Guns Guns Guns Guns Guns Guns

[Cossack]

So now many liberals are trying to take away a basic right that Americans have had for 2 Centuries.

This is one liberal that is not trying to take your gun rights away. Infact, I think Bill Clinton went too far when he banned our right to have automatic weapons (If you join a militia there is a way to get around that). The point I want to try to make, is that the American forefathers gave the right to bear arms to protect their other freedoms. If a government becomes tyrannical it can be overthrown by popular resistance.

Here is one good quote I like: "Mass murderers agree, Gun control works!"

[*NADS Lo$eMoney]

If a government becomes tyrannical it can be overthrown by popular resistance.

I dont think uzis can do much to tanks.  And a popular resistance doesn't need to use guns, ghandi proved that.

["Sixhits"]

The point I want to try to make, is that the American forefathers gave the right to bear arms to protect their other freedoms. If a government becomes tyrannical it can be overthrown by popular resistance.

Um, not really. If there's anything we can interprete from Iraq it's that a well armed group of rabble is not going to be very successful against a modern army. The revolutionary war was the last war of revolution in the west in which the arming of the local populace contributed to the rebel victory. However, everyone forgets that the reason we won the revolutionary war was because France intervened and fought England all over the globe, as well as sending an expeditionary force to the Americas. All we managed to do was not be overrun completely. Everyone glosses over that part.

In the case of a truly "tryannical" government in modern America your small arms are not going to save you. Can anyone say M1A2 and 120mm cannon? Come on man. Be real.

It's utter bull that being armed protects you from the Feds. It simply doesn't and it won't ever again. If they want to get you they will. They way we stop them isn't by force of arms but force of will - the  true success of the revolutionary war was that Americans didn't quit when they were beaten time and again.

Frankly, even the notion of popular resistance in modern America is fairly silly. What, you think that they're will just suddenly be a resistance to a tryanical government? Consider the examples from modern history - Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany for two examples, and fascist Italy - and you can see that those governments were in large part supported by the people. And when the people turned against the government or the enemies conquered them, that was when they failed. Armed uprisings didn't do it.

Consider that the only two ways our Federal government could ever become tryannical would be to declare marshal law or suspend the constitution (say, in the event of a nuclear attack (FEMA) or in the event of a catestrophic attack (invasion, wide spread terrorist attacks)), tryanical governments are pretty unlikely.

You presume that any sort of tryannical government would be wholly opposed by the people. But considering how one would come about you can expect the people to be devided as to what to do. Having guns doesn't make it any clearer who the bad guys are. It just lets you feel safer and kill people.

To persist in believing that because you own a few guns you'll make some sort of difference is to be ignorant of reality. The reason why the US doesn't USE militia anymore (having replaced them with National Guard - ie trained and semi-trained troops) is because militia suck. Everyone who says being armed will protect you from Federal tryanny is harping back to the days of Washington and revolution. But they forget that by the end of the War of 1812 militia units were no longer used ... because they were ineffective. Why let the local politician lead a bunch of commoners into battle when you could draft them, arm with with marshall weapons rather than civilian weapons, and bring them into the coherent fold of the US Armed Forces?

In any event, you're not going to bring down the Feds by storming Washington, not while there's still an Army, Air Force, and Navy. What you can do is try to convince those that make up those services to put down their arms. You won't do that at the end of a AR-15. Not when they are professionals with professional weapons.

[BFG]

Yeah... I mean lets face it what does paris have to offer. Apart from the fact it is one of the greatest Cultural centers of the world, is a beautiful city, and has a awsome history.

.... erm yeah....

[Mr.Mellow]

For christ's sake. Do you people really feel that threatened by gun owners? Let people have guns if they use them safely. Cars are just as dangerous, and cause more accidents, but you don't see people protesting Chevy. "Oh, but guns are designed to kill people!" Big deal. You can kill someone with anything. There's no real argument against guns, other than that they can be used in crimes. However, guns that are acquired legally are very rarely used in crimes in the first place. Now, I agree that some level of training should be required before someone purchases a gun, just like needing a driver's license to drive a car. With the proper precautions, a gun isn't any more dangerous than the knives you cut your steaks with...or cucumbers and asparagus, in the cases of some. Actually, with the proper precautions, a gun is far less dangerous than a steak knife. Hmm.

[Cossack]

That is the reason the forefathers put the 2nd amendment into the constitution. I did not say a popular resistance group would neccesarily be victorious.
Just to play the other side of the conversation I will detail to you about popular resistance groups. First of all, the Chechen rabble seems to be doing well against the Russian Army in Groznyy (the chechens are about to loose, but they have inflicted a large amount of casualties on Russia). The Afghan mujahedeen did well against the Soviets in the 80s. True they did have help from the CIA but that also outlines another point. If there was a popular resistance in the US you say that many people would not support them. Taking that same logic there would probablly be factions within the military that would join the popular resistance groups, thus adding a level of proffesionalism to any sort of cause. There would also be other nations that may profit from a new regime in Washington, thus supplying said resistance with arms and advisors. Of coarse this is all speculation and there is no way to really proove or proove otherwise. Civil Wars usually divide everybody, even the leading military. To support the point that popular resistance does succeed I will leave you with a list of a few conflicts that started out as peasant revolts.

Russian Revolution (Unlike the other conflicts I will post, the reds were victorious without         foreign help or aid).
Chinese Revolution
Ethiopian Revolution
Iranian Revolution
Afghan War of the 80's and against the Brits in the 19th Century
Vietnam (against the French)

Sixhits, hold your tounge when concerning Iraq. It has only been a year since we invaded. The sequence of events could change drastically either way. These things usually take a while to unfold. After all, It took the Vietnamese 25 years after the fall of Dien Bien Phu to finally acheive peace. The Afghans are still trying to acheive a peace they have not known since Soviet tanks rolled through Kabul in the late seventies.



Now onto a totally different subject. Rebel I have been observing your posting latley. I have always wondered why you still have the name rebel. You dont seem very revolutionary. Maybe you should consider changing your name to patsie.

["Sixhits"]

 the Chechen rabble seems to be doing well against the Russian Army in Groznyy.

The Afghan mujahedeen did well against the Soviets in the 80s.

If there was a popular resistance in the US you say that many people would not support them.

Taking that same logic there would probablly be factions within the military that would join the popular resistance groups, thus adding a level of proffesionalism to any sort of cause.

There would also be other nations that may profit from a new regime in Washington, thus supplying said resistance with arms and advisors.

Lotsa good points.

The Chechen rabble aren't fighting mother Russia with glocks and hunting rifles. Plus, the Russian conscripts are not the world's finest troops. Additionally, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Russian will to win in Chechnia just doesn't exist.

Again, the Afghans, as you pointed out, beat back the Russians with significant foriegn support. I believe it was the stinger A-A missile which turned the tide.

If there was a popular uprising in the US, framed against a tryanical government, then I would expert some sort of foriegn aid. But, the point I was trying to draw out was that it is pointless to ground the Right to Bear Arms on the need for a militia because no modern militia could stand up to the might of the US armed forces. Hence, to insist on a right to bear arms because you need arms in order to secure your rights from a potential Federal government's tryanny (absurd in the extreme, considing it is the existance of the Federal government which secures our rights) then you are basing your right to bear arms on a flawed argument. (whew)

Yep, it's likely that if shit happened not all the soldiers would swing to the tryanny-side. Of course, still no validation of the concept that individual ownership of civilian weapons = secure rights.

Finally, if there are those that would support the freedom fighters there are those too who would support the tryanical goverment.



But I agree with you: it's all hogwallop to talk about this stuff. I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the argument that one needs a right to bear arms in order to maintain thier rights, because presumably the Feds are going to up and end America. Or something like that.

[Cossack]

Yes the Chechens were fighting so well is because they have access to Kalishnikovs and the sort that the US government does not allow.

The Russian will to win exists. The populous as a whole wants Russia to become a superpower once again. This means that they want the Chechens subdued and many of the former soviet republics like the Ukraine and Kazakhstan back under Russian control (there have been polls ran in the Ukraine and Belerus which suggests that they want to be back under Moscow).

This brings me to another point. Many in America would rather die fighting than live kneeling. So even if it is hopless against the feds, atleast they can resist.

Going back to one of your other posts, I agree we should keep guns out of the hands of criminals and we should institute a three day background check.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Yeah... I mean lets face it what does paris have to offer. Apart from the fact it is one of the greatest Cultural centers of the world, is a beautiful city, and has a awsome history.
.... erm yeah....

You forget I've been there.  Some of the rudest people I ever met in my life I met in Paris.  And awesome History?  Which part?  The part where they surrender at the drop of a hat (ANY hat), or maybe the part where the Nazis marched right into town because they were a bunch of pussies that didn't even believe in their own defense (which is really bad considering how close they came to losing WWI).  I just hope that someday somebody else tries to invade France, and on that great and glorious day, I really hope the United States just sits back and laughs at them.

Do you know why the French plant trees along their blvds in Paris?

So the invading Armies can march in the shade.

[seth]

I just hope that someday somebody else tries to invade France, and on that great and glorious day, I really hope the United States just sits back and laughs at them.

Hey !
Wake up, you were dreaming...

[BFG]

You forget I've been there.? Some of the rudest people I ever met in my life I met in Paris.? And awesome History?? Which part?? The part where they surrender at the drop of a hat (ANY hat), or maybe the part where the Nazis marched right into town because they were a bunch of pussies that didn't even believe in their own defense (which is really bad considering how close they came to losing WWI).? I just hope that someday somebody else tries to invade France, and on that great and glorious day, I really hope the United States just sits back and laughs at them.

Considering how you behave im surprised they didnt send you home in a fucking box.

Many of my relatives died in that war, fighting to defend britain and to help the french resistance, Many french men and women fought desperatly for their country, harder than you will ever imagine, I know of countless stories of increadably brave french civilians who sacrified themselves to help defend their country.  Don't be so fucking aragant about those who gave up their lives so you can sit their spewing your fucking bullshit.  What do you know about these people and who the fuck are you to say they were cowards who did not care about their country?

[BTs_GhostSniper]

I just hope that someday somebody else tries to invade France, and on that great and glorious day, I really hope the United States just sits back and laughs at them.

Hey !
Wake up, you were dreaming...

You don't know how right you are, Bobby.  Because the sad truth is, no matter how bad France, or any other nation in Europe, talks bad about the United States, we would always come to their aid if they needed us.  Europe ridicules us, thinks our form of government is a joke because we don't partake in socialism, they try to block our every move in the United Nations and elsewhere, yet we still call them our friends and we would still come help them out of any disaster, no matter if it is natural or human-inflicted.

The only problem I have with Europe is that they don't appreciate that fact.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[BTs_FahQ2]

I say we ban cars right after we ban guns.  I mean, the speed limit in most areas is 55mph (US of course).  Those Satanic motor companies make the cars go up to 120mph in most cases.  They are asking us to become human death bullets on the highways.  They do this knowingly that you can never drive 120mph almost anywhere legally, and that most speeds over 65 are almost always fatal.

Not only that, but in most crimes, cars are the means of getting away.  I mean, imagine a world without cars where a guy shoots a few people.  We could catch him a few blocks away because that is how far his out of shape ass can run. Without his car he is no match for the law and crime will fall through the floor.  We can then set up criminal investigations for marathon runners because the only reason they are getting fit would be to run away from a crime. Crime would drop as criminals realize they can't get anywhere.

In fact, most crimes are done by repeating felons.  We shouldn't ban guns, we should just make them wear red or some other bright color.  This way when they walk around in public everyone will notice and be aware of a possible attack.  If they do something fishy, it would be morally acceptable to kick the tar out of these possible "shooters" or offenders.

I support these measures instead of banning guns. Let's adopt other stupid ideas that we think will lessen crime.  I mean, a criminal is going to commit a crime no matter what you do, so let us just ban all things that we think will help.  This does sound slippery slope, but in fact most laws (at least in california) are resulting do to thinking such as this.  Let people govern themselves, we should pass more laws to weed out the idiots and not to punish the whole population.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

Considering how you behave im surprised they didnt send you home in a fucking box.

Many of my relatives died in that war, fighting to defend britain and to help the french resistance, Many french men and women fought desperatly for their country, harder than you will ever imagine, I know of countless stories of increadably brave french civilians who sacrified themselves to help defend their country.  Don't be so fucking aragant about those who gave up their lives so you can sit their spewing your fucking bullshit.  What do you know about these people and who the fuck are you to say they were cowards who did not care about their country?

Many of my relatives also died in that war.  To defend the British and to liberate the French.  That's my point.  We came over there....where we were not being invaded, just to help Europe.  And you do not appreciate that.  That is my only point.  I'm not talking about how all of Europe should kiss our ass, or how every nation in Europe should side with the United States and all of our policies.  I'm just saying you should appreciate the fact that we saved your asses in two World Wars, bailed the French out of Vietnam, and are there any time you fuck things up and need our help (Bosnia and Kosovo being two recent examples).

Just a little appreciation.  For the most part, Great Britain does appreciate us.  But at the same time, France and much of the rest of Europe would just as soon spit on us as look at us.

[Abe 2.0]

Ghostsniper,
First of all, with all your education in history and your military service, you know that NATO requires the US to defend France if they are attacked...and vice-versa. Those are the terms of the treaty, so there is no "we would go help them cuz we are so nice, even if they do'nt appreciate it" shit.
Second, the US did'nt bail France out of the Vietnam war....they insisted that france stay and supplied them. without US military support, France would have been out of Indochina long before Dien Bien Phu. I'm not trying to make a point just stating the facts.
Third, the US did'nt join WW2 in Europe out of charity or to Britain and France, Hitler declared war on the US. It was'nt the sight of french people deprived of baguette and goat cheese that pushed us into WW2.
Appreciation? So 50 years later the world needs to appreciate the fact that the US joined WW2 only when it had absolutely no other choice. Do you show any appreciation to the Russian people, who are the reason that there werent 20 german armoured division waiting at Utah and Omaha beach on d-day? Also, by the same token, do you think the people of vietnam, panama or serbia should feel animosity towards the US?
Also the whole gun arguement is completely pointless. What the euro anti-gun people need to understand is that america isnt europe. People live in isolated, open spaces where a lot of them need to be armed to feel safe. Others simply state that "guns are cool". Whatever the reasons, you can never convince an american to give up his guns with rational reasons because the reasons they keep them in the first place tends to be irrational. And to the american people who are pro gun: The second amendment doesnt make any sense because the government has napalm and you have ak-47 thats been converted to fire only semi-auto. Who do you think is gonna win? So stop repeating that stupid BS about militias protecting you from the government. Just say "guns are cool and killing little animals makes me feel like a man" and were cool de la. Rationality will get you nowhere if trying to defend your right to arm bears.

laters

["Sixhits"]

And awesome History?  Which part?  The part where they surrender at the drop of a hat (ANY hat), or maybe the part where the Nazis marched right into town because they were a bunch of pussies that didn't even believe in their own defense (which is really bad considering how close they came to losing WWI).  

I think you're forgeting the part when the French gave us our Liberty from the English at the end of their guns and ships, and at the cost of their blood. France is and will always be an Ally of ours. We're just rivals as well.

Europe ridicules us, thinks our form of government is a joke because we don't partake in socialism, they try to block our every move in the United Nations and elsewhere, yet we still call them our friends and we would still come help them out of any disaster, no matter if it is natural or human-inflicted.

They emulated our form of government. They are all democracys. We were the first, the greatest, and the icon. But they are just like us, only a little different. It may sound like they are yapping about what our government is but what they really are talking about is what our government does.

And you know what? If shit happened here I would bet you my life that the Euros would show up. Maybe a lil late ...  (tea and stumpets, anyone? Siestas?) but they'd come.

As much as I hate to admit it, even Bush managed to get several nations to help in Iraq. Nothing compared to what his father did, but they are there. They just happen to be smarter than us - they're getting out while the gettings good.

We came over there....where we were not being invaded, just to help Europe.  And you do not appreciate that.  That is my only point.  I'm not talking about how all of Europe should kiss our ass, or how every nation in Europe should side with the United States and all of our policies.  I'm just saying you should appreciate the fact that we saved your asses in two World Wars, bailed the French out of Vietnam, and are there any time you fuck things up and need our help (Bosnia and Kosovo being two recent examples).

Just a little appreciation.  For the most part, Great Britain does appreciate us.  But at the same time, France and much of the rest of Europe would just as soon spit on us as look at us.

And what would be apt appreciation? Letting us do whatever we will? Following us around like puppy dogs? They appreciate us. They honestly do. But they are men and have Pride.

Appreciation, like respect, cuts both ways. And it is earned. And it can be lost. So to demand appreciation without giving it, to expect it without giving it, is to loose it. You know why they nip at our heels in the UN? Because we fucking designed it so that they could. Because better men than us understood what it meant to have Allies and how dear they are, even in the best of times, because you will need them in the worst. We complain that France or Germany can, say, veto our resolution to invade Iraq. But you know what? They have that right and they have every right to do so.

And like with all true friendships you cannot force your friends to do something - you can only ask them. I'd say we've been pretty untrue friends to Europe. A friend doens't loan money to a friend and then lord over them for the rest of the lives. A friend doesn't shout down everything their pal wants to do. A friend listens. A friend is considerate. A friend is someone you can rely on. Right now, the Euros have every reason to be worried. Cause we're not acting like we're buddies anymore. We're acting like we're Kings.

[Mr.Mellow]

There's nothing wrong with the French. lol. The thing is, two rude cultures (Us Americans and the French) don't go together very well. Now, back to guns! I don't know why people who are against guns feel so morally superior to those who own them. Give it a rest. If you don't want to own a gun, that's fine, don't buy one. Nobody's forcing you to get one. However, when someone tries to force their views on someone else, it really pisses me off. I don't go around forcing my religion (or lack thereof) or my vegetarianism on you guys, so don't shove that anti-gun crap down my throat. Abe says there's no rational reason to own a gun, yet we've already given several. Personally, with the way this country's going down the drain, it seems like a smart time to have a gun.

Please prepare for my Survivalist crazy theories and hypothetical situations here.

Who knows what would happen if a terrorist managed to set off a nuke in a major city or two. It is a very real possibility. There'd be rioting, looting, all sorts of crazies running around doing whatever they wanted because the power was out and the local authorities were too busy doing something else. What's to stop some whack job from breaking into my home and robbing me? A gun! That's right. I would feel a lot safer having a gun in that situation than hiding in my closet waiting for the military or the police to come and calm things down. At least I would have some sense of security, and could keep myself somewhat safe.

End hypothetical Survivalist scenario.
I know that kind of killed my credibility and makes me sound like the biggest loon around, but oh well. Just think about it. All you Euros go on talking about how crazy Americans are and such. If you lived in America, wouldn't you want a gun to protect yourself from the other American psychos?  

["Sixhits"]

They emulated our form of government. They are all democracys. We were the first

? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You make one lil slip up ...

First modern democracy.

Yes, yes we're not the fucking Greeks.

[BFG]

one little slip up

Sixhits and abe, i wish i could keep calm enough and formulate my thoughts well enough to post as clear as you guys do. really good stuff

[alaric]

abe, i've never used the militia/anti-government line to defend the right to own firearms. I've used nothing but rational thought. But apparently you can't use rational arguements against irrational people...

So, in case you missed it, here's a reprise:

Why do they need to behave around guns? WHAT USE IS THERE FOR A GUN OTHER THAN TO KILL? You do not need a gun. Tell me that there would be no change in the number of people killed in the US if guns were banned - completely.

Firearms are tools. Nothing more. They happen to be designed to kill, but that does not change the fact that they are a tool. Any tool can be misused or abused.

On a similar note, cars are tools too. They are not designed to kill, but they cause more death in the US than guns do. I do not want to suggest that we restrict automobile use for the general population in the name of safety, just for those who are too inept to use an automobile safely and responsibly. I advocate similar controls on firearms.

Don't try to back your anti-gun stance with statistics and figures because it doesn't work, it just muddies the issue. There are many other things in this country which are far more dangerous, just cut to the chase and say what you mean: You think guns should be banned because they are designed to kill people. That is a moral argument, meaning you are never going to convince someone of a different moral mindset to see things your way.

I agree its not just down to guns though. Look at somwhere like Austria where i believe it is the law for everyhousehold to have a gun (sort of civil defence)... but they just don't go around killing each other... I guess its just down to a difference in the society then... i know which one i would prefer to bring my kids up in.

As do I. That's a personal choice and it's not right to ridicule someone for choosing to live their life differently than yours. You preach tolerance but you viciously attack moral stances you don't agree with, that's hypocrisy and it only undermines any good points you might make.