And I take back what I wrote about not allowing shotguns and explosives. Allow everything. Fuck the supposed consequences. You people have to stop being such fucking pussies. (And stupid, uppity middleclass douchebags.)


This is the second time you have reversed your position. My hope is that if we keep folding your ass over your head, you'll eventually gain stronger, more sensible ideas, like the way a sword smith folds a piece of rusty metal over itself again and again to make it better.

Quote

You don't live in those neighbourhoods. You don't have to put up with the problems gangs, petty criminals and the like create


Nor do you. You admit to living in Australia and having precisely no first hand knowledge of the US OR Canada, but you have frequently discounted Civ's experiences because he is a Canadian who has been to the US and to these places you are expounding on. That's not how it works.

Quote

These gangs and criminals aren't your idolized gangsters from American cinemas.


Yeah, in that they dont wield Tommy guns and have daily gun battles.

Quote

half-arsed attempt at colonization by the English/Scottish


The English "attempt" at colonizing Ireland lasted 1000 years, put down at least 20 large scale rebellions, and is still ongoing today in the Six Counties. If that's what you call a half arsed attempt I'd hate to see what happens when they use their whole arse. Also, the Bruce's armies never colonized, they just came in to "liberate" Ireland. Didnt go well. In fact, most Irish consider the only decent thing the English ever did for them was to get rid of the Scottish.

Quote

"Government/lizard/queen of England conspiracy justifies assault rifles"


No. If youre going to use a made up scenario youre going to need to make it up better rather than just "the government is the government, they'll probably want to kill us all at some point" As for the effectiveness of private militia VS regular army, we've done that at least 3 times: 2 times near the founding of the country (Bacon and the Whiskey rebellions) then again during a mass scale union war in 1920s West Virginia... Ok point of fact, the miners largely won in 2 other similar conflicts, but the difference is that in WV they called in the army to restore "order" (slaughter all the miners so the rich coal men could go back to exploiting people) It never went well for the militia.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#278 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 28 March 2010 - 11:13 PM

View PostJ m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

So, basically, youre equating modern day california with the American West of 100+ years ago, and the reason for the analogy is that cops tazered people in both? Or that they arrived late to crimes? If they did that in the wild west, why were there so many shoot outs? Also, why are there no longer criminal groups of bank robbers, etc who commit multiple bank robberies and high profile thefts? Hint: There arent because your analogy is wrong.

No, because law enforcement in both eras was lacking, to put it lightly.

View PostJ m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

Name one where the hikes in crime rate werent due to unemployment or governmental turmoil. Where, in fact, people suddenly got up and said "well, we're living comfortable lives, but look! only police are enforcing the laws, let's go do some pirating!"

http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=15304

View PostJ m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

I would like to posit that the police are good for more than that. One day I was walking home from work along a dark road and a policeman stopped and gave me a ride home after making sure I wasnt a stalker or something. Also, as someone who was walking along a road, I enjoy traffic laws and their enforcement. Is the speed limit meant to keep people subservient? If I dont stop at a stop sign does it bring us one step closer to the 1-% flat tax corporate-anarchy civilization?

Put in speed bumps, genius.

View PostJ m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

This is the second time you have reversed your position. My hope is that if we keep folding your ass over your head, you'll eventually gain stronger, more sensible ideas, like the way a sword smith folds a piece of rusty metal over itself again and again to make it better.

You enjoy folding male arses, don't you?

View PostJ m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

Nor do you. You admit to living in Australia and having precisely no first hand knowledge of the US OR Canada, but you have frequently discounted Civ's experiences because he is a Canadian who has been to the US and to these places you are expounding on. That's not how it works.

I've lived in poor neighbourhoods and have witnessed crimes firsthand. My experiences are irrelevant to this discussion, though. Just as are his. Just as are yours.

View PostJ m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

Yeah, in that they dont wield Tommy guns and have daily gun battles.

Right you are. Real gangsters had regular ambushes rather than daily battles. They weren't dump enough to take on a heavily armed opponent one-on-one.

View PostJ m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

The English "attempt" at colonizing Ireland lasted 1000 years, put down at least 20 large scale rebellions, and is still ongoing today in the Six Counties. If that's what you call a half arsed attempt I'd hate to see what happens when they use their whole arse. Also, the Bruce's armies never colonized, they just came in to "liberate" Ireland. Didnt go well. In fact, most Irish consider the only decent thing the English ever did for them was to get rid of the Scottish.

This is the English we're talking about. When they want to colonize something, the natives disappear and are replaced by WASPs or a tribe which is generally loyal to England. In retrospect, it was half-arsed. Something similar to what they did in Sri Lanka. They didn't want Ireland. There's nothing in Ireland worth taking. They just wanted a place where they can take their family on holiday.

View PostJ m HofMarN, on 29 March 2010 - 05:19 AM, said:

No. If youre going to use a made up scenario youre going to need to make it up better rather than just "the government is the government, they'll probably want to kill us all at some point" As for the effectiveness of private militia VS regular army, we've done that at least 3 times: 2 times near the founding of the country (Bacon and the Whiskey rebellions) then again during a mass scale union war in 1920s West Virginia... Ok point of fact, the miners largely won in 2 other similar conflicts, but the difference is that in WV they called in the army to restore "order" (slaughter all the miners so the rich coal men could go back to exploiting people) It never went well for the militia.

The purpose of government is to dominate, not serve. Every institution of the government serves this purpose. Even the act of charity or allowing voting is only implemented to placate and trick the masses. And I clearly meant national (not local) "rebellion." Maybe you should actually read my posts and realise how your views on government is sourly outdated rather than trying to defend your outdated opinions without logical consideration.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#279 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 30 March 2010 - 11:27 PM

Wild West bollocks: Hey, I just thought of something. Didnt EVERYONE AND THEIR CAT have guns back then? And yet there was tons of crime and bank robbers could easily just walk away with the bank's riches? Was it really only due to law enforcement being lax? Or perhaps it had a lot more to do with the unsettled nature of the area and the fact that law enforcement had poor intelligence in areas that had no census or status as states?

Link bollocks: As usual with your "sources" I checked that website. I was pleased to discover that not only is everyone being killed in Australia because they can't defend themselves, but that the death panels are going to save the US government a lot of money, all leftists are mentally ill, and that Barack Obama is an undocumented migrant. Please find a news source about your country that is A: located in your country and B: Not batshit fucking crazy. The article made clear that the vast majority of handguns in australia were not handed in under that law anyhow.

I am not sure how speed bumps could enforce the speed limit on a highway. Do you know how cars work?

As for your experiences in crime, please feel free to describe it and how a gun would have helped.

On the gangster issue, youre still working from a mob movie view of things. You may as well say we're all at risk of having our feet sealed in concrete and being tossed from a tug boat by Steve Buscemi. Gangland murders do not happen that often and the targets are nearly always gangsters. I don't understand how your constanta "I just saw the Godfather" arguments help gun rights.

Quote

There's nothing in Ireland worth taking. They just wanted a place where they can take their family on holiday.


First of all, according to national representation on the forums there appears to be far less of worth in Australia than in Ireland.
Second of all, the English lost 1000 soldiers and paramilitaries during the Troubles alone to the heroic resistance of the IRA, IRB, and INLA. That was for 6 out of 32 counties over a span of under 50 years. Assuming that rate was constant, well, multiply that number by 5 to represent the full 32 County Ireland and then multiply THAT number by 18 to represent the full breadth of the English occupation. I'm not saying thats accurate, though I dearly wish it were, but my point is that the British occupation forces, even though the freedom fighters suffered far higher casualties, usually 2-1, were still getting hit pretty hard. Are you telling me that the British government sent 1000 men to their deaths and spent untold sums of money for a country that they were only half assed trying to oppress? Are you implying that if the English had wanted to they could have conquered Ireland? Because I'd like to differ. If you wanted to make an argument to denigrate the efforts of the Irish resistance, you should point out the help given to them by the American government and people (DeValera, etc) rather than try to say that they won because England let them. I'd still say you were wrong, but at least you wouldnt look like you were trying to be a dick for no reason.

Quote

The purpose of government is to dominate, not serve. Every institution of the government serves this purpose. Even the act of charity or allowing voting is only implemented to placate and trick the masses. And I clearly meant national (not local) "rebellion." Maybe you should actually read my posts and realise how your views on government is sourly outdated rather than trying to defend your outdated opinions without logical consideration.


No, it isnt. Just like the purpose of ethics isnt to dominate. Government exists as a service to the people, not for its own profit. A doctor's job isn't only to make money, it's to heal the sick. He may make money from it, but the purpose is to serve the people. All jobs involve a service to individuals and to society at large. IE: A farmer's job is to provide food, and by doing this he makes money. The government's job is to protect public order and benefit, etc. By doing this, they have power. The one is necessary to the other, but society causes the one to exist for its purpose, not because they want to offer its benefits.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#280 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 01 April 2010 - 12:35 AM

JM: The revolution in Ireland succeeded in a resolution because it occured during WWI. Had Collins and DeValera rebelled ten years earlier or later, they would have failed. On an unrelated note, you should wach THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY. Good flick.

Deuc: The scenario you describe, with the numbers of soldiers versus the number of armed civilians, assumes that the civilians are united, in contact with one another. That they have a common goal and communication. THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. God forbid the US government becomes a real tyrrany, because it would NEVER be removed by a civilian revolt. It could only be removed if its military revolted. I understand your guerrilla scenario, how urban terrorists operate, and the nature of improvised weapons. I know what you mean about the relative cost of one soldier over another. But I ask you to consider that regardless of the high cost of a US soldier, his side has funding, communication, extensive training, chain of command and discipline. A guerrilla war on home turf would be costly and painful, but the army would win. The rebels would give up or be killed. Meanwhile, the idea that they would not, that they are the thin line separating America from tyrrany is brought up every time someone with a commercial interest in assault rifles petitions a gun lobby to speak out in their defence. Assault rifles are not separating the US from tyrranny; instead they are spraying street corners and school yards and the occasional stash house. They are criminal tools. They have no purpose in hunting, and they are not used by common citizens in home defense. Their domestic use is to wage territory warfare among drug dealers (their use in this context is rare). Their other commercial purposes (foreign terrorism) are well-documented.

I am familiar with poverty locally as well. I mentioned my photo tourism as a retort to the notion that American cities are inherently dangerous. I have never felt frightened or insecure anywhere I have gone.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#281 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 01 April 2010 - 10:43 PM

Hoffman, I'm going to argue with CNT now. Don't feel too bad, it's just that I don't want to reply to two walls of text at a time. You understand, I'm sure. If you don't, I don't care.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 01 April 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

Deuc: The scenario you describe, with the numbers of soldiers versus the number of armed civilians, assumes that the civilians are united, in contact with one another.

Not unified, simply against the government and have a truce with one another. And they'd have to only have a truce long enough for the government to fall. Considering that the government would lose a chunk of it's revenue as well as a chunk of it's subjects and territory, it wouldn't last long.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 01 April 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

God forbid the US government becomes a real tyrrany, because it would NEVER be removed by a civilian revolt. It could only be removed if its military revolted.

You expect those idiots to help you out? They're the dregs of the scum of society. And they officers? Middleclass douchebags more concerned with promotion and their salaries than any principles. The ones that'd oppose it on principle would either act as spies for the militias or simply quit. There's no "checks and balances." The more control a government has, the more nepotism is rife.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 01 April 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

I understand your guerrilla scenario, how urban terrorists operate, and the nature of improvised weapons. I know what you mean about the relative cost of one soldier over another. But I ask you to consider that regardless of the high cost of a US soldier, his side has funding, communication, extensive training, chain of command and discipline.

The army wouldn't have funding since, assuming what you've previously written is true, the government wouldn't be able to collect taxes. A militiaman has self-discipline while a soldier has imposed discipline. In that regard, if the chain of command is broken then the soldier is fucked while the militiaman can manage. Logistics, communications and training don't mean shit if you can't hold something. And what is the army going to hold? Cities? They'd be sitting ducks. Towns and villages? There's way too many, they'd be overstretched. Forts? Then they wouldn't be doing anything. A militiaman doesn't have to hold anything because they already live there or have enough support from the locals to blend in. A soldier on the other hand is already isolated from the populace and would further that isolation when they kill, accidentally or not, the local civilians when trying to kill a guerrilla or get out of an ambush. They could do the smart thing and try to exterminate the locals but in America that's not exactly feasible when a third of the population has guns and when the locals outnumber you by 75 to 1.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 01 April 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

A guerrilla war on home turf would be costly and painful, but the army would win. The rebels would give up or be killed. Meanwhile, the idea that they would not, that they are the thin line separating America from tyrrany is brought up every time someone with a commercial interest in assault rifles petitions a gun lobby to speak out in their defence. Assault rifles are not separating the US from tyrranny; instead they are spraying street corners and school yards and the occasional stash house. They are criminal tools. They have no purpose in hunting, and they are not used by common citizens in home defense. Their domestic use is to wage territory warfare among drug dealers (their use in this context is rare). Their other commercial purposes (foreign terrorism) are well-documented.

Have you forgotten the increasing role the government has in the lives of it's subjects? The bill after bill of social and economic control? The increasingly militaristic society? America has military bases in over half the world. It's spies on it's own people and arbitrarily arrests them. Any abuse caused by government officials is practically dismissed. This is tyranny in everything but name. When officials start referring to written law as a "goddamn piece of paper" and when they've been breaking the law for over a couple of decades regardless of which party is in power and they've been doing so with impunity, you have to ask yourself whether you should continue to reassure yourself that they know what's best for you.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 01 April 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

I am familiar with poverty locally as well. I mentioned my photo tourism as a retort to the notion that American cities are inherently dangerous. I have never felt frightened or insecure anywhere I have gone.

"The neighbourhoods I went to are safe because I spent an hour in them taking photos and wasn't lynched," isn't a retort. And have you been to Detroit? Or Caracas in Venezuela? Or to any city between Mexico and Columbia? Have you lived in any of those places? Not that it matters because your personal experiences are irrelevant to this discussion. (You're beginning to remind me of non-fictional authors who write about great events as if they were autobiographies of themselves.)
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#282 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 01 April 2010 - 11:22 PM

Deuc: there is no way that this 75 to 1 ratio of well-armed civilians would suddenly, out of the blue, with no communication, decide to rebel against the army and the police. There is no way that the fantasy you imagine would ever overthrow the US government. The idea of defending one's self against governmental tyranny is the most common and least compelling argument for open access to guns. It is least compelling because nothing like it has ever happened anywhere ever.

Detroit was interesting for a while there. I wasn't able to find a restaurant in the downtown core that was open in the middle of the day, poverty and business failure was so bad. I was not lynched there either, though I am sure that the personal experiences you ask me to relate are still not relevant. So who cares?
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#283 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 02 April 2010 - 12:00 AM

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 02 April 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:

Deuc: there is no way that this 75 to 1 ratio of well-armed civilians would suddenly, out of the blue, with no communication, decide to rebel against the army and the police. There is no way that the fantasy you imagine would ever overthrow the US government.

No, civilians outnumber soldiers 75 to 1. The ratio of gun owners is something like 25 to 1. In any case, they'd rebel after the government finally pushes something too far. I have no idea what that thing will be. But if they don't rebel then, as far as I'm concerned, they deserve their enslavement. I'm just saying that if there was a rebellion, the government wouldn't stand a chance because of guns. And once the rebellion starts, I mean once there is nationwide unrest, it'd be near impossible to "put the flame out."

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 02 April 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:

The idea of defending one's self against governmental tyranny is the most common and least compelling argument for open access to guns.

What's going to stop the government from abusing it's power? Pieces of paper? You seem to think that abstract ideals have weight in the real world and that they give you protection.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 02 April 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:

It is least compelling because nothing like it has ever happened anywhere ever.

There's never, ever been a popular revolution, a popular coup or the like? What the fuck have you been smoking? Off the top of my head: Romania, Iran, Yugoslavia, Nepal, India.

View Postcivilian_number_two, on 02 April 2010 - 02:22 PM, said:

Detroit was interesting for a while there. I wasn't able to find a restaurant in the downtown core that was open in the middle of the day, poverty and business failure was so bad. I was not lynched there either, though I am sure that the personal experiences you ask me to relate are still not relevant. So who cares?

I'm glad you finally understand.
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#284 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 02 April 2010 - 01:39 AM

Gee Deuc, I dunno, I'm not sure Civ can handle a debating god like you solo, but I'll keep my fingers crossed. A lot of the scenarios you put forth though remind me of stuff I dreamed up when I was a kid playing risk, and argued about with my friends "Dude if, if like, ok if Russia and Africa teamed up they could totally take out Canada and South America." "No way, Canada has, like, mooses and stuff, they'd make battle mooses" "Fuck their battle mooses, the Africans would send elephants." "How are elephants going to get to Canada?" "I don't know, this is dumb anyhow, lets go play Street Fighter"

Civ- This may be true, but the IRA also got a ton of help from the US government, saving DeValera's life (for all the good that did) Britain needed US favor, and a few Irish longshoremen might have oooocasionally let a pallet of guns accidentally fall onto a ship bound for Ireland. I might watch that movie. What's it about? Have you seen it? If you have seen it, I don't care, your experiences are irrelevent. But describe it in great detail anyhow. Your description will be irrelevent as well.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#285 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 06 April 2010 - 11:27 PM

Deuc: not one of your examples is of some kind of grass-roots populist rebellion. All are organized events involving armies. The exchange of political power was in every one of those cases engineered at a political level. The "Iranian Revolution" was a period of street fighting followint the country's leader simply abandoning his country afetr some public protests. After the brief period of violence, an ELECTION was held and a new guy came in. That is not the same as a coup. The military wasn't even defeated, though it was destabilized enough for Iraq to try to destroy it (and it failed). Even Britain granting independence to much of Ireland was a political concession that came as a result of political pressures and the trouble of concurrent struggles, a home war and an international war. India gained its independence too after a Britain weakened by an international war just couldn't afford to rule it. In none of your examples, and in none that I can think of, did the people didn't just step out of their homes with their assault rifles and take down the government. So, I am not saying the ideal of protecting one's self from tyranny is a bad one, it's just not the reason for soccer moms to keep loaded pistols at toddler-level. Again: firearm education. Again: Canada smarter, fewer infant handgun deaths. Boo, NRA, for not promoting firearm education as strongly as it promotes redneck white pride.

JM: The Wind That Shakes the Barley is a fairly even-handed account of a single man's involvement in rebellion, and the gradual change in his ideals when he sees his comrades become the new animal farm. It has some overdramatized bits, and the "brother versus brother" metaphor goes a bit too far IMO, but it is a strong movie. Of course, it helps if you already think the English were bastards at that time. But if you don't, you might appreciate seeing how the Irish became bastards too. You should see this movie.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

  • (21 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size