The great risk of extreme gun-control - Page 4

Mark6 · 17th February 2013, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

You don't see my point. As you say, it happened - despite Americans having the right to keep and bear arms. A better example for you would be an instance where gun ownership actually stopped government trespassing like that. Got any of that?

I noticed that Courier never answered this question -- because there ARE no recent (as in, last 100 years) examples of such. OTOH, there is a very recent examples where several tyrannies were overthrown in quick succession -- I am talking about Arab Spring. And guess what -- gun ownership was irrelevant. What mattered was army units turning against the government. Tunisia had either lowest or second lowest in the world rate of civilian gun ownership, yet Tunisian government collapsed within days after army refused to fire on unarmed protesters. Libya had and still has a fairly high civilian gun ownership rate (around 15% of population was armed), yet rebels were getting their asses kicked for months until France intervened -- and Libyan regular army units began to change side. In other words, when faced with modern military, civilians with guns are basically useless. But soldiers are human beings with families too, and once they see they are being ordered to commit evil, they are liable to refuse. Which also happened in Soviet Union in 1991 (another country with very few guns in private hands) -- soldiers simply refused to obey. So real bulwark against tyranny is not citizens with guns, but strong civics education -- making sure that every 18-20 year old about to put on uniform understands what he going to protect, and not blindly obey orders.

Speaking of Libya -- a lot of those armed civilians fought on the side of Ghaddafi. Which brings up one thing which always amazes me about people like Courier -- they blindly assume that every "citizen with a gun" will oppose this hypothetical US tyranny. Guess what -- tyrannies do not spring out of nowhere. They exist because they have popular support. If somehow Washington turn dictatorial, you can bet it will be with support of significant part of US population. And that part will be just as armed (or just as not-armed) as Courier's hypothetical resistance. So he would be fighting not only regular army, but quite a few of his armed neighbors as well.

Tsukasa Buddha · 17th February 2013, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Courier

Nat Turner.

John Brown.

Heroes till the end.

They were butchers. Religious fanatics. And probably crazy. Their plans were so ludicrous in audacity and "God has given me a sign" based that quite quickly ended in failure. They weren't looking to die standing on their feet. (Some compare to Bin Laden, but I think a Breivik who happened to be on the right side is slightly more apt.)

It should be noted that the only people who "took up arms" were of this sort. In the long run they had great impacts, but usually negative ones that got turned into "positive" motivating ones.

Mister Earl · 17th February 2013, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

I noticed that Courier never answered this question -- because there ARE no recent (as in, last 100 years) examples of such.

I asked the same question of Courier and he never responded. I'm pretty sure he has no answer.

fuelair · 17th February 2013, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

I know, the answer was in my post, again the problem is that America has allowed a situation where its criminals, nuts and youths can easily get hold of guns.

No possible argument with that!!!

Courier · 17th February 2013, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

They were butchers. Religious fanatics....

I'm sure slave-owners felt the same way.

Tsukasa Buddha · 17th February 2013, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Courier

I'm sure slave-owners felt the same way.

I'm sure the children were too young to feel the same.

Courier · 17th February 2013, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I'm sure the children were too young to feel the same.

Tsukasa es mi casa?

PhantomWolf · 17th February 2013, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Courier

Nat Turner.

John Brown.

Heroes till the end.

wow, you idolise terrorists who rather than attacking the Government, slaughtered unarmed civilians, men, women, and children. And you think that somehow makes your argument better.

ETA: Though it does create a valid reason for having a gun. It allows you to protect yourself from the crazies who decide that the way to fight Tryanny is to slaughter all of their neighbours that they believe have done them wrong.

ben m · 17th February 2013, 10:25 PM

The other thing to keep in mind, particularly about the French Revolution. Back then, it wasn't armed citizens "overthrowing" a standing professional army. France didn't *have* much of a standing army. The "French Guard" was a sort of palace guard---more of a bodyguard corps than a battlefield army. In those days, when the king wanted to put down a *foreign* threat, he had to raise an army to do so---by calling in mercenaries, or by asking loyal lords to send conscripts.

It is *not* the case that "armed French civilians overthrew the French army". Rather, an assembly called by the King, the Estates-General, asserted its authority in speeches and declarations---and these speeches were most of the battle. There were relatively few *armed* aspects of the revolution, and they were characterized by former-regime-militias switching loyalties.

And don't forget---the Revolution overthrew the monarchy and replaced it with the "reign of terror". Great.

uk_dave · 17th February 2013, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Courier

Good luck with your belief in the perpetually-benevolent government. I hope it works out for you.

Interesting.

From 1945 to 1975 the US had a thing called the HUAC. This government committee investigated the political affiliations of US citizens.

Was it stopped by the populace exercising it's 2nd amendment rights?

In Southern States during the 1950s and 1960s, despite the legal right to vote, many black americans were denied this right by institutionalised racism. Did they overcome this by using guns?

Can you point to any examples of political 'extremism' by a US Government which has been countered by armed US citizens?

There are the two obvious examples I posted above but neither of these seem to have anything to do with guns being used by those whose civil liberties were under attack from a 'tyrannical' government, be it national or state.

Captain_Swoop · 18th February 2013, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by uk_dave

Interesting.

From 1945 to 1975 the US had a thing called the HUAC. This government committee investigated the political affiliations of US citizens.

Was it stopped by the populace exercising it's 2nd amendment rights?

In Southern States during the 1950s and 1960s, despite the legal right to vote, many black americans were denied this right by institutionalised racism. Did they overcome this by using guns?

Can you point to any examples of political 'extremism' by a US Government which has been countered by armed US citizens?

There are the two obvious examples I posted above but neither of these seem to have anything to do with guns being used by those whose civil liberties were under attack from a 'tyrannical' government, be it national or state.

Stop advocating Democratic Rule you Nazi!

Nessie · 18th February 2013, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by zeggman

One reason it's relevant is that slave rebellions like Nat Turner's, and the resistance of the disarmed Warsaw ghetto Jews, might have been more effective if they'd had the right to keep and bear arms, instead of being limited to the arms they could beg, borrow, or steal.

Two examples which would seem to fit your request are the United States in 1776 and France in 1789.

Right or no right, what was important was who had guns and who did not and who was imposing the tyranny and with whose cooperation. Whether a population has a right to guns or not, if one part of society decides to disarm another part there is either little they can do as they are totally outnumbered and out gunned or there is a civil war.

The pro-gun protection from tyranny side have to simplify what actually happened in history to a point it is not accurate to make their point.

Nessie · 18th February 2013, 03:08 AM

Courier's epic fail here is that lots of terrible things have happened in the USA with its armed population, proof that an armed population is no defence against terrible things.

PhantomWolf · 18th February 2013, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by zeggman

two examples which would seem to fit your request are the United States in 1776 and France in 1789.

Except that the US revolutionary war wasn't fought by groups of armed civilians, it was fought by traditional armies, the Continental Army along with the French, Spainish, and Dutch on one side, and the English on the other. The State militas were used to boost manpower and deal with small groups of enemy, but the major work was done by the Army, and even there had they not been supplied by the French, Spainish and Dutch, who also engaged the British forces and prevented them from bringing their entire force to bear on the American forces by creating new fronts and even threatening to invade the UK, the American's would have found it a very different story.

angrysoba · 18th February 2013, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

So what's your point, that Mao was no fool?

Ma Mao didn't raise no fool!

P.J. Denyer · 18th February 2013, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Tunisia had either lowest or second lowest in the world rate of civilian gun ownership, yet Tunisian government collapsed within days after army refused to fire on unarmed protesters. Libya had and still has a fairly high civilian gun ownership rate (around 15% of population was armed), yet rebels were getting their asses kicked for months until France intervened -- and Libyan regular army units began to change side. In other words, when faced with modern military, civilians with guns are basically useless. But soldiers are human beings with families too, and once they see they are being ordered to commit evil, they are liable to refuse. Which also happened in Soviet Union in 1991 (another country with very few guns in private hands) -- soldiers simply refused to obey. So real bulwark against tyranny is not citizens with guns, but strong civics education -- making sure that every 18-20 year old about to put on uniform understands what he going to protect, and not blindly obey orders.

Speaking of Libya -- a lot of those armed civilians fought on the side of Ghaddafi. Which brings up one thing which always amazes me about people like Courier -- they blindly assume that every "citizen with a gun" will oppose this hypothetical US tyranny. Guess what -- tyrannies do not spring out of nowhere. They exist because they have popular support. If somehow Washington turn dictatorial, you can bet it will be with support of significant part of US population. And that part will be just as armed (or just as not-armed) as Courier's hypothetical resistance. So he would be fighting not only regular army, but quite a few of his armed neighbors as well.

As an unarmed UK Citizen I trust that the British Armed Forces, made up as it is of my fellow citizens, including friends and relatives, would not support tyranny. I don't understand people who on the one hand wave the flag and hold the constitution and it's amendments as sacrosanct and yet simultaneously argue that it's checks and balances on power are insufficient and they need to be armed to fight against the same troops they would doubtless claim to support. (NB: I am not saying this is true of all pro-gun posters).

Belz... · 18th February 2013, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

I support what I believe to be common-sense restrictions on gun ownership.

We should keep felons and the mentally dangerous from owning firearms.

There should be greater restrictions on owning handguns than rifles & shotguns.

All firearms sales should have a background check.

But other than that, I believe that firearms should be available to the general public for protection, hunting, and sporting purposes.

I think we agree on the basics, then.

Quote:

The problem with this philosophy, is the MASSIVE truth & faith faith these people put in their government and law enforcers, and government in general.

However, I don't think people owning handguns would make a difference against a tyrannical government with an army such as the one the USA have.

It's also a strawman of yours, since no one ever said the US government would never do such a thing.

Belz... · 18th February 2013, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

Not that I care, but unmanned drones can of course be shot down.

Yeah, just like skeet shooting !

Belz... · 18th February 2013, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

So because the military has F-22s, tanks, and nuclear weapons, we should simply just hand in all of our guns now and beg the government to just cut to the chase, abolish democracy and install a dictatorship now?

That's one of the most beautiful strawmen I've seen this year.

zeggman · 18th February 2013, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Right or no right, what was important was who had guns and who did not and who was imposing the tyranny and with whose cooperation. Whether a population has a right to guns or not, if one part of society decides to disarm another part there is either little they can do as they are totally outnumbered and out gunned or there is a civil war.

The pro-gun protection from tyranny side have to simplify what actually happened in history to a point it is not accurate to make their point.

Yes, if one faction rebels against the tyranny imposed by another faction, there is civil war. How is acknowledging that simplifying to the point of inaccuracy?

Originally Posted by Nessie

Courier's epic fail here is that lots of terrible things have happened in the USA with its armed population, proof that an armed population is no defence against terrible things.

Terrible things is not necessarily the same as tyranny. The internment of Japanese Americans and the Jim Crow laws were arguably "tyranny of the majority", but democratic rule was not suspended, and ways were found to oppose and to end them, largely without bloodshed.

As the Declaration of Independence states,

Quote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The right to bear arms does not mean citizens should start shooting over every perceived injustice, especially while we still have the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is a reason Freedom of Assembly is protected in the First Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms is protected in the Second.

Belz... · 18th February 2013, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

No, I'm saying that regardless of the odds of success, resistance has its place.

Of course. But resistance doesn't necessarily mean going against the military with puny weapons. There are other ways.

zeggman · 18th February 2013, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Except that the US revolutionary war wasn't fought by groups of armed civilians, it was fought by traditional armies, the Continental Army along with the French, Spainish, and Dutch on one side, and the English on the other. The State militas were used to boost manpower and deal with small groups of enemy, but the major work was done by the Army, and even there had they not been supplied by the French, Spainish and Dutch, who also engaged the British forces and prevented them from bringing their entire force to bear on the American forces by creating new fronts and even threatening to invade the UK, the American's would have found it a very different story.

It's a bit of a stretch to call the Continental Army "a traditional army". The colonies didn't have a standing army for more than a decade after they became a new nation.

Nessie · 18th February 2013, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Except that the US revolutionary war wasn't fought by groups of armed civilians, it was fought by traditional armies, the Continental Army along with the French, Spainish, and Dutch on one side, and the English on the other. The State militas were used to boost manpower and deal with small groups of enemy, but the major work was done by the Army, and even there had they not been supplied by the French, Spainish and Dutch, who also engaged the British forces and prevented them from bringing their entire force to bear on the American forces by creating new fronts and even threatening to invade the UK, the American's would have found it a very different story.

The British paid for about 30,000 troops from states that are part of Germany to fight in the War. The American War of Independence was in effect the first world war, rapidly followed by the Napoleonic War as the second. What we call the First and Second World Wars are more like the fourth and fifth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_%28soldiers%29

Many Americans also fought for the British, it is estimated about half a million were loyal to the Crown and fought against the revolution. Many then left America to Canada and back to the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalis..._Revolution%29

That is the reality of fighting off tyranny, not the fantasy of some American gun fans where they all unite and fight off governments and armies.

zeggman · 18th February 2013, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Maybe some of us believe it's better to live to fight another day.

Especially if you let someone take your gun away yesterday, and you find yourself in the position of having brought a platitude to a gun fight.

Belz... · 18th February 2013, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

The Right to Keep & Bear Arms is only good if you make use of it.

Well, then. You've just defeated your central argument.

zeggman · 18th February 2013, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

That is the reality of fighting off tyranny, not the fantasy of some American gun fans where they all unite and fight off governments and armies.

Yes, preserving (or establishing) one's freedom can be messy business. If America morphed into tyranny, snatching it back would be unprecedented. It might even be, as you gleefully proclaim, impossible.

It would certainly be less likely for an unarmed population. For that reason alone, I am opposed to weapons bans.

Nessie · 18th February 2013, 05:59 AM

Bring a pitchfork. Militias always seem to armed with pitchforks.

spin0 · 18th February 2013, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

All the evidence shows that the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the USA and in many State Constitutions as well, for the sole purpose of giving the people the ability to rise up against their own government incase it became oppressive & tyrannical.

Then why did they put such hard restrictions on gun ownership: The Secret History of Guns

Quote:

The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.

For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.

To me it seems that their idea was to prevent uprise against government by restricting gun ownership for some (perhaps potential counter-revolutionaries) and mandating it for others (pro-revolution "well regulated militia").

P.J. Denyer · 18th February 2013, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by zeggman

Yes, preserving (or establishing) one's freedom can be messy business. If America morphed into tyranny, snatching it back would be unprecedented. It might even be, as you gleefully proclaim, impossible.

It would certainly be less likely for an unarmed population. For that reason alone, I am opposed to weapons bans.

I think it would be entirely possible for an educated military drawn from and representing the general population to draw a line in the sand against a government sliding into tyranny. It would be more realistic and less bloody too.

Courier · 18th February 2013, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

Maybe some of us believe it's better to live to fight another day.

And which day might that be?

The day the war has ended?

Belz... · 18th February 2013, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

And which day might that be?

The day the war has ended?

What war ?

And why are you ignoring everyone's points ? Aside from creating strawmen, you haven't actually said anything except that guns fight tyranny, a notion that has been thoroughly challenged.

Courier · 18th February 2013, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Belz...

What war ?

And why are you ignoring everyone's points ? Aside from creating strawmen, you haven't actually said anything except that guns fight tyranny, a notion that has been thoroughly challenged.

Guns don't fight tyranny?

Tell that to our Founding Fathers, the French, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Belz... · 18th February 2013, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

Guns don't fight tyranny?

Tell that to our Founding Fathers, the French, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Stop acting like you don't read the posts of other people, Courier. You know full well what I meant.

Instead of tiptoeing around the points, why don't you address them ?

Mark6 · 18th February 2013, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

Guns don't fight tyranny?

Tell that to our Founding Fathers, the French, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Not one of which is an example of a democratic government somehow turned tyrannical, and successfully resisted by armed citizens.

Such thing simply never happened in history. All your preparations are hypothetical. Care to address the points I made in post 121?

fuelair · 18th February 2013, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by tsig

I believe a famous general one exhorted his troops to make the enemy die on their feet. Seemed to work.

Not exactly - though the actor portraying him did. No evidence for the famous "quote" but it sounds great and I agree with it - essentially, Do not die for your country, make the other poor SOB die for his!!!

Xulld · 18th February 2013, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

Guns don't fight tyranny?

Tell that to our Founding Fathers, the French, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Keep up the good work Courier, these guys have a thousand straw man sound bytes, it takes serious effort to stay in the conversation with so much dishonesty. Hats off to you.

Quote:

because there ARE no recent (as in, last 100 years)

There are, just not on the scale presented here.

A very popular term was invented about the most recent ones, the Arab Spring.

Incoming straw man . . . 3 . . .2 . .

Originally Posted by Mark6

Not one of which is an example of a democratic government somehow turned tyrannical, and successfully resisted by armed citizens.

Such thing simply never happened in history. All your preparations are hypothetical. Care to address the points I made in post 121?

No true scots man. Just keep narrowing those goal posts.

Belz... · 18th February 2013, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

Keep up the good work Courier, these guys have a thousand straw man sound bytes, it takes serious effort to stay in the conversation with so much dishonesty. Hats off to you.

There are, just not on the scale presented here.

A very popular term was invented about the most recent ones, the Arab Spring.

Incoming straw man . . . 3 . . .2 . .

No true scots man. Just keep narrowing those goal posts.

When you're done patting yourselves on the back, there are some points that need addressing.

Mark6 · 18th February 2013, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Xulld

There are, just not on the scale presented here.

A very popular term was invented about the most recent ones, the Arab Spring.

See my point 121, specifically about Arab Spring. "Armed citizens" had very little effect on it.

Nessie · 18th February 2013, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Courier

Guns don't fight tyranny?

Tell that to our Founding Fathers, the French, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto.

This is about who has the guns not the guns themselves. None of the above were successful armed civilian only actions without any support from the military and government. That is the point you are resolutely ignoring.

Xulld · 18th February 2013, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

See my point 121, specifically about Arab Spring. "Armed citizens" had very little effect on it.

No true Scotsman. Didn't measure up to your standards . . .

Quote:

civilian only

Why does that matter?

"We the people"

Narrow those goal posts!

17th February 2013, 02:54 PM	#121
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	Originally Posted by Ryokan You don't see my point. As you say, it happened - despite Americans having the right to keep and bear arms. A better example for you would be an instance where gun ownership actually stopped government trespassing like that. Got any of that? I noticed that Courier never answered this question -- because there ARE no recent (as in, last 100 years) examples of such. OTOH, there is a very recent examples where several tyrannies were overthrown in quick succession -- I am talking about Arab Spring. And guess what -- gun ownership was irrelevant. What mattered was army units turning against the government. Tunisia had either lowest or second lowest in the world rate of civilian gun ownership, yet Tunisian government collapsed within days after army refused to fire on unarmed protesters. Libya had and still has a fairly high civilian gun ownership rate (around 15% of population was armed), yet rebels were getting their asses kicked for months until France intervened -- and Libyan regular army units began to change side. In other words, when faced with modern military, civilians with guns are basically useless. But soldiers are human beings with families too, and once they see they are being ordered to commit evil, they are liable to refuse. Which also happened in Soviet Union in 1991 (another country with very few guns in private hands) -- soldiers simply refused to obey. So real bulwark against tyranny is not citizens with guns, but strong civics education -- making sure that every 18-20 year old about to put on uniform understands what he going to protect, and not blindly obey orders. Speaking of Libya -- a lot of those armed civilians fought on the side of Ghaddafi. Which brings up one thing which always amazes me about people like Courier -- they blindly assume that every "citizen with a gun" will oppose this hypothetical US tyranny. Guess what -- tyrannies do not spring out of nowhere. They exist because they have popular support. If somehow Washington turn dictatorial, you can bet it will be with support of significant part of US population. And that part will be just as armed (or just as not-armed) as Courier's hypothetical resistance. So he would be fighting not only regular army, but quite a few of his armed neighbors as well.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

17th February 2013, 05:36 PM	#122
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,887	Originally Posted by Courier Nat Turner. John Brown. Heroes till the end. They were butchers. Religious fanatics. And probably crazy. Their plans were so ludicrous in audacity and "God has given me a sign" based that quite quickly ended in failure. They weren't looking to die standing on their feet. (Some compare to Bin Laden, but I think a Breivik who happened to be on the right side is slightly more apt.) It should be noted that the only people who "took up arms" were of this sort. In the long run they had great impacts, but usually negative ones that got turned into "positive" motivating ones.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 17th February 2013 at 05:53 PM.

17th February 2013, 05:51 PM	#123
Mister Earl Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,118	Originally Posted by Mark6 I noticed that Courier never answered this question -- because there ARE no recent (as in, last 100 years) examples of such. I asked the same question of Courier and he never responded. I'm pretty sure he has no answer.
	Last edited by Mister Earl; 17th February 2013 at 06:04 PM.

17th February 2013, 06:52 PM	#124
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,885	Originally Posted by Nessie I know, the answer was in my post, again the problem is that America has allowed a situation where its criminals, nuts and youths can easily get hold of guns. No possible argument with that!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,885	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

17th February 2013, 06:57 PM	#125
Courier Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,202	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha They were butchers. Religious fanatics.... I'm sure slave-owners felt the same way.
Courier Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,202

17th February 2013, 07:41 PM	#126
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,887	Originally Posted by Courier I'm sure slave-owners felt the same way. I'm sure the children were too young to feel the same.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

17th February 2013, 07:43 PM	#127
Courier Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,202	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha I'm sure the children were too young to feel the same. Tsukasa es mi casa?
Courier Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,202

17th February 2013, 08:52 PM	#128
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,893	Originally Posted by Courier Nat Turner. John Brown. Heroes till the end. wow, you idolise terrorists who rather than attacking the Government, slaughtered unarmed civilians, men, women, and children. And you think that somehow makes your argument better. ETA: Though it does create a valid reason for having a gun. It allows you to protect yourself from the crazies who decide that the way to fight Tryanny is to slaughter all of their neighbours that they believe have done them wrong.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics. Last edited by PhantomWolf; 17th February 2013 at 08:56 PM.

17th February 2013, 10:25 PM	#129
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,639	The other thing to keep in mind, particularly about the French Revolution. Back then, it wasn't armed citizens "overthrowing" a standing professional army. France didn't have much of a standing army. The "French Guard" was a sort of palace guard---more of a bodyguard corps than a battlefield army. In those days, when the king wanted to put down a foreign threat, he had to raise an army to do so---by calling in mercenaries, or by asking loyal lords to send conscripts. It is not the case that "armed French civilians overthrew the French army". Rather, an assembly called by the King, the Estates-General, asserted its authority in speeches and declarations---and these speeches were most of the battle. There were relatively few armed aspects of the revolution, and they were characterized by former-regime-militias switching loyalties. And don't forget---the Revolution overthrew the monarchy and replaced it with the "reign of terror". Great.
ben m Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,639

17th February 2013, 11:20 PM	#130
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866	Originally Posted by Courier Good luck with your belief in the perpetually-benevolent government. I hope it works out for you. Interesting. From 1945 to 1975 the US had a thing called the HUAC. This government committee investigated the political affiliations of US citizens. Was it stopped by the populace exercising it's 2nd amendment rights? In Southern States during the 1950s and 1960s, despite the legal right to vote, many black americans were denied this right by institutionalised racism. Did they overcome this by using guns? Can you point to any examples of political 'extremism' by a US Government which has been countered by armed US citizens? There are the two obvious examples I posted above but neither of these seem to have anything to do with guns being used by those whose civil liberties were under attack from a 'tyrannical' government, be it national or state.
uk_dave Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 7,866

18th February 2013, 12:03 AM	#131
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,909	Originally Posted by uk_dave Interesting. From 1945 to 1975 the US had a thing called the HUAC. This government committee investigated the political affiliations of US citizens. Was it stopped by the populace exercising it's 2nd amendment rights? In Southern States during the 1950s and 1960s, despite the legal right to vote, many black americans were denied this right by institutionalised racism. Did they overcome this by using guns? Can you point to any examples of political 'extremism' by a US Government which has been countered by armed US citizens? There are the two obvious examples I posted above but neither of these seem to have anything to do with guns being used by those whose civil liberties were under attack from a 'tyrannical' government, be it national or state. Stop advocating Democratic Rule you Nazi!

18th February 2013, 03:02 AM	#132
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Originally Posted by zeggman One reason it's relevant is that slave rebellions like Nat Turner's, and the resistance of the disarmed Warsaw ghetto Jews, might have been more effective if they'd had the right to keep and bear arms, instead of being limited to the arms they could beg, borrow, or steal. Two examples which would seem to fit your request are the United States in 1776 and France in 1789. Right or no right, what was important was who had guns and who did not and who was imposing the tyranny and with whose cooperation. Whether a population has a right to guns or not, if one part of society decides to disarm another part there is either little they can do as they are totally outnumbered and out gunned or there is a civil war. The pro-gun protection from tyranny side have to simplify what actually happened in history to a point it is not accurate to make their point.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

18th February 2013, 03:08 AM	#133
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Courier's epic fail here is that lots of terrible things have happened in the USA with its armed population, proof that an armed population is no defence against terrible things.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

18th February 2013, 03:21 AM	#134
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,893	Originally Posted by zeggman two examples which would seem to fit your request are the United States in 1776 and France in 1789. Except that the US revolutionary war wasn't fought by groups of armed civilians, it was fought by traditional armies, the Continental Army along with the French, Spainish, and Dutch on one side, and the English on the other. The State militas were used to boost manpower and deal with small groups of enemy, but the major work was done by the Army, and even there had they not been supplied by the French, Spainish and Dutch, who also engaged the British forces and prevented them from bringing their entire force to bear on the American forces by creating new fronts and even threatening to invade the UK, the American's would have found it a very different story.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

18th February 2013, 03:33 AM	#135
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,510	Originally Posted by Courier So what's your point, that Mao was no fool? Ma Mao didn't raise no fool!

18th February 2013, 04:14 AM	#136
P.J. Denyer Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,127	Originally Posted by Mark6 Tunisia had either lowest or second lowest in the world rate of civilian gun ownership, yet Tunisian government collapsed within days after army refused to fire on unarmed protesters. Libya had and still has a fairly high civilian gun ownership rate (around 15% of population was armed), yet rebels were getting their asses kicked for months until France intervened -- and Libyan regular army units began to change side. In other words, when faced with modern military, civilians with guns are basically useless. But soldiers are human beings with families too, and once they see they are being ordered to commit evil, they are liable to refuse. Which also happened in Soviet Union in 1991 (another country with very few guns in private hands) -- soldiers simply refused to obey. So real bulwark against tyranny is not citizens with guns, but strong civics education -- making sure that every 18-20 year old about to put on uniform understands what he going to protect, and not blindly obey orders. Speaking of Libya -- a lot of those armed civilians fought on the side of Ghaddafi. Which brings up one thing which always amazes me about people like Courier -- they blindly assume that every "citizen with a gun" will oppose this hypothetical US tyranny. Guess what -- tyrannies do not spring out of nowhere. They exist because they have popular support. If somehow Washington turn dictatorial, you can bet it will be with support of significant part of US population. And that part will be just as armed (or just as not-armed) as Courier's hypothetical resistance. So he would be fighting not only regular army, but quite a few of his armed neighbors as well. As an unarmed UK Citizen I trust that the British Armed Forces, made up as it is of my fellow citizens, including friends and relatives, would not support tyranny. I don't understand people who on the one hand wave the flag and hold the constitution and it's amendments as sacrosanct and yet simultaneously argue that it's checks and balances on power are insufficient and they need to be armed to fight against the same troops they would doubtless claim to support. (NB: I am not saying this is true of all pro-gun posters).

18th February 2013, 04:44 AM	#137
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,445	Originally Posted by Courier I support what I believe to be common-sense restrictions on gun ownership. We should keep felons and the mentally dangerous from owning firearms. There should be greater restrictions on owning handguns than rifles & shotguns. All firearms sales should have a background check. But other than that, I believe that firearms should be available to the general public for protection, hunting, and sporting purposes. I think we agree on the basics, then. Quote: The problem with this philosophy, is the MASSIVE truth & faith faith these people put in their government and law enforcers, and government in general. However, I don't think people owning handguns would make a difference against a tyrannical government with an army such as the one the USA have. It's also a strawman of yours, since no one ever said the US government would never do such a thing.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

18th February 2013, 04:45 AM	#138
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,445	Originally Posted by Courier Not that I care, but unmanned drones can of course be shot down. Yeah, just like skeet shooting !
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

18th February 2013, 05:31 AM	#139
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,445	Originally Posted by Courier So because the military has F-22s, tanks, and nuclear weapons, we should simply just hand in all of our guns now and beg the government to just cut to the chase, abolish democracy and install a dictatorship now? That's one of the most beautiful strawmen I've seen this year.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

18th February 2013, 05:45 AM	#140
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761	Originally Posted by Nessie Right or no right, what was important was who had guns and who did not and who was imposing the tyranny and with whose cooperation. Whether a population has a right to guns or not, if one part of society decides to disarm another part there is either little they can do as they are totally outnumbered and out gunned or there is a civil war. The pro-gun protection from tyranny side have to simplify what actually happened in history to a point it is not accurate to make their point. Yes, if one faction rebels against the tyranny imposed by another faction, there is civil war. How is acknowledging that simplifying to the point of inaccuracy? Originally Posted by Nessie Courier's epic fail here is that lots of terrible things have happened in the USA with its armed population, proof that an armed population is no defence against terrible things. Terrible things is not necessarily the same as tyranny. The internment of Japanese Americans and the Jim Crow laws were arguably "tyranny of the majority", but democratic rule was not suspended, and ways were found to oppose and to end them, largely without bloodshed. As the Declaration of Independence states, Quote: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. The right to bear arms does not mean citizens should start shooting over every perceived injustice, especially while we still have the right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is a reason Freedom of Assembly is protected in the First Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms is protected in the Second.
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761

18th February 2013, 05:45 AM	#141
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,445	Originally Posted by Courier No, I'm saying that regardless of the odds of success, resistance has its place. Of course. But resistance doesn't necessarily mean going against the military with puny weapons. There are other ways.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

18th February 2013, 05:47 AM	#142
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Except that the US revolutionary war wasn't fought by groups of armed civilians, it was fought by traditional armies, the Continental Army along with the French, Spainish, and Dutch on one side, and the English on the other. The State militas were used to boost manpower and deal with small groups of enemy, but the major work was done by the Army, and even there had they not been supplied by the French, Spainish and Dutch, who also engaged the British forces and prevented them from bringing their entire force to bear on the American forces by creating new fronts and even threatening to invade the UK, the American's would have found it a very different story. It's a bit of a stretch to call the Continental Army "a traditional army". The colonies didn't have a standing army for more than a decade after they became a new nation.
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761

18th February 2013, 05:53 AM	#143
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Except that the US revolutionary war wasn't fought by groups of armed civilians, it was fought by traditional armies, the Continental Army along with the French, Spainish, and Dutch on one side, and the English on the other. The State militas were used to boost manpower and deal with small groups of enemy, but the major work was done by the Army, and even there had they not been supplied by the French, Spainish and Dutch, who also engaged the British forces and prevented them from bringing their entire force to bear on the American forces by creating new fronts and even threatening to invade the UK, the American's would have found it a very different story. The British paid for about 30,000 troops from states that are part of Germany to fight in the War. The American War of Independence was in effect the first world war, rapidly followed by the Napoleonic War as the second. What we call the First and Second World Wars are more like the fourth and fifth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessian_%28soldiers%29 Many Americans also fought for the British, it is estimated about half a million were loyal to the Crown and fought against the revolution. Many then left America to Canada and back to the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalis..._Revolution%29 That is the reality of fighting off tyranny, not the fantasy of some American gun fans where they all unite and fight off governments and armies.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

18th February 2013, 05:53 AM	#144
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761	Originally Posted by Belz... Maybe some of us believe it's better to live to fight another day. Especially if you let someone take your gun away yesterday, and you find yourself in the position of having brought a platitude to a gun fight.
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761

18th February 2013, 05:54 AM	#145
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,445	Originally Posted by Courier The Right to Keep & Bear Arms is only good if you make use of it. Well, then. You've just defeated your central argument.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

18th February 2013, 05:58 AM	#146
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761	Originally Posted by Nessie That is the reality of fighting off tyranny, not the fantasy of some American gun fans where they all unite and fight off governments and armies. Yes, preserving (or establishing) one's freedom can be messy business. If America morphed into tyranny, snatching it back would be unprecedented. It might even be, as you gleefully proclaim, impossible. It would certainly be less likely for an unarmed population. For that reason alone, I am opposed to weapons bans.
zeggman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,761

18th February 2013, 05:59 AM	#147
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,748	Bring a pitchfork. Militias always seem to armed with pitchforks.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

18th February 2013, 06:01 AM	#148
spin0 Muse Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Finland Posts: 604	Originally Posted by Courier All the evidence shows that the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the USA and in many State Constitutions as well, for the sole purpose of giving the people the ability to rise up against their own government incase it became oppressive & tyrannical. Then why did they put such hard restrictions on gun ownership: The Secret History of Guns Quote: The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution. For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls. To me it seems that their idea was to prevent uprise against government by restricting gun ownership for some (perhaps potential counter-revolutionaries) and mandating it for others (pro-revolution "well regulated militia").
	Last edited by spin0; 18th February 2013 at 06:12 AM.

18th February 2013, 06:16 AM	#149
P.J. Denyer Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,127	Originally Posted by zeggman Yes, preserving (or establishing) one's freedom can be messy business. If America morphed into tyranny, snatching it back would be unprecedented. It might even be, as you gleefully proclaim, impossible. It would certainly be less likely for an unarmed population. For that reason alone, I am opposed to weapons bans. I think it would be entirely possible for an educated military drawn from and representing the general population to draw a line in the sand against a government sliding into tyranny. It would be more realistic and less bloody too.

18th February 2013, 06:54 AM	#150
Courier Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,202	Originally Posted by Belz... Maybe some of us believe it's better to live to fight another day. And which day might that be? The day the war has ended?
Courier Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,202

18th February 2013, 07:18 AM	#151
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,445	Originally Posted by Courier And which day might that be? The day the war has ended? What war ? And why are you ignoring everyone's points ? Aside from creating strawmen, you haven't actually said anything except that guns fight tyranny, a notion that has been thoroughly challenged.
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

18th February 2013, 08:12 AM	#152
Courier Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,202	Originally Posted by Belz... What war ? And why are you ignoring everyone's points ? Aside from creating strawmen, you haven't actually said anything except that guns fight tyranny, a notion that has been thoroughly challenged. Guns don't fight tyranny? Tell that to our Founding Fathers, the French, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto.
Courier Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,202

18th February 2013, 08:31 AM	#153
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,445	Originally Posted by Courier Guns don't fight tyranny? Tell that to our Founding Fathers, the French, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto. Stop acting like you don't read the posts of other people, Courier. You know full well what I meant. Instead of tiptoeing around the points, why don't you address them ?
	__________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey

18th February 2013, 09:00 AM	#154
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	Originally Posted by Courier Guns don't fight tyranny? Tell that to our Founding Fathers, the French, the Irish, the Palestinians, the Bosnians, the Kosovars, the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto. Not one of which is an example of a democratic government somehow turned tyrannical, and successfully resisted by armed citizens. Such thing simply never happened in history. All your preparations are hypothetical. Care to address the points I made in post 121?
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,173	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'" Last edited by Mark6; 18th February 2013 at 09:02 AM.

18th February 2013, 10:01 AM	#155
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,885	Originally Posted by tsig I believe a famous general one exhorted his troops to make the enemy die on their feet. Seemed to work. Not exactly - though the actor portraying him did. No evidence for the famous "quote" but it sounds great and I agree with it - essentially, Do not die for your country, make the other poor SOB die for his!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,885	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!