Why the 2nd amendment is great.
- Thread starter Magehart
- Start date
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
[quote name='Magehart']Might be better in vs. Forum if it turns that way.[/quote]
Oh it will
Oh it will
Not really related, but hey, you said 2nd amendment...
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='SpazX']Not really related, but hey, you said 2nd amendment...
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?[/QUOTE]
Actually, IMO that is the best argument. Maybe one person with a handgun is not going to stop the army, but hundreds of thousands of armed civilians upset about government oppression is nothing to sneeze at.
FWIW, thank God we have a military with strong roots in respecting civilian leadership.
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?[/QUOTE]
Actually, IMO that is the best argument. Maybe one person with a handgun is not going to stop the army, but hundreds of thousands of armed civilians upset about government oppression is nothing to sneeze at.
FWIW, thank God we have a military with strong roots in respecting civilian leadership.
[quote name='elprincipe']Actually, IMO that is the best argument. Maybe one person with a handgun is not going to stop the army, but hundreds of thousands of armed civilians upset about government oppression is nothing to sneeze at.
FWIW, thank God we have a military with strong roots in respecting civilian leadership.[/quote]
Yeah, but hundreds of thousands of civilians upset about government oppression without weapons would probably be equally effective since even a hundred thousand people with handguns could be pretty easily killed if that government thought it necessary.
Governments don't get totalitarian control because civilians aren't armed, they do so because the civilians aren't organized against them. With or without arms, they simply don't have a unified resistance.
Seriously, the military could easily wipe out whatever amount of people decided to resist them with weapons unless they had access to the exact same weapons as the military (which is already illegal and would be too expensive anyway).
I'm not really advocating gun control (I agree with aspects of it), I'm just saying the weapons people have and are capable of getting don't rival the weapons of the military and would be pretty useless against it.
The whole thing strikes me as a throwback to the past when it could have actually worked and/or some hollywood fantasy.
FWIW, thank God we have a military with strong roots in respecting civilian leadership.[/quote]
Yeah, but hundreds of thousands of civilians upset about government oppression without weapons would probably be equally effective since even a hundred thousand people with handguns could be pretty easily killed if that government thought it necessary.
Governments don't get totalitarian control because civilians aren't armed, they do so because the civilians aren't organized against them. With or without arms, they simply don't have a unified resistance.
Seriously, the military could easily wipe out whatever amount of people decided to resist them with weapons unless they had access to the exact same weapons as the military (which is already illegal and would be too expensive anyway).
I'm not really advocating gun control (I agree with aspects of it), I'm just saying the weapons people have and are capable of getting don't rival the weapons of the military and would be pretty useless against it.
The whole thing strikes me as a throwback to the past when it could have actually worked and/or some hollywood fantasy.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SpazX']Not really related, but hey, you said 2nd amendment...
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?[/QUOTE]Dear SpazX,
Think about us and question your stance on asymmetric warfare carefully.
Sincerely,
Iraq
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?[/QUOTE]Dear SpazX,
Think about us and question your stance on asymmetric warfare carefully.
Sincerely,
Iraq
Magehart
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SpazX']Not really related, but hey, you said 2nd amendment...
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?[/quote]
Back during the Cold War Russia did a study on how effective it would be to invade the United States. They concluded that they could never have a successful invasion because of how heavily the civilians of the United States were.
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?[/quote]
Back during the Cold War Russia did a study on how effective it would be to invade the United States. They concluded that they could never have a successful invasion because of how heavily the civilians of the United States were.
[quote name='SpazX']Not really related, but hey, you said 2nd amendment...
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?[/quote]
That's why you don't use 9mm weapons.
I'd rather have 10 civilians who're excellent shots armed with, say, Lee Enfields, FALs or Mosin Nagants against 20 US soldiers armed with M4s.
Ya know, by far the weakest argument against gun control I've ever heard is the whole "armed resistance against the government" thing. Really, how is your 9mm going to do against tanks, helicopters, and automatic weapons?[/quote]
That's why you don't use 9mm weapons.
I'd rather have 10 civilians who're excellent shots armed with, say, Lee Enfields, FALs or Mosin Nagants against 20 US soldiers armed with M4s.
I realize this, but there's a difference between your own government in your own territory fighting you and the effectiveness of and invasion force in foreign territory.
The Iraqis are fighting a smaller force in foreign territory with weapons that are already illegal here and/or homemade bombs (which are illegal, but yeah, they're homemade).
Gun control has no effect on people that are breaking the law anyway (which is one of the good arguments against it).
EDIT: Also, the US has to gauge the force used in Iraq to protect innocent civilians, that's not much of a problem when civilians are the target.
The Iraqis are fighting a smaller force in foreign territory with weapons that are already illegal here and/or homemade bombs (which are illegal, but yeah, they're homemade).
Gun control has no effect on people that are breaking the law anyway (which is one of the good arguments against it).
EDIT: Also, the US has to gauge the force used in Iraq to protect innocent civilians, that's not much of a problem when civilians are the target.
Kayden
Banned
So... Do you think Bush is actually going to exit the white house peacefully? It smells like we're going to be facing a 'dire set of circustantials' that would be just too dangerous to face with an inexperienced president.
[quote name='Magehart']Back during the Cold War Russia did a study on how effective it would be to invade the United States. They concluded that they could never have a successful invasion because of how heavily the civilians of the United States were.[/quote]
[quote name='Hex']That's why you don't use 9mm weapons.
I'd rather have 10 civilians who're excellent shots armed with, say, Lee Enfields, FALs or Mosin Nagants against 20 US soldiers armed with M4s.[/QUOTE]
You can get a Mosin-Nagant for less than a hundred dollars.
I'd rather have 10 civilians who're excellent shots armed with, say, Lee Enfields, FALs or Mosin Nagants against 20 US soldiers armed with M4s.[/QUOTE]
You can get a Mosin-Nagant for less than a hundred dollars.
[quote name='Kayden']Why would you want an old ass rifle with a bolt loader thingy? ( :lol: )[/quote]
1. Cheap gun.
2. Cheap ammo.
3. Powerful ammo.
4. Reliable.
5. They've got history.
6. Really not a bad rifle when you get down to it.
7. I prefer bolt rifles over anything else.
I've got a thing for WWI/WII bolt rifles, and the Mosin's a brilliant piece of history. Why not, in other words?
1. Cheap gun.
2. Cheap ammo.
3. Powerful ammo.
4. Reliable.
5. They've got history.
6. Really not a bad rifle when you get down to it.
7. I prefer bolt rifles over anything else.
I've got a thing for WWI/WII bolt rifles, and the Mosin's a brilliant piece of history. Why not, in other words?
[quote name='Hex']1. Cheap gun.
2. Cheap ammo.
3. Powerful ammo.
4. Reliable.
5. They've got history.
6. Really not a bad rifle when you get down to it.
7. I prefer bolt rifles over anything else.
I've got a thing for WWI/WII bolt rifles, and the Mosin's a brilliant piece of history. Why not, in other words?[/QUOTE]
You would love a Swiss K31, I just ordered one last week.
2. Cheap ammo.
3. Powerful ammo.
4. Reliable.
5. They've got history.
6. Really not a bad rifle when you get down to it.
7. I prefer bolt rifles over anything else.
I've got a thing for WWI/WII bolt rifles, and the Mosin's a brilliant piece of history. Why not, in other words?[/QUOTE]
You would love a Swiss K31, I just ordered one last week.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Magehart']Back during the Cold War Russia did a study on how effective it would be to invade the United States. They concluded that they could never have a successful invasion because of how heavily the civilians of the United States were.[/QUOTE]
WOLVERINES!!!
WOLVERINES!!!
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='SpazX']Yeah, but hundreds of thousands of civilians upset about government oppression without weapons would probably be equally effective since even a hundred thousand people with handguns could be pretty easily killed if that government thought it necessary.
Governments don't get totalitarian control because civilians aren't armed, they do so because the civilians aren't organized against them. With or without arms, they simply don't have a unified resistance.
Seriously, the military could easily wipe out whatever amount of people decided to resist them with weapons unless they had access to the exact same weapons as the military (which is already illegal and would be too expensive anyway).
I'm not really advocating gun control (I agree with aspects of it), I'm just saying the weapons people have and are capable of getting don't rival the weapons of the military and would be pretty useless against it.
The whole thing strikes me as a throwback to the past when it could have actually worked and/or some hollywood fantasy.[/QUOTE]
I think you're underestimating the kind of commitment and resolve it would take for our military to decide killing hundreds of thousands of armed civilians actively resisting them is worth it. I still believe this is a valuable check in a worst-case scenario.
Governments don't get totalitarian control because civilians aren't armed, they do so because the civilians aren't organized against them. With or without arms, they simply don't have a unified resistance.
Seriously, the military could easily wipe out whatever amount of people decided to resist them with weapons unless they had access to the exact same weapons as the military (which is already illegal and would be too expensive anyway).
I'm not really advocating gun control (I agree with aspects of it), I'm just saying the weapons people have and are capable of getting don't rival the weapons of the military and would be pretty useless against it.
The whole thing strikes me as a throwback to the past when it could have actually worked and/or some hollywood fantasy.[/QUOTE]
I think you're underestimating the kind of commitment and resolve it would take for our military to decide killing hundreds of thousands of armed civilians actively resisting them is worth it. I still believe this is a valuable check in a worst-case scenario.
[quote name='Msut77']You would love a Swiss K31, I just ordered one last week.[/quote]
Yeah? Was that sort of a knockoff of the German Kar98? I've got a Turkish 1938, myself, basically another cheap knockoff of the Kar98, but it's in pristene condition, the bore is perfect. Aside from my hunting .308, it's the most accurate rifle in my collection, and probably my favourite to shoot.
Who needs 9mm handguns to fend off the military when you have 8mm rifles?
8mm on left.
Yeah? Was that sort of a knockoff of the German Kar98? I've got a Turkish 1938, myself, basically another cheap knockoff of the Kar98, but it's in pristene condition, the bore is perfect. Aside from my hunting .308, it's the most accurate rifle in my collection, and probably my favourite to shoot.
Who needs 9mm handguns to fend off the military when you have 8mm rifles?
8mm on left.
[quote name='elprincipe']I think you're underestimating the kind of commitment and resolve it would take for our military to decide killing hundreds of thousands of armed civilians actively resisting them is worth it. I still believe this is a valuable check in a worst-case scenario.[/quote]
Yeah I know what you're saying, hundreds of thousands of people with guns would be really annoying to deal with, but I would think that the military would also not be willing to just kill hundreds of thousands of civilians that aren't armed ya know?
My thinking is just that if the military were so dedicated to the leader, and he could get them to do anyting, and they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, there wouldn't be much to stop them besides themselves.
Yeah I know what you're saying, hundreds of thousands of people with guns would be really annoying to deal with, but I would think that the military would also not be willing to just kill hundreds of thousands of civilians that aren't armed ya know?
My thinking is just that if the military were so dedicated to the leader, and he could get them to do anyting, and they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, there wouldn't be much to stop them besides themselves.
[quote name='SpazX']
My thinking is just that if the military were so dedicated to the leader, and he could get them to do anyting, and they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, there wouldn't be much to stop them besides themselves.[/quote]
So you'd rather roll over and say '
me' and let the goverment do what it wants with you than to resist? A hearty that from me. I'd rather fight and die than just submit to the military because it's the military.
I know exactly what would have happened if the Minutemen back in the 1700's had done the same.
My thinking is just that if the military were so dedicated to the leader, and he could get them to do anyting, and they were willing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, there wouldn't be much to stop them besides themselves.[/quote]
So you'd rather roll over and say '
me' and let the goverment do what it wants with you than to resist? A hearty that from me. I'd rather fight and die than just submit to the military because it's the military.I know exactly what would have happened if the Minutemen back in the 1700's had done the same.
[quote name='Hex']So you'd rather roll over and say ' me' and let the goverment do what it wants with you than to resist? A hearty that from me. I'd rather fight and die than just submit to the military because it's the military.
I know exactly what would have happened if the Minutemen back in the 1700's had done the same.[/quote]
I never said that, I said it wouldn't matter. The Minutemen had much more similar weaponry to those they were fighting. I'm pointing out the gap between the military and the common man as far as weapons technology and how the weapons held by the people are nothing compared to the weapons of the military. This is a relatively recent development. Before WWI (before WWII even) it would probably have been much more even.
me' and let the goverment do what it wants with you than to resist? A hearty that from me. I'd rather fight and die than just submit to the military because it's the military.I know exactly what would have happened if the Minutemen back in the 1700's had done the same.[/quote]
I never said that, I said it wouldn't matter. The Minutemen had much more similar weaponry to those they were fighting. I'm pointing out the gap between the military and the common man as far as weapons technology and how the weapons held by the people are nothing compared to the weapons of the military. This is a relatively recent development. Before WWI (before WWII even) it would probably have been much more even.
[quote name='SpazX']I never said that, I said it wouldn't matter. The Minutemen had much more similar weaponry to those they were fighting. I'm pointing out the gap between the military and the common man as far as weapons technology and how the weapons held by the people are nothing compared to the weapons of the military. This is a relatively recent development. Before WWI (before WWII even) it would probably have been much more even.[/quote]
The minutemen didn't have cannons. The point I'm trying to make is, whatever advantages the military has, I'm not going to just give up because they have smart bombs and shit. It's the principle. The Minutemen were fighting Britain. Britain was the big cheese back then- it was suicide for them to take on Britain, but they still won.
But yeah, I'm pushing the ideal behind the action... Are you just going to quietly squat under Bush's heel and accept it because he has a superior military or fight back for what you believe in?
The minutemen didn't have cannons.
The point I'm trying to make is, whatever advantages the military has, I'm not going to just give up because they have smart bombs and shit. It's the principle. The Minutemen were fighting Britain. Britain was the big cheese back then- it was suicide for them to take on Britain, but they still won. But yeah, I'm pushing the ideal behind the action... Are you just going to quietly squat under Bush's heel and accept it because he has a superior military or fight back for what you believe in?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Magehart']Back during the Cold War Russia did a study on how effective it would be to invade the United States. They concluded that they could never have a successful invasion because of how heavily the civilians of the United States were.[/quote]
How heavy the civilians were? I mean, I know Americans are fat, but DAMN
How heavy the civilians were? I mean, I know Americans are fat, but DAMN
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Magehart']Back during the Cold War Russia did a study on how effective it would be to invade the United States. They concluded that they could never have a successful invasion because of how heavily the civilians of the United States were.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to ask for a citation here. This just sounds like something Charlton Heston made up to rouse NRA dinner attendees. Regardless of what I think on gun control (my stance is pretty much an admittance of agnosticism, little else), that statement of yours just seems too silly to me.
Source, please.
I'm going to ask for a citation here. This just sounds like something Charlton Heston made up to rouse NRA dinner attendees. Regardless of what I think on gun control (my stance is pretty much an admittance of agnosticism, little else), that statement of yours just seems too silly to me.
Source, please.
[quote name='Hex']The minutemen didn't have cannons. The point I'm trying to make is, whatever advantages the military has, I'm not going to just give up because they have smart bombs and shit. It's the principle. The Minutemen were fighting Britain. Britain was the big cheese back then- it was suicide for them to take on Britain, but they still won.
But yeah, I'm pushing the ideal behind the action... Are you just going to quietly squat under Bush's heel and accept it because he has a superior military or fight back for what you believe in?[/quote]
Well yeah, I understand the ideals, I'm just saying that it's not a good argument against gun control. You would have to fight for what you believe in, but doing so militarily would ultimately be ineffective. You would have to overthrow the government somehow politically.
AFAIK most gun advocates aren't arguing for the ability to own fighter jets and RPGs, but like I said before, even if they were, you could get some RPGs, some automatic weapons, and put up more of a fight, but there's still no way you could afford laser guided missiles, jets, and tanks. Most people also don't want those things, they're more interested in legally having handguns and hunting rifles.
Eventually even if you fought, there would have to be a united opposition to the government politically in order to overthrow it and the military resistance would only be good to garner support.
The point I'm trying to make is, whatever advantages the military has, I'm not going to just give up because they have smart bombs and shit. It's the principle. The Minutemen were fighting Britain. Britain was the big cheese back then- it was suicide for them to take on Britain, but they still won. But yeah, I'm pushing the ideal behind the action... Are you just going to quietly squat under Bush's heel and accept it because he has a superior military or fight back for what you believe in?[/quote]
Well yeah, I understand the ideals, I'm just saying that it's not a good argument against gun control. You would have to fight for what you believe in, but doing so militarily would ultimately be ineffective. You would have to overthrow the government somehow politically.
AFAIK most gun advocates aren't arguing for the ability to own fighter jets and RPGs, but like I said before, even if they were, you could get some RPGs, some automatic weapons, and put up more of a fight, but there's still no way you could afford laser guided missiles, jets, and tanks. Most people also don't want those things, they're more interested in legally having handguns and hunting rifles.
Eventually even if you fought, there would have to be a united opposition to the government politically in order to overthrow it and the military resistance would only be good to garner support.
First of all I highly doubt the validity of this article. While the facts about Bush wanting more control over the national guard are probably true the conclusions the person who wrote the article draws from it probably aren't. He seems to think that Bush will refuse to step down when his term in office ends and that he will use the national guard/military to round up and put in concentration camps anyone who opposes him. While I certainly hate Bush and what he has done to this country, I don't think this would be tolerated by the guard, the military or other politicians in power. It is too obviously goes against the generic "American principles" these people are fighting for, you can trick them into occupying Iraq by applying these terms, but I think they would clearly see through something this anti-democratic and reminiscent of Nazi Germany.
As for the need to own guns to overthrow the government, I don't think that has ever been the most effective form of revolution. Look at our great arch-rival the U.S.S.R. the people overthrew the government/military in a day or so even with their tanks, nukes, missiles etc without (as far as I'm aware) any violence at all. I think the military is much less likely to shoot Americans who march in mass to the White House and declare a new government than they are to those who ambush federal agents with their rifles. By taking up arms they show themselves to be a legitimate threat to the established order and therefore legitimate targets. It would be much harder for people with any morals what so ever to simply shoot tens of thousands of people in a peaceful march. We must also remember that soldiers are not cloned and are citizens too, if public discontent reaches revolution levels they would just as likely be on our side or simply not act to protect those in power (as I believe they did in Russia).
The only need for armed insurrection would be if only a small group stood up to the government. In which case you would at best have a situation like in Iraq where a small group(s) terrorize society and at worst a total defeat at the hands of the military.
As for the need to own guns to overthrow the government, I don't think that has ever been the most effective form of revolution. Look at our great arch-rival the U.S.S.R. the people overthrew the government/military in a day or so even with their tanks, nukes, missiles etc without (as far as I'm aware) any violence at all. I think the military is much less likely to shoot Americans who march in mass to the White House and declare a new government than they are to those who ambush federal agents with their rifles. By taking up arms they show themselves to be a legitimate threat to the established order and therefore legitimate targets. It would be much harder for people with any morals what so ever to simply shoot tens of thousands of people in a peaceful march. We must also remember that soldiers are not cloned and are citizens too, if public discontent reaches revolution levels they would just as likely be on our side or simply not act to protect those in power (as I believe they did in Russia).
The only need for armed insurrection would be if only a small group stood up to the government. In which case you would at best have a situation like in Iraq where a small group(s) terrorize society and at worst a total defeat at the hands of the military.
[quote name='SpazX']Well yeah, I understand the ideals, I'm just saying that it's not a good argument against gun control. You would have to fight for what you believe in, but doing so militarily would ultimately be ineffective. You would have to overthrow the government somehow politically.
AFAIK most gun advocates aren't arguing for the ability to own fighter jets and RPGs, but like I said before, even if they were, you could get some RPGs, some automatic weapons, and put up more of a fight, but there's still no way you could afford laser guided missiles, jets, and tanks. Most people also don't want those things, they're more interested in legally having handguns and hunting rifles.
Eventually even if you fought, there would have to be a united opposition to the government politically in order to overthrow it and the military resistance would only be good to garner support.[/quote]
When were we discussing gun control? We're discussing overthrowing the government. Overthrowing the military is ineffective? Again, I implore you to look to the American Revolution. There is a non-violent political aspect to revolution, but frankly, I believe a few million guns pointed at the White House'll do more than writing your congressman if you're interested in rapid change.
And you're right., I hate automatic weapons, but I don't believe that you'd need the technology that the military does to succeed in a revolt. Basically, this is all speculation on my part, and sort of relies on Americans wanting to revolt.. but considering how popular Bush is, I doubt it's too far-fetched.
There's 300million odd Americans, versus 2.6million odd people in the military. Arm even half of those Americans with a cheap rifle like an AK, SKS, or Mosin Nagant, and you've got an incredible fighting force. Do you seriously think that 140million rifles pointed at the capitol is going to go unnoticed? Again, that's not taking into account the troops themselves, who I imagine are very unlikely to start executing Americans by the thousands. I'll admit, you definitely would need a charismatic leader who's able to unite as many people possible behind the revolt, but you can't dismiss the armed aspect of a revolt.
Blah. Basically, my point is, which is going to motivate you more- Someone telling you to do something because they say so, or someone telling you to do something because they have a gun to your head?
[quote name='miker8']the people overthrew the government/military in a day or so even with their tanks, nukes, missiles etc without (as far as I'm aware) any violence at all.[/quote]
I do hope you don't mean the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. They hardly had the idea that tanks could exist, much less nuclear/missle capability. And there was some violence, but not initially.
AFAIK most gun advocates aren't arguing for the ability to own fighter jets and RPGs, but like I said before, even if they were, you could get some RPGs, some automatic weapons, and put up more of a fight, but there's still no way you could afford laser guided missiles, jets, and tanks. Most people also don't want those things, they're more interested in legally having handguns and hunting rifles.
Eventually even if you fought, there would have to be a united opposition to the government politically in order to overthrow it and the military resistance would only be good to garner support.[/quote]
When were we discussing gun control? We're discussing overthrowing the government.
Overthrowing the military is ineffective? Again, I implore you to look to the American Revolution. There is a non-violent political aspect to revolution, but frankly, I believe a few million guns pointed at the White House'll do more than writing your congressman if you're interested in rapid change.And you're right.
, I hate automatic weapons, but I don't believe that you'd need the technology that the military does to succeed in a revolt. Basically, this is all speculation on my part, and sort of relies on Americans wanting to revolt.. but considering how popular Bush is, I doubt it's too far-fetched. There's 300million odd Americans, versus 2.6million odd people in the military. Arm even half of those Americans with a cheap rifle like an AK, SKS, or Mosin Nagant, and you've got an incredible fighting force. Do you seriously think that 140million rifles pointed at the capitol is going to go unnoticed? Again, that's not taking into account the troops themselves, who I imagine are very unlikely to start executing Americans by the thousands. I'll admit, you definitely would need a charismatic leader who's able to unite as many people possible behind the revolt, but you can't dismiss the armed aspect of a revolt.
Blah. Basically, my point is, which is going to motivate you more- Someone telling you to do something because they say so, or someone telling you to do something because they have a gun to your head?
[quote name='miker8']the people overthrew the government/military in a day or so even with their tanks, nukes, missiles etc without (as far as I'm aware) any violence at all.[/quote]
I do hope you don't mean the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. They hardly had the idea that tanks could exist, much less nuclear/missle capability. And there was some violence, but not initially.
[quote name='Hex']
I do hope you don't mean the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. They hardly had the idea that tanks could exist, much less nuclear/missle capability. And there was some violence, but not initially.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm talking about the recent (I should know the date but I don't, 1991, 1992?) collapse of the Soviet Union. Forgive me If I got my facts wrong I'm too lazy to research my facts right now, I'm not entirely sure it was a "revolution" in the strictest terms of the word but a huge government did fall and if there was any violence it was so small as to be irrelevant.
As to the Bolshevik revolution, I'm aware that violence was involved there and in the American Revolution as well. In both cases it was a different time where civilian and military weaponry was much closer in quality/firepower. In the American Revolution we were essentially defending from outside invaders much like Iraqis are today, only with the additional difficulty of getting reinforcements slowly from England, all we had to do was wear down their determination to fight, not beat their entire armed forces.
I do hope you don't mean the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. They hardly had the idea that tanks could exist, much less nuclear/missle capability. And there was some violence, but not initially.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm talking about the recent (I should know the date but I don't, 1991, 1992?) collapse of the Soviet Union. Forgive me If I got my facts wrong I'm too lazy to research my facts right now, I'm not entirely sure it was a "revolution" in the strictest terms of the word but a huge government did fall and if there was any violence it was so small as to be irrelevant.
As to the Bolshevik revolution, I'm aware that violence was involved there and in the American Revolution as well. In both cases it was a different time where civilian and military weaponry was much closer in quality/firepower. In the American Revolution we were essentially defending from outside invaders much like Iraqis are today, only with the additional difficulty of getting reinforcements slowly from England, all we had to do was wear down their determination to fight, not beat their entire armed forces.
[quote name='Hex']When were we discussing gun control? We're discussing overthrowing the government. Overthrowing the military is ineffective? Again, I implore you to look to the American Revolution. There is a non-violent political aspect to revolution, but frankly, I believe a few million guns pointed at the White House'll do more than writing your congressman if you're interested in rapid change.
And you're right., I hate automatic weapons, but I don't believe that you'd need the technology that the military does to succeed in a revolt. Basically, this is all speculation on my part, and sort of relies on Americans wanting to revolt.. but considering how popular Bush is, I doubt it's too far-fetched.
There's 300million odd Americans, versus 2.6million odd people in the military. Arm even half of those Americans with a cheap rifle like an AK, SKS, or Mosin Nagant, and you've got an incredible fighting force. Do you seriously think that 140million rifles pointed at the capitol is going to go unnoticed? Again, that's not taking into account the troops themselves, who I imagine are very unlikely to start executing Americans by the thousands. I'll admit, you definitely would need a charismatic leader who's able to unite as many people possible behind the revolt, but you can't dismiss the armed aspect of a revolt.
Blah. Basically, my point is, which is going to motivate you more- Someone telling you to do something because they say so, or someone telling you to do something because they have a gun to your head?[/quote]
Well I'm not saying it's impossible to have an effective revolt, but in the end I don't think it would have anything to do with weapons being legal or illegal or a direct confrontation with the military. 140 million armed with rocks would probably be pretty hard to fight. My point was just that gun control wouldn't really have an effect on it (what would probably happen is that the rebels would steal weapons from the military anyway). But you see gun control wouldn't do anything, it wouldn't be the factor between failing and succeeding in a revolution.
The government would be overthrown by numbers not by weapons is what I'm saying. If you have 140 million united you're good. So it wouldn't matter if guns were illegal or hard to attain.
Overthrowing the military is ineffective? Again, I implore you to look to the American Revolution. There is a non-violent political aspect to revolution, but frankly, I believe a few million guns pointed at the White House'll do more than writing your congressman if you're interested in rapid change.And you're right.
, I hate automatic weapons, but I don't believe that you'd need the technology that the military does to succeed in a revolt. Basically, this is all speculation on my part, and sort of relies on Americans wanting to revolt.. but considering how popular Bush is, I doubt it's too far-fetched. There's 300million odd Americans, versus 2.6million odd people in the military. Arm even half of those Americans with a cheap rifle like an AK, SKS, or Mosin Nagant, and you've got an incredible fighting force. Do you seriously think that 140million rifles pointed at the capitol is going to go unnoticed? Again, that's not taking into account the troops themselves, who I imagine are very unlikely to start executing Americans by the thousands. I'll admit, you definitely would need a charismatic leader who's able to unite as many people possible behind the revolt, but you can't dismiss the armed aspect of a revolt.
Blah. Basically, my point is, which is going to motivate you more- Someone telling you to do something because they say so, or someone telling you to do something because they have a gun to your head?[/quote]
Well I'm not saying it's impossible to have an effective revolt, but in the end I don't think it would have anything to do with weapons being legal or illegal or a direct confrontation with the military. 140 million armed with rocks would probably be pretty hard to fight. My point was just that gun control wouldn't really have an effect on it (what would probably happen is that the rebels would steal weapons from the military anyway). But you see gun control wouldn't do anything, it wouldn't be the factor between failing and succeeding in a revolution.
The government would be overthrown by numbers not by weapons is what I'm saying. If you have 140 million united you're good. So it wouldn't matter if guns were illegal or hard to attain.
[quote name='Hex']Yeah? Was that sort of a knockoff of the German Kar98? I've got a Turkish 1938, myself, basically another cheap knockoff of the Kar98, but it's in pristene condition, the bore is perfect. Aside from my hunting .308, it's the most accurate rifle in my collection, and probably my favourite to shoot.
Who needs 9mm handguns to fend off the military when you have 8mm rifles?
8mm on left.[/QUOTE]
Not really it is a straight bolt, and the bullet is very similar to the .308
Also there were tanks in 1917.
Who needs 9mm handguns to fend off the military when you have 8mm rifles?
8mm on left.
[/QUOTE]Not really it is a straight bolt, and the bullet is very similar to the .308
Also there were tanks in 1917.
[quote name='Msut77']Not really it is a straight bolt, and the bullet is very similar to the .308
Also there were tanks in 1917.[/quote]
Oooh, 7.5x55 eh? If you like straight-pull rifles like that, Steyr made one around the same time that's apparently fairly popular und cheap.
And yeah, there were tanks in 1917, just not Russian ones.
Also there were tanks in 1917.[/quote]
Oooh, 7.5x55 eh? If you like straight-pull rifles like that, Steyr made one around the same time that's apparently fairly popular und cheap.
And yeah, there were tanks in 1917, just not Russian ones.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='miker8']No, I'm talking about the recent (I should know the date but I don't, 1991, 1992?) collapse of the Soviet Union. Forgive me If I got my facts wrong I'm too lazy to research my facts right now, I'm not entirely sure it was a "revolution" in the strictest terms of the word but a huge government did fall and if there was any violence it was so small as to be irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
IIRC, it was referred to as a 'coup.' Makes me wonder if there are any differences between what is considered a 'coup' and a 'revolution'.
IIRC, it was referred to as a 'coup.' Makes me wonder if there are any differences between what is considered a 'coup' and a 'revolution'.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm going to ask for a citation here. This just sounds like something Charlton Heston made up to rouse NRA dinner attendees. Regardless of what I think on gun control (my stance is pretty much an admittance of agnosticism, little else), that statement of yours just seems too silly to me.
Source, please.[/quote]
I don't have any internet sources but I've also heard that Soviet Russia decided to never invade the US because of how heavily armed the population is. My source is my uncle. He was in Military Intelligence for the US Army. He served under Colin Powell in V Corps Headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany. Not a concrete source but pretty good nonetheless.
The Soviets also used their own history in repulsing invaders when planning for a US invasion. The Russians have pushed back every invasion into their territory since Genghis Khan. They factored in the fact that they would first have to invade and occupy Alaska, the Yukon, and British Columbia before they could even think about invading the lower 48.
Source, please.[/quote]
I don't have any internet sources but I've also heard that Soviet Russia decided to never invade the US because of how heavily armed the population is. My source is my uncle. He was in Military Intelligence for the US Army. He served under Colin Powell in V Corps Headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany. Not a concrete source but pretty good nonetheless.
The Soviets also used their own history in repulsing invaders when planning for a US invasion. The Russians have pushed back every invasion into their territory since Genghis Khan. They factored in the fact that they would first have to invade and occupy Alaska, the Yukon, and British Columbia before they could even think about invading the lower 48.
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm going to ask for a citation here. This just sounds like something Charlton Heston made up to rouse NRA dinner attendees. Regardless of what I think on gun control (my stance is pretty much an admittance of agnosticism, little else), that statement of yours just seems too silly to me.
Source, please.[/quote]
I wouldn't know anyone who's officially said that, but if you think about it, it would be reallyin' tough to formally invade the United States, with a massed infantry a la Red Dawn. The sheer number of gun owners, coupled with street gangs and shit, would make taking the country over tough as hell.
Source, please.[/quote]
I wouldn't know anyone who's officially said that, but if you think about it, it would be really
in' tough to formally invade the United States, with a massed infantry a la Red Dawn. The sheer number of gun owners, coupled with street gangs and shit, would make taking the country over tough as hell.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Hex']I wouldn't know anyone who's officially said that, but if you think about it, it would be really in' tough to formally invade the United States, with a massed infantry a la Red Dawn. The sheer number of gun owners, coupled with street gangs and shit, would make taking the country over tough as hell.[/QUOTE]
Well, depascal points out that there are some severe difficulties in invading the US that are the result of geography first and foremost; in addition to having to come through Alaska/BC, that also implies that our shores on the east and west side give us a great deal of comfort. We not only have no hostile borders around us (compare that to, say, Israel), we have nothing bordering on the East and West.
So, even if you discount arms, geographically we're safe from a formal invasion.
I just don't buy the macho "they're scared of our GUUUUUUUNS! argument. There have never been hostile nations who have not attacked each other as a result of one being "too well armed." Well, considering the "preparing for peace by preparing for war" mentality that pervaded us during the cold war, I suppose I need to refine my statement. I can't conceivably think that if we consider the efforts of non-US organizations and forces wanting to invade and attack us that armed citizenry comes into the equation. The military absolutely will; the US' nuclear weapons certainly will; the support (or, rather, lack of) from other nations will come into the equation.
It's not as if people in Iraq aren't hurting from a lack of weapons (or take your pick in the Middle East). I suppose my argument is that nations that protect themselves from hostile invasions are those with immense military strength; that's why India and Pakistan are slow-moving towards each other, but hostile as hell. IMO, gun owners are taking credit for something that is massively attributable to other factors (geography and military).
When you get to a population level below nation,things become different. One reason I'm so conflicted in my views on gun ownership is the studies done on personal crimes in conceal-and-carry cities; forcible rapes and assaults hit theing floor in Dallas (or somewhere in Texas) years ago. It was almost entirely the result of conceal-and-carry. I can't say there are no benefits to an armed citizenry. But it's a stretch, and a foolish one, to think that an armed citizenry is protecting us from external invasions (I'd also argue that Tiph-or-Hex is anomalously better armed than your average United Statesian).
in' tough to formally invade the United States, with a massed infantry a la Red Dawn. The sheer number of gun owners, coupled with street gangs and shit, would make taking the country over tough as hell.[/QUOTE]Well, depascal points out that there are some severe difficulties in invading the US that are the result of geography first and foremost; in addition to having to come through Alaska/BC, that also implies that our shores on the east and west side give us a great deal of comfort. We not only have no hostile borders around us (compare that to, say, Israel), we have nothing bordering on the East and West.
So, even if you discount arms, geographically we're safe from a formal invasion.
I just don't buy the macho "they're scared of our GUUUUUUUNS! argument. There have never been hostile nations who have not attacked each other as a result of one being "too well armed." Well, considering the "preparing for peace by preparing for war" mentality that pervaded us during the cold war, I suppose I need to refine my statement. I can't conceivably think that if we consider the efforts of non-US organizations and forces wanting to invade and attack us that armed citizenry comes into the equation. The military absolutely will; the US' nuclear weapons certainly will; the support (or, rather, lack of) from other nations will come into the equation.
It's not as if people in Iraq aren't hurting from a lack of weapons (or take your pick in the Middle East). I suppose my argument is that nations that protect themselves from hostile invasions are those with immense military strength; that's why India and Pakistan are slow-moving towards each other, but hostile as hell. IMO, gun owners are taking credit for something that is massively attributable to other factors (geography and military).
When you get to a population level below nation,things become different. One reason I'm so conflicted in my views on gun ownership is the studies done on personal crimes in conceal-and-carry cities; forcible rapes and assaults hit the
ing floor in Dallas (or somewhere in Texas) years ago. It was almost entirely the result of conceal-and-carry. I can't say there are no benefits to an armed citizenry. But it's a stretch, and a foolish one, to think that an armed citizenry is protecting us from external invasions (I'd also argue that Tiph-or-Hex is anomalously better armed than your average United Statesian).
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin'] I suppose my argument is that nations
that protect themselves from hostile invasions are those with immense military strength. [/quote]
You forget that the Romans lost to the Barbarians and that the Russians have been the underdog in every military conflict of the last 200 years. It seems that wars are won by a few genius generals(Hannibal, Zhukov) and some sheer luck.
The Russians repulsed Napoleon and Hitler only because of their brutally cold winters and the fact that they didn't care to burn every village and farm to ashes so that invaders couldn't get provisions or shelter. Genius move but it had nothing to do with the immense military power. Hell, the guys at Stalingrad had one rifle to two infantryman. Sheer will and the brutal cold won that battle.
You could even go back to the Civil War and point out that the North should've mopped up the South in the summer of 1861 but they got outmaneuvered by Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Superior tactics and luck always win out over superior numbers and firepower. It's the main reason we're losing in Iraq. We just can't keep throwing guys in the mix without a better plan.
That might be one of the reasons we could be invaded even with everyone being armed. We're being invaded one by one and they're becoming us. All our guns will mean nothing if our neighbors are the ones blowing shit up. No one suspected the 9/11 hijackers even though they were already in the country cooking up the plans and training for their mission.
that protect themselves from hostile invasions are those with immense military strength. [/quote]
You forget that the Romans lost to the Barbarians and that the Russians have been the underdog in every military conflict of the last 200 years. It seems that wars are won by a few genius generals(Hannibal, Zhukov) and some sheer luck.
The Russians repulsed Napoleon and Hitler only because of their brutally cold winters and the fact that they didn't care to burn every village and farm to ashes so that invaders couldn't get provisions or shelter. Genius move but it had nothing to do with the immense military power. Hell, the guys at Stalingrad had one rifle to two infantryman. Sheer will and the brutal cold won that battle.
You could even go back to the Civil War and point out that the North should've mopped up the South in the summer of 1861 but they got outmaneuvered by Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Superior tactics and luck always win out over superior numbers and firepower. It's the main reason we're losing in Iraq. We just can't keep throwing guys in the mix without a better plan.
That might be one of the reasons we could be invaded even with everyone being armed. We're being invaded one by one and they're becoming us. All our guns will mean nothing if our neighbors are the ones blowing shit up. No one suspected the 9/11 hijackers even though they were already in the country cooking up the plans and training for their mission.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='depascal22']You could even go back to the Civil War and point out that the North should've mopped up the South in the summer of 1861 but they got outmaneuvered by Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Superior tactics and luck always win out over superior numbers and firepower. It's the main reason we're losing in Iraq. We just can't keep throwing guys in the mix without a better plan.[/quote]
Remind me, who eventually won the American civil war?
Remind me, who eventually won the American civil war?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Remind me, who eventually won the American civil war?[/quote]
The North won because they got rid of McClellan and Hooker and let Ulysses S Grant run the show. It didn't hurt that they let Sherman burn Georgia to the ground.
The North won because they got rid of McClellan and Hooker and let Ulysses S Grant run the show. It didn't hurt that they let Sherman burn Georgia to the ground.
[quote name='depascal22']The North won because they got rid of McClellan and Hooker and let Ulysses S Grant run the show. It didn't hurt that they let Sherman burn Georgia to the ground.[/QUOTE]
Because the Confederate mistakes at Gettysberg had nothing to do with anything.
Because the Confederate mistakes at Gettysberg had nothing to do with anything.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']Because the Confederate mistakes at Gettysberg had nothing to do with anything.[/quote]
The North made the mistake of not cutting off Lee and finishing the war right then and there. They let Lee slip back into Maryland and the war raged on. Mistakes were made on both sides.
The point is that it was ridiculous for the North to allow the South to fight for over four years when they were fighting on little but piss and vinegar.
The North made the mistake of not cutting off Lee and finishing the war right then and there. They let Lee slip back into Maryland and the war raged on. Mistakes were made on both sides.
The point is that it was ridiculous for the North to allow the South to fight for over four years when they were fighting on little but piss and vinegar.
[quote name='depascal22']The North made the mistake of not cutting off Lee and finishing the war right then and there. They let Lee slip back into Maryland and the war raged on. Mistakes were made on both sides.
The point is that it was ridiculous for the North to allow the South to fight for over four years when they were fighting on little but piss and vinegar.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess those goalposts wont move themselves, nice work.
The point is that it was ridiculous for the North to allow the South to fight for over four years when they were fighting on little but piss and vinegar.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess those goalposts wont move themselves, nice work.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
If you give me a little time, I'll pull out my 'What If's of American History' to tell you who lost the war for the south...
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='CocheseUGA']If you give me a little time, I'll pull out my 'What If's of American History' to tell you who lost the war for the south...[/quote]
You again. I hope you have something constructive to add. Planning on picking apart every one of my statements because I didn't put the word the in one of my posts?
You again. I hope you have something constructive to add. Planning on picking apart every one of my statements because I didn't put the word the in one of my posts?
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='depascal22']You again. I hope you have something constructive to add. Planning on picking apart every one of my statements because I didn't put the word the in one of my posts?[/QUOTE]
You really haven't been worthy to comment upon.
You really haven't been worthy to comment upon.
bread's done