NationStates Jolt Archive

Supposedly, with some loophole about gun shows.

No loophole at all. All laws are complied with at gun shows, not a single one is bypassed.

I know what you mean.

I went to the gun show a couple months ago and got me a new rifle. No backround check of any sort, and I didn't even have to show a receipt to the cop when I was leaving.

And, the problem is - ?

What business is it of the police what private transactions you made?

What really bothered be though is how many mac-10s, tec-9s (you know, lil' people killers) were laying around, and that people who bought them wouldn't require a backround check.

Yeah, just laying around.

By the way, they won't kill anyone, if a human ain't pullin' the trigger...

There is no need for the citzenry to own guns. The UK proves this. As does most of Europe.

From where does your authority to define need derive?

You're making the assumption that, in the case of a US uprising, that the citizenry would join en masse.

And, others assume that the US military will take the side of the government en masse.

What's funny is that by US law (Federal law), every male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 is in "the militia".

Whether they like it or not.

The National Guard is NOT the militia.

So, I guess if they rule that it's for militias, women don't get to own guns, but all of those men in the correct age group can go get whatever they can afford.

I am a civilian, not part of any militia.

Yes, you are part of a militia. Federal law so dicates.

You say it's federal law? Please cite.

“10 USC S 311 (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

You don’t even have to be a citizen; simply state your intent to become one, and you become a part of the militia (providing you meet the required age and gender qualifications).

What's funny is that by US law (Federal law), every male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 is in "the militia".

Whether they like it or not.

The National Guard is NOT the militia.

So, I guess if they rule that it's for militias, women don't get to own guns, but all of those men in the correct age group can go get whatever they can afford.

There is support for the proposition that all men are the militia. It is necessary for the people to be armed. This is the corollary to our constitutional restriction on having a standing army. The people are the standing army of the United States. Our army and navy can only be raised for two years at a time I think. This is a lesson that we learned from the English Second Civil War where the King had a standing army but the Parliament was supported by the militia whom the king could not successfully bring under his control. I think it is a bit unconstitutional that we do have a standing air force as no limits on an air force is found in our constitution because the forefathers never considered an air force to be an issue.

It is a check on the Presidential power as commander in chief. I never thought about the role of women in our militia but I would assume that women would be included as women are allowed into the national guard.

Find the word "firearms" in the 2nd. It's not there. It merely states "arms". So what constitutes "arms"?

It's probably defined in the same place where "speech" includes computers and the internet...

"A well regulated militia" is the armed forces.

No, it's not.

The amendment is obsolete. Stop sucking up to the forefathers and find a discrete and inoffensive way to outlaw this basic tool of killing.

It's not ohsolete in the least.

As for basic tool of killing, I was unaware that the Romans of the Punic Wars had M-16s and AK-47s...

The most compelling argument against unlimited weapons ownership (taking for granted for the nonce that the second amendment allows civilian weapon ownership, &c.) is this:

Our other basic rights are not unlimited, there are limits on free speech ("fire" in a crowded theater) and limits on religious freedom (human sacrifice), for instance.

These are examples of limits on the USE of the right, not the right itself.

The equivalent to your analogy would be laws against murder or assault.

We need to have a well armed citizenry in case of the off chance that we have a tyrannical government that needs overthrown such as one that ignores the constitutional limits imposed upon it by the people.

Do victims of crime pay a price for this protection? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes. Why is it that the population of North Korea is not well armed and a tyrant rules over them?

Although I do not support privately held nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers, I think it is not excessive for county or parish arsenals to contain automatic weapons, tanks, ambulances, and perhaps attack helicopters.

These county arsenals should be maintained by the local county authorities in case they are needed by the people. Of course, the tyrannical central government forces would try to seize these first so it is still important that the people at least have automatic weapons available to them outside of the arsenals.

It would also be nice to have the arsenals loaded up with dynamite to blow up the weapons in the event that the freedom forces are unable to remove them in time. The problem is that I would not trust some of our nutty assed county commissioners with such a device. We have had some wierd ones.

Something similar to the county arsenal approach is I believe rather common in Northern Europe and Switzerland.

We need to have a well armed citizenry in case of the off chance that we have a tyrannical government that needs overthrown such as one that ignores the constitutional limits imposed upon it by the people.

Absurd. The armed populace wouldn't think twice about taking up arms against the government until they try to take away those arms. In short, people only give a rat's ass about the 2nd amendment.

Absurd. The armed populace wouldn't think twice about taking up arms against the government until they try to take away those arms. In short, people only give a rat's ass about the 2nd amendment.

We did it once before you know. Oh maybe you are British and conveniently forget that we kicked yo asses.

And, others assume that the US military will take the side of the government en masse.

How many times have we heard the "good soldier does what he's told" line? Fuck, man, it got us into a war in Iraq. Colin Powell couldn't get past the "good soldier" part of his life--and you expect anyone, from the front-line grunt to the generals to go against the DOD and the government? What fantasy world do you live in?

How many times have we heard the "good soldier does what he's told" line? Fuck, man, it got us into a war in Iraq. Colin Powell couldn't get past the "good soldier" part of his life--and you expect anyone, from the front-line grunt to the generals to go against the DOD and the government? What fantasy world do you live in?

What kind of fantasy world dod you live in where you think that the Iraq war was not worth the fight?

What kind of fantasy world dod you live in where you think that the Iraq war was not worth the fight?
It's called the real world. You might try visiting it some time.

We did it once before you know. Oh maybe you are British and conveniently forget that we kicked yo asses.

Maybe if you wern't an idiot you would realize that was over 200 years ago and I'm not British.

i think guns should be outlawed or strenghten the laws...in europe guns have been outlawed for years...look at the crime rate?

the constitution was written when native americans attacks were a constant threat and hunting supported people in the winters...its over 200 years later. hunters can have them, but otherwise, thwres no reason

It's called the real world. You might try visiting it some time.

So you are a fan of Saddam Hussein and his beatings of people's feet with baseball bats and his notorious casket prison?

How many times have we heard the "good soldier does what he's told" line? Fuck, man, it got us into a war in Iraq. Colin Powell couldn't get past the "good soldier" part of his life--and you expect anyone, from the front-line grunt to the generals to go against the DOD and the government? What fantasy world do you live in?

The Iraq War is not an example of the US government tyranizing our own folks here in the USA. Even if you are opposed to this war you should still recognize this.

So you are a fan of Saddam Hussein and his beatings of people's feet with baseball bats and his notorious casket prison?

Nope. But it's never been an either/or question.

The Iraq War is not an example of the US government tyranizing our own folks here in the USA. Even if you are opposed to this war you should still recognize this.

You might try reading what I was replying to before typing a reply that makes you look even more like a fool.

So you are a fan of Saddam Hussein and his beatings of people's feet with baseball bats and his notorious casket prison?

Saddam was a bad man who did bad things to people. Was taking him down worth the lives of 3,000 Americans?

Saddam was a bad man who did bad things to people. Was taking him down worth the lives of 3,000 Americans?

Not to mention anywhere from 200,000 to 600,000 Iraqis.

Not to mention anywhere from 200,000 to 600,000 Iraqis.

I can't count that high, but them, too. 57 more yesterday, I think.

Saddam was a bad man who did bad things to people. Was taking him down worth the lives of 3,000 Americans?

Yes. Just as taking down other bad men in our past was worth the loss of the associated lives.

Yes. Just as taking down other bad men in our past was worth the loss of the associated lives.
And if the cure winds up being worse than the disease, as it looks like it probably will?

And if the cure winds up being worse than the disease, as it looks like it probably will?

Then, the cure was not properly applied.

i think that people should just have hunting guns and old guns.

Then, the cure was not properly applied.

And is therefore not worth it.

Yes. Just as taking down other bad men in our past was worth the loss of the associated lives.

But 20 years ago he was our buddy for doing battle with the Iranians. Where did we go wrong?

The recently late General Pinochet oversaw a regime famous for mistreating its own people. Did I miss the invasion of Chile? Or of Argentina, I bet the relatives of los Desaparacidos greeted us with flowers? I hear that the Sandinistas were terrible, too. I know we invaded Nicaragua in the 1930's but ... And the Kims of Korea, terrible, terrible but they have lots of Chinese friends, I guess ... The Syrians, they ... and the Saudis, really, what barbarians, beheading people, cutting off hands ...

Putting all those aside and staying with Iraq and Saddam, why the lies? Why the "OMG, WMD!"? Why the "He was responsible for 9/11!"? Why not just, "The guys a tyrant, we're going to take him out and bring democracy to the region"? Why?

Why is it that the population of North Korea is not well armed and a tyrant rules over them?
Because they've been brainwashed to love their leaders, and pretty much everyone in the country is either military or para-military at some point in his or her life?

I mean, Hitler actually relaxed the ultra-strict gun laws of the Weimar Republic. Japanese citizens have always been able to carry handguns with minimal control for as long as they were available. And do you really think that in a vast country like the Soviet Union or China, that had experienced long and bloody civil wars, the rural population didn't have rifles in the basement?

Fact is that the vast majority of people will never actually get their gun and fight the government, even if the government is evil and they have a gun. Only few people overcome that inertia and fear. And that's perfectly understandable: if you have a family you care for, your better shot is probably to arrrange yourselves with the circumstances, rather than risk everything in a zany scheme that mainly depends on things out of your control.

Because they've been brainwashed to love their leaders, and pretty much everyone in the country is either military or para-military at some point in his or her life?

I mean, Hitler actually relaxed the ultra-strict gun laws of the Weimar Republic. Japanese citizens have always been able to carry handguns with minimal control for as long as they were available. And do you really think that in a vast country like the Soviet Union or China, that had experienced long and bloody civil wars, the rural population didn't have rifles in the basement?

Fact is that the vast majority of people will never actually get their gun and fight the government, even if the government is evil and they have a gun. Only few people overcome that inertia and fear. And that's perfectly understandable: if you have a family you care for, your better shot is probably to arrrange yourselves with the circumstances, rather than risk everything in a zany scheme that mainly depends on things out of your control.



Hilter relaxed laws for the Nazi's, not for anyone else. "persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit"

Can you show a source for Japanese CCW?

Hilter relaxed laws for the Nazi's, not for anyone else. "persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit"
They relaxed laws for German citizens. The only people who didn't benefit were people deemed enemies of the state, and Jews.

Though the Jews also weren't allowed to go to public swimming pools. The reason for banning guns for them was more likely to simply exclude them from one more thing, rather than that the Nazis were actually worried the Gestapo couldn't deal with some guy fiddling about with his pistol.

That being said, Hitler did say that it was stupid to give weapons to Russian and other Eastern militias in the conquered lands. But that's a different matter - in that case it's people fighting occupiers, not people fighting their government.

Can you show a source for Japanese CCW?
I read it on the wiki site for gun politics. It's difficult to find an actual copy of the gun laws of Imperial Japan, maybe NERVUN or Daistallia can find them in Japanese.

I did find an explanation of the current laws though: http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/japan_gun.html

But then, does it really matter? Do you think the Japanese would have revolted against the Imperial Government?

They relaxed laws for German citizens. The only people who didn't benefit were people deemed enemies of the state, and Jews.

Though the Jews also weren't allowed to go to public swimming pools. The reason for banning guns for them was more likely to simply exclude them from one more thing, rather than that the Nazis were actually worried the Gestapo couldn't deal with some guy fiddling about with his pistol.

That being said, Hitler did say that it was stupid to give weapons to Russian and other Eastern militias in the conquered lands. But that's a different matter - in that case it's people fighting occupiers, not people fighting their government.

Like I said. It was relaxed for the Nazi's.


I read it on the wiki site for gun politics. It's difficult to find an actual copy of the gun laws of Imperial Japan, maybe NERVUN or Daistallia can find them in Japanese.

I did find an explanation of the current laws though: http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/japan_gun.html

But then, does it really matter? Do you think the Japanese would have revolted against the Imperial Government?

You mean like the Samurai in the Satsuma Rebellion?

And is therefore not worth it.

Your opinion, not mine.

But 20 years ago he was our buddy for doing battle with the Iranians.

And, the Soviets were our "buddies" for doing battle against the Germans.

What's your point?

Putting all those aside and staying with Iraq and Saddam, why the lies?

What lies would those be?

Why the "OMG, WMD!"?

Ask the UN, they're the ones that slapped the sanctions on Iraq for not abiding by the ceasefire - including having WMD programs. Oh, but never mind those that we found... I recall a report on about 500 found most recently.

Why the "He was responsible for 9/11!"?

I don't know. How about you ask those who said this? Bush wasn't among those, in fact he denied that Iraq had any part in 9/11. But, that doesn't fit your agenda, does it?

Like I said. It was relaxed for the Nazi's.
Yeah, because every German is a Nazi. Got it. :rolleyes:

You mean like the Samurai in the Satsuma Rebellion?
Which took place about 50 or 60 years before the Imperial Government turned seriously sour, to the point where people argue that gun control may have been the reason that government stayed in power.

Look, no government stays in power if the people really do something to get rid of it. Guns are not necessary for that.

The reason that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim and so on stay in power is not because not everyone has a gun under their pillow - it's because even if they do, the vast majority of people either supports them, or prefers to arrange himself or herself with the situation, rather than take the huge risk of getting involved in anything.

There is absolutely no reason it wouldn't be the same in the US. It wouldn't suddenly be "today we're totalitarian". It would be a long process of small changes to the rules. You'd have your neocon types supporting the changes, you'd have ongoing debates and irrationality the whole way, to the point where the actual direction of it all is virtually invisible.

People will have different thresholds of what they're willing to take from the government before they try to do something. So it wouldn't suddenly be one big uprising (which couldn't be coordinated without the government finding out anyways), it would be small groups in local communities. They wouldn't have military targets, so they'd attack random government offices. As a result, they get arrested and sent to jail. Nothing special. And that would go on for years.

But then, does it really matter? Do you think the Japanese would have revolted against the Imperial Government?

Maybe not the emperor, but he was only a figurehead, anyway.

They have, many times, revolted against the ruling Shogun, however.

One reason why only Samurai could carry swords. Legally.

They have, many times, revolted against the ruling Shogun, however.
Which really doesn't matter as far as gun control is concerned. We're talking a real-life government here, rather than a lord who lives in his castle and only comes out occasionally to collect taxes.

Yeah, because every German is a Nazi. Got it. :rolleyes:

Right, because that's what I said. Unless you're saying that the Nazi regime would hand out firearm permits to anyone but Jews. I'ld like you to prove that one. Be disingenous on your own time.


Which took place about 50 or 60 years before the Imperial Government turned seriously sour, to the point where people argue that gun control may have been the reason that government stayed in power.

So you support the genocidal tactics of the Imperial Gov't? Seems like them staying in power and using the control of the populace wasn't exactly a good thing.

Look, no government stays in power if the people really do something to get rid of it. Guns are not necessary for that.

But they help. Especially if you're up against a Gov't that isn't the UK.

The reason that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim and so on stay in power is not because not everyone has a gun under their pillow - it's because even if they do, the vast majority of people either supports them, or prefers to arrange himself or herself with the situation, rather than take the huge risk of getting involved in anything.

Or they're too afraid of the Gov't to do anything about it. That's a nice little option you left out. You think the people supported Stalin?

There is absolutely no reason it wouldn't be the same in the US. It wouldn't suddenly be "today we're totalitarian". It would be a long process of small changes to the rules. You'd have your neocon types supporting the changes, you'd have ongoing debates and irrationality the whole way, to the point where the actual direction of it all is virtually invisible.

People will have different thresholds of what they're willing to take from the government before they try to do something. So it wouldn't suddenly be one big uprising (which couldn't be coordinated without the government finding out anyways), it would be small groups in local communities. They wouldn't have military targets, so they'd attack random government offices. As a result, they get arrested and sent to jail. Nothing special. And that would go on for years.

How do you know it wouldn't be one big uprising? Are you saying a publicised event of insurrection against a tyrannical Gov't has never been joined by the masses? You make up scenarios as "what would happen" and then dismiss it. That's known as a strawman.

So you support the genocidal tactics of the Imperial Gov't? Seems like them staying in power and using the control of the populace wasn't exactly a good thing.
Guns or no guns, the people of Japan supported their Emperor and his military government.

That's the only thing that matters in a discussion in which people might think that the Japanese would've stopped the war and the war crimes by revolting, if only they'd had more guns.

What we do not have is any actual facts regarding gun ownership and gun laws at the time.

But they help. Especially if you're up against a Gov't that isn't the UK.
I don't get that bit. There's gun control in the UK, and it's been there for quite some time. But so far the place hasn't turned a tyranny just yet.

Or they're too afraid of the Gov't to do anything about it. That's a nice little option you left out.
I don't think I did. People are scared either way, they still have to make a decision.

Think about it: You have a family, a job and a home. Now the government can announce that there won't be any more elections. You're outraged.

There's two options. The first one is to get your rifle and fight the government. You know that you're only one guy, that you alone won't change a thing, so it depends on what everyone else does. If everything goes well, you'll be gone for a long time, but eventually you'll get to vote again. If things don't go well, you and your family are going to suffer badly.

The second option is to stay at home and keep living your life. Maybe bitch about for a bit. You'll keep your job, and your family stays safe.

The second is the safer option, and it's one that hundreds of millions of people have chosen over the decades. Understandably, to most people the eventual social and collective benefits are just not enough to justify the immense personal risk.

Whether or not you have a rifle doesn't really change the matter. The risk doesn't get any less, and your success still depends on the actions of millions of other people you just can't rely on.

You think the people supported Stalin?
There's a reason a personality cult turned state religion is called 'Stalinism'.

How do you know it wouldn't be one big uprising? Are you saying a publicised event of insurrection against a tyrannical Gov't has never been joined by the masses? You make up scenarios as "what would happen" and then dismiss it. That's known as a strawman.
Okay, when do you think it would happen?

I think my scenario of a government slowly turning tyrannical over time is pretty much a given. It's not gonna be "now we're free, now we're not" sort of situation.

Given that, it's also pretty obvious that not everyone will react at the same point in time. Some people might get seriously pissed off by media control, others will require the elections to be postponed, again others might not do anything until the military patrols their street. And most will never do anything, like I outlined above.

So you don't have a unified movement all at the same time. Any attempt to get these little groups of mates and cells of subversives to work together on a grand scale would fail because the government can monitor virtually all means of communication. The reason "V for Vendetta" had the final scene was because V is a cartoon hero who somehow managed to get his message sent to everyone in the country by hijacking a TV station. Not possible in real life.

But even assuming you could manage to get a massive show of public insurrection organised - you wouldn't need rifles for it. Either the military would crack down, in which case your handguns aren't gonna help, and since it's a public demonstration you can't run and hide either. Or the military would not crack down, in which case non-violent resistance would suffice.

And if we would talk about a disorganised sort of resistance, with little cells having no real contact with each other...it might bother the government, but it's not gonna bring it down. They can monitor, occasionally arrest cells and lock them away and so on, but that won't require the military. The FBI would be plenty enough for that. And then it's an FBI SWAT team storming your apartment against you with a gun. You might be able to shoot one or two of them, but you wouldn't change your fate.

The whole armed insurrection against tyranny is a romantic fantasy, I give you that. But it's not backed up by what's happened in other places in the past, nor by any sort of reasonable scenarios we can put forward.

Yes. Just as taking down other bad men in our past was worth the loss of the associated lives.

As it applies to this thread--The people of Bushnam HAD weapons. By the logic of the NRA, they had the power to take out Saddam themselves but didn't care to do it. Why? Because they had safety. If you weren't a criminal, treasoner, or family and friends of one of the above, you had complete safety. Your children could walk the streets at any time in complete safety. You didn't lock your door. You could walk any street at any time.

So they had no freedom, but they had safety. Isn't it ironic that the US is trading freedom for safety at the same time they take away safety from a people that prized safety to the point where they didn't use their weapons to challenge their lack of freedom.

I've heard that, in the American Revolution, only around two percent of the people fought. That two percent defied and, with the help of other nations, defeated the world's first modern superpower.

I think that it a second revolution could succeed.

I think that it a second revolution could succeed.
Look, this isn't the 18th century.

Back then, the British Army were a bunch of dudes trained to work with muskets.

It's not hard to create a power parity if you can get a few dudes together who also have muskets.

Today, the US Army has tanks, rifles with laser targeting, night vision goggles, GPS location systems, satellite link-ups, recon drones and jets with laser-guided bombs.

You would still be a bunch of dudes with glorified muskets. Creating power parity is impossible, you would end up losing every single engagement.

The only way to stay alive would be to evade engagements as much as possible. But you're not going to bring down a government that way.

But what level of shit will they have to be covered in--and realized that they're covered in it--before they'll be willing to put their necks at risk? I that we've been spoon-fed shit for so long that most of us don't even realize we've been eating it.
There's the real question, isn't it? Given the way any extreme position is belittled, conditions will have to become more oppressive than a tea tax. We will have to see unimaginable acts of tyranny committed by the federal government before any alarm will be sounded. Even then, our ears may be so full of shit that we can't hear it.

But people are beginning to realize it. They're beginning to realize what they're being fed. And many are beginning to spit it out.

Who knows when the majority of Americans will come to the conclusion that the government has become tyrannical enough to be overthrown. I sure as hell don't. Heck, I don't even know when I will put my neck on the line. But I do know that every American has a line that they won't let the government cross.
I used to agree with you, but I'm not so sure anymore. What does it take for a successful revolt? Certainly more effort than was supplied in the War Between the States. It takes a committed revolutionary and, lacking the overwhelming force to succeed militarily, it takes an opponent that is not as firmly committed to their own goals. I think you need to look back to the American Revolution to see those conditions in play.

Which really doesn't matter as far as gun control is concerned.

Really?

Then, why did you bring it up?

We're talking a real-life government here, rather than a lord who lives in his castle and only comes out occasionally to collect taxes.

Obviously you aren't all that familiar with Japan.

I don't get that bit. There's gun control in the UK, and it's been there for quite some time. But so far the place hasn't turned a tyranny just yet.

That's a matter of opinion. The UK now has the distinction of being the most surveilled nation on the planet.

Nah. No tyranny there.

The whole armed insurrection against tyranny is a romantic fantasy, I give you that. But it's not backed up by what's happened in other places in the past, nor by any sort of reasonable scenarios we can put forward.

Hmm.

I guess we need to rewrite the history books, then. Seems the American Revolution in 1776 was just a fantasy...

As it applies to this thread--The people of Bushnam HAD weapons. By the logic of the NRA, they had the power to take out Saddam themselves but didn't care to do it. Why? Because they had safety. If you weren't a criminal, treasoner, or family and friends of one of the above, you had complete safety. Your children could walk the streets at any time in complete safety. You didn't lock your door. You could walk any street at any time.

So they had no freedom, but they had safety. Isn't it ironic that the US is trading freedom for safety at the same time they take away safety from a people that prized safety to the point where they didn't use their weapons to challenge their lack of freedom.

Stop smoking that.

Look, this isn't the 18th century.

Neither were the 1960s.

You might want to tell the VC that they didn't push the US out of Viet Nam.

While you're at it, tell the Afghanis that they never pushed the British or Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Neither were the 1960s.

You might want to tell the VC that they didn't push the US out of Viet Nam.

While you're at it, tell the Afghanis that they never pushed the British or Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Shh. Don't let a liberal know that it was the Iraqi insurgents with their weapons who are making us want to leave Iraq...

This is perhaps the only topic on which my views have changed, as a result of another's argument. Formerly an advocate of strong gun control, I realized the value of maitaining a "well armed militia" when someone pointed out that if guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

This is the only reason to have gun onwership leagle. It is the peoples duty to overthrow goverments that no longer do the will of the people, by armedn force if it has to be.

Having said that I'n British, sooo what the hell do I know aboit huh1

This is the only reason to have gun onwership leagle. It is the peoples duty to overthrow goverments that no longer do the will of the people, by armedn force if it has to be.

Having said that I'n British, sooo what the hell do I know aboit huh1

It's not the topic of the thread, but the best reason, today, to own a gun is for personal protection.

Then, why did you bring it up?
People often pretend that because having muskets meant that the government could draw on a militia in case of enemy invasion without having to equip them all back in the 18th century, that makes gun ownership somehow connected to political freedom in the 21st. Not so.

Obviously you aren't all that familiar with Japan.
Revolts happened in Japan as well as Europe, China and pretty much everywhere else all throughout history.

But back then you didn't have organised government to anywhere near the same extent as you see today. And like I said, the difference in equipment is much greater today as well.

Ultimately you cannot compare the decision made by poor peasants to not pay taxes and wait a year or two until a band of government-hired knights/samurai/soldiers came marching through the countryside challenging you to do battle with them, to the decision to somehow attack a police station and get immediate and overpowering response you have no chance of standing up against.

Neither were the 1960s.

You might want to tell the VC that they didn't push the US out of Viet Nam.
You didn't happen to read the thread, did you? I already talked about the VC extensively.

Firstly they had the NVA behind and beside them, which was a massive boost. And secondly, they got their arse kicked when they came out of hiding during the Tet Offensive.

While you're at it, tell the Afghanis that they never pushed the British or Soviets out of Afghanistan.
And the Afghans had places to retreat to, as well as foreign backers and unlimited funds coming in from the outside.

Both against the Soviets and against NATO now, whenever they actually come out to face soldiers in combat, they lose horribly. Their advantage is simply that they can restock across the border where neither the Soviets nor NATO can reach them, and wait until the political situation in whatever enemy nation hands them a win.

Do you really think that's gonna happen in this case?

Stop smoking that.

Quit listening to propaganda and do some study.

In Bushnam there was complete safety if you or your family or friends weren't treasoners or criminals. Read the reports of those who visited before the war. In fact most authoritarian nations are extremely safe. You can have freedom or you can have safety---they don't go together. The US is now giving up freedom for safety, while asking the world to give up safety for freedom.

And they had the right to have automatic firearms. Where do you think all of the AK's came from? They came out of the closet of houses throughout the nation. If the argument that guns give freedom is correct, then Bushnam defies that argument. The people could have started a rebellion, but for the most part they didn't. Of course by definition a rebellion is treason and the government of every nation has the right to put down rebellion if they can. If the rebellion has enough support they can't and will be overthrown. The rebellion didn't have that support pre-war. It seems to have that support now. Of course that rebellion is against the US puppet now.

Who did Saddam kill? The Kurds were in rebellion against the government. The very definition of treason. How do you end a guerrilla war with the least cost in blood and treasure? You stop those who give aid and comfort to the rebellion. You stop the people who supply food and rest to the soldiers. That is what the US will need to do to win if winning is still possible. That is what Saddam did.

He also killed criminals and their supporters. Hence the safe streets. I know lots of NRA people who are also for capital punishment so that should not be an issue here. He just took it a few steps further than the tradition of the US. But in doing so he brought complete safety to the people that weren't criminal. People walked the streets at all hours. Children played without being watched like a hawk.

Safety vs. Freedom

People often pretend that because having muskets meant that the government could draw on a militia in case of enemy invasion without having to equip them all back in the 18th century, that makes gun ownership somehow connected to political freedom in the 21st. Not so.

Because you say so, right?

Revolts happened in Japan as well as Europe, China and pretty much everywhere else all throughout history.

But back then you didn't have organised government to anywhere near the same extent as you see today. And like I said, the difference in equipment is much greater today as well.

Alright, you don't like proof from the far past, how about the near past?

In 1956, the Hungarian people revolted against their domestic communist government on Oct 23. By the end of the month - 7 entire days - the Hungarian government fell. During this tumultuous week, militias were formed, fighting the State Security Police (ÁVH) and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and ÁVH members were executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. The people took up arms against a tryannical government and WON.

The new Hungarian government even declared it would leave the Warsaw Pact and to re-establish free elections. By the end of October, peace began to return.

The Soviets - a superpower - were going to negotiate with the new Hungarian government, but, in November, changed their minds and invaded, instead.

Yes, the popular revolt was smashed, but NOT by the Hungarian government. It took outside interference by a nuclear armed state to put the revolution down. Had the Soviets not stuck their noses in, the revolution in Hungary would have been a success.

So, here's an example - a recent example - of a people successfully taking up arms to take down an oppressive, tyrannical government.

They weren't poor peasants and they didn't just wait for the government to respond. They took the battle to the government and its allies - the Soviet troops - and won. In less than two weeks.

People should have right to own weapons. Properly registrated small weapons.
NOT a military issue automatic rifles, NOT bazookas.
And don't tell me you want f-16 with air-ground missiles for duck hunting.

Because you say so, right?



Alright, you don't like proof from the far past, how about the near past?

In 1956, the Hungarian people revolted against their domestic communist government on Oct 23. By the end of the month - 7 entire days - the Hungarian government fell. During this tumultuous week, militias were formed, fighting the State Security Police (ÁVH) and Soviet troops. Pro-Soviet communists and ÁVH members were executed or imprisoned, as former prisoners were released and armed. The people took up arms against a tryannical government and WON.

The new Hungarian government even declared it would leave the Warsaw Pact and to re-establish free elections. By the end of October, peace began to return.

The Soviets - a superpower - were going to negotiate with the new Hungarian government, but, in November, changed their minds and invaded, instead.

Yes, the popular revolt was smashed, but NOT by the Hungarian government. It took outside interference by a nuclear armed state to put the revolution down. Had the Soviets not stuck their noses in, the revolution in Hungary would have been a success.

So, here's an example - a recent example - of a people successfully taking up arms to take down an oppressive, tyrannical government.

They weren't poor peasants and they didn't just wait for the government to respond. They took the battle to the government and its allies - the Soviet troops - and won. In less than two weeks.

And in the US, the "Battle of Athens, TN". After being ignored by the state and federal Gov'ts. The citizens rose up against a corrupt county leadership.

People should have right to own weapons. Properly registrated small weapons.
NOT a military issue automatic rifles, NOT bazookas.
And don't tell me you want f-16 with air-ground missiles for duck hunting.

Why should they be registered?

People should have right to own weapons. Properly registrated small weapons.

Ye, so the state knows exactly where those weapons are so they may be rounded up and their potential rivals known.

As happened in California.

NOT a military issue automatic rifles, NOT bazookas.

Had the Hungarian people access to these sorts of military arms, the Soviets might have reconsidered their change of heart in Nov. 1956 and let the new Hungarian government stay.

And don't tell me you want f-16 with air-ground missiles for duck hunting.

Actually, I'll tell you anything I like, whether you give me permission or not.

Deal with it.

Meanwhile, please point out the part of the Second Amendment that mentions, "duck hunting."

People should have right to own weapons. Properly registrated small weapons.
NOT a military issue automatic rifles, NOT bazookas.
And don't tell me you want f-16 with air-ground missiles for duck hunting.

Actually, for duck hunting, you'd want air-air missiles too (in case they take flight). :D

Actually, for duck hunting, you'd want air-air missiles too (in case they take flight). :D

Heaven forbid we forget the Air to Air missiles. We gotta have them.

Heaven forbid we forget the Air to Air missiles. We gotta have them.

I don't like flying. Give me a SAM or some AAA. I want my duck in mist form.

Yes, the popular revolt was smashed, but NOT by the Hungarian government. It took outside interference by a nuclear armed state to put the revolution down. Had the Soviets not stuck their noses in, the revolution in Hungary would have been a success.
In case you hadn't noticed: the US government is a nuclear armed state. ;)

Fact of the matter is that in Operation Whirlwind the Soviets used proper troops with clear targets and showing intent, and crushed the revolution within five hours.

Furthermore, the guns used by the revolting citizens were either taken from the Secret Police or handed out by military units which had switched sides. I believe that if you check, Hungarian gun laws at the time weren't particularly keen on private citizens with Kalashnikovs.

And in the US, the "Battle of Athens, TN". After being ignored by the state and federal Gov'ts. The citizens rose up against a corrupt county leadership.
And did the county have a military? Would an oppressive Washington-based dictator be as lenient as the post-war US Government was?

And again, if you look at where the guns came from (http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm): they borrowed the keys to the National Guard Armory, and took them from there.

And did the county have a military? Would an oppressive Washington-based dictator be as lenient as the post-war US Government was?

And again, if you look at where the guns came from (http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm): they borrowed the keys to the National Guard Armory, and took them from there.

But you keep talking about how people wouldn't/couldn't do it. There are two examples of when people did and were successful.

You claimed the Japanese "wouldn't" then changed it to the Imperial Gov't when I showed you they did.

The VC were brought up but nowhere was it mention about the Veit Minh defeating the French.

It has happened and it can happen as much as you want to deny it.

But you keep talking about how people wouldn't/couldn't do it. There are two examples of when people did and were successful.
Most people don't do it. The ones you're talking about are students, young men and the like who don't have families and posessions to worry about.

Hungary also had a clearly foreign imposed puppet government, and that was reflected in its policies. That's a little different than the US gradually turning tyrannical. You've been around on NSG a while, you know how much disagreement there is among Americans about every little thing the US Government does! I don't see how you can argue that suddenly there would be a collective decision that now is enough, and now everyone needs to start a revolution. That would require "liberals" and "conservatives" actually agreeing on what's going on and what needs to be done...and before that happens, hell would freeze over.

As for couldn't...so far I haven't seen anything that would tell me that a militia would be capable of defeating a government as powerful as the US. Indeed, the Soviets demonstrated how a modern military would deal with a public uprising.

You claimed the Japanese "wouldn't" then changed it to the Imperial Gov't when I showed you they did.
Believe it or not, but we were talking in the context of Japan mentioned in the same sentence as Nazi Germany. I meant Imperial Japan from the start, as another totalitarian, bad government that had the full support of most of the population, as most bad governments do.

The VC were brought up but nowhere was it mention about the Veit Minh defeating the French.
Who were of course foreign occupiers, not the Vietnamese Government.

Furthermore, the Viet Minh was started under the direction of Moscow, with Soviet money, the Chinese equipped them to a point where they fielded regular divisions rather than militias, and the reason the French eventually left were more political than military. Even before Dien Bien Phu, the French already realised that it wasn't worth their effort (they had no money, nor popular support for the war) and planned to retreat to fortified positions and stay there.

In the first few years of the insurgency, when the Viet Minh was still the fairly disorganised band of disgruntled citizens we're talking about here, they suffered the same sort of massive defeats in any engagement with the French that every rebel group sees when they come out of hiding.

The 2nd amendment's scope is being questioned, in the first case in 70 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701001.html


Now, I'm hardly a gun fan, but I think people should be able to have weapons, if it's for hunting (especially if it's a tranq gun) or collecting civil war-era weaponry.

But that's just me.

Most interesting. The only problem is that there was no US military back then. Therefore it applied to private individuals and not to just the military.
Also back then, if I am correct, the militia was composed of all able bodied men in the 13. Does that mean, that since women were not eligible for militia service at that time, that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them? And if women don't have the right to own any guns, then how are they equal under the law?
This case does indeed raise some interesting constitutional issues.

But if you look at the amendment itself, the right to bear arms was not just about protecting yourself from violent crime or protecting the nation from foreign invasion. It was also intended to enable you to protect yourself against the government should it become too tyrannical.

One of the first steps taken toward establishment of tyranny is to ban people owning guns so they can't fight back when you take away their right to free speech, assembly, free religion, etc.

Most people don't do it. The ones you're talking about are students, young men and the like who don't have families and posessions to worry about.

You have evidence of this? Some sort of support?

Hungary also had a clearly foreign imposed puppet government, and that was reflected in its policies. That's a little different than the US gradually turning tyrannical. You've been around on NSG a while, you know how much disagreement there is among Americans about every little thing the US Government does! I don't see how you can argue that suddenly there would be a collective decision that now is enough, and now everyone needs to start a revolution. That would require "liberals" and "conservatives" actually agreeing on what's going on and what needs to be done...and before that happens, hell would freeze over.

Again you go along w/ the "collective decision" meme. This is an internet forum. It is not representative of the population as a whole. You also seem to believe that there wouldn't be a deciding line that would unite the populace. I believe otherwise. It happened in Hungary

As for couldn't...so far I haven't seen anything that would tell me that a militia would be capable of defeating a government as powerful as the US. Indeed, the Soviets demonstrated how a modern military would deal with a public uprising.

Once again going under the assumption that the entire military would support the Gov't. The Soviets demonstrated it against a numerically inferior force and no regard for casualties on either side and deploying 17 divisions that were mostly non-european which a tactic not available in the US. Things like that also tend to aggravate the US population.


Believe it or not, but we were talking in the context of Japan mentioned in the same sentence as Nazi Germany. I meant Imperial Japan from the start, as another totalitarian, bad government that had the full support of most of the population, as most bad governments do.

And the unsupported "Japanese had CCW" assertion and that misnomer that the Japanese Gov't was bad against it's native population. The Nazi's did NOT have the full support of most of the population. They were kept in line by fear.


Who were of course foreign occupiers, not the Vietnamese Government.

They were the legitimate rulers of Indochina at the time. There was no "Vietnamese Government".

Furthermore, the Viet Minh was started under the direction of Moscow, with Soviet money, the Chinese equipped them to a point where they fielded regular divisions rather than militias, and the reason the French eventually left were more political than military. Even before Dien Bien Phu, the French already realised that it wasn't worth their effort (they had no money, nor popular support for the war) and planned to retreat to fortified positions and stay there.

In the first few years of the insurgency, when the Viet Minh was still the fairly disorganised band of disgruntled citizens we're talking about here, they suffered the same sort of massive defeats in any engagement with the French that every rebel group sees when they come out of hiding.

And yet a band of unorganized militias managed to survive and defeat the French in the long run. Thank you for admitting that.

You have evidence of this? Some sort of support?
The Hungarian Revolution started out of student protests over policies concerning students. The Athens Battle was mainly fought by ex-GIs which came back from the war.

Again you go along w/ the "collective decision" meme. This is an internet forum. It is not representative of the population as a whole. You also seem to believe that there wouldn't be a deciding line that would unite the populace. I believe otherwise. It happened in Hungary.
I asked you before: What would that line be? Why wouldn't some start fighting earlier? Why wouldn't some support the government?

And why wouldn't peaceful demonstrations or general strikes be more effective, as was illustrated by Solidarnosc or the people in the former GDR for example?

Once again going under the assumption that the entire military would support the Gov't.
Which is absolutely vital if you're going to argue that people need to have the right to keep guns to preserve political freedoms.

The Soviets demonstrated it against a numerically inferior force and no regard for casualties on either side and deploying 17 divisions that were mostly non-european which a tactic not available in the US. Things like that also tend to aggravate the US population.
Either you are going to argue that you need guns to defend against the military, or you're going to argue that the military won't really do anything. You can't do both at the same time.

And the unsupported "Japanese had CCW" assertion and that misnomer that the Japanese Gov't was bad against it's native population.
I never asserted they had CCW. I asserted that rifles for hunting and the like were just as easily available, to the rural population at least, as they were in the USSR or China. And the Japanese government was bad against its population in the sense that it was undemocratic and did not allow basic freedoms American citizens would take for granted. It did offer a lot of nationalism and delusions of grandeur, but can you honestly say that there aren't a lot of Americans who'd buy into the same stuff?

That came from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Balance_of_power):
Firearms-rights advocates also point to the example of Japan, when it was not a democracy and had a long history of weapons ownership that was strictly limited to the elite and their Samurai bodyguards [citation needed]. Peasants, without any access to arms, were at the mercy of powerful warlords. Many elites were unarmed after 10th century [citation needed] and even samurai eventually disdained the use of their weapons. Peasants were never completely disarmed and carried weapons including firearms for hunting and other purposes. Even today, shotguns and rifles can be owned in Japan provided that the owner has no criminal record and registers his weapon.

The Nazi's did NOT have the full support of most of the population. They were kept in line by fear.
Not really fear, unless you mean the fear of being bombed to bits by the Allies.

They were voted into parliament multiple times, occasionally close to a stand-alone majority. When they actually took over, most non-left Germans actually ended up quite happy with the economic upswing and the like. As for the later years, there's no telling how many people honestly believed the propaganda and how many were actually dissatisfied. You can't believe what they said afterwards.

If anything you can blame guns and lax policing for some of the Nazis' success. If it hadn't been for the SA being armed and there had been a strong police force, the intimidation tactics and street battles against communists and various other opponents wouldn't have occured, and the NSDAP might have had a lot less influence and credibility with its eventual rich ex-army backers.

And besides, we've said this before: fear is just as valid a reason why armed resistance is unlikely as any other. Whether they have a gun or not, people will still be scared, even if they decide to go out and fight. The thing is just that most people have too much to lose if they decide to fight, and don't do it as a result.

They were the legitimate rulers of Indochina at the time. There was no "Vietnamese Government".
Which I'm quite aware of, but is of no consequence to the argument. We're not talking a Chinese-imposed tyrannical government here, we're talking Jeb Bush suspending elections or something.

And yet a band of unorganized militias managed to survive and defeat the French in the long run. Thank you for admitting that.
I'd never deny it. But they survived because they went into hiding into the forests, and they won because they got everything they needed sent to them by the Chinese to the point where they fielded an actual army.

If they hadn't had that support, they would've continued to hide in the jungle and among the rural population. There would've been no pressing reason for the French to leave Vietnam.

At best they might have left eventually for political reasons, but you can't expect a tyrannical US Government to just give up because there's a few people in the woods they can't find. They'd fight to the last and are in a decidedly better position to do so.

In case you hadn't noticed: the US government is a nuclear armed state. ;)

I don't think the US would launch a nuclear assault on itself.

Fact of the matter is that in Operation Whirlwind the Soviets used proper troops with clear targets and showing intent, and crushed the revolution within five hours.

That would be the interference from an outside power. Still, the Hungarians defeated their domestic government. It was successful in that respect.

Furthermore, the guns used by the revolting citizens were either taken from the Secret Police or handed out by military units which had switched sides. I believe that if you check, Hungarian gun laws at the time weren't particularly keen on private citizens with Kalashnikovs.

So, an armed populace would be even more successful.

I don't think the US would launch a nuclear assault on itself.
Neither did the Soviets nuke Hungary. I just meant that in terms of fighting ability, the US Military would be better compared to the Red Army than to the Hungarian Police.

And indeed, the advancement of technology has just made the gap between a guy with a rifle and a soldier wider still with the years.

That would be the interference from an outside power. Still, the Hungarians defeated their domestic government. It was successful in that respect.
But the government was a weak and bankrupt puppet regime. Hardly comparable to the US Government.

So, an armed populace would be even more successful.
That's an unsupported assertion. They got military-grade weapons, there is not a lot more they could ask for.

Neither did the Soviets nuke Hungary. I just meant that in terms of fighting ability, the US Military would be better compared to the Red Army than to the Hungarian Police.

No, they just needed 17 divisions of non-hungarians.

And indeed, the advancement of technology has just made the gap between a guy with a rifle and a soldier wider still with the years.

And most of that technology is also available to the public.


But the government was a weak and bankrupt puppet regime. Hardly comparable to the US Government.

As of now. Can you state that it will always remain as strong as it is?


That's an unsupported assertion. They got military-grade weapons, there is not a lot more they could ask for.

Define "military grade weapon". Military sniper rifles are modified civilian rifles. Assault rifles have selective fire instead of only semi-auto like their civilian counterparts. Heavy weapons can be obtained from armories and still have vulnerable people needed to operate them.

The Hungarian Revolution started out of student protests over policies concerning students. The Athens Battle was mainly fought by ex-GIs which came back from the war.

You stated revolutions were fought by single males w/ nothing to lose. I asked you to provide evidence.


I asked you before: What would that line be? Why wouldn't some start fighting earlier? Why wouldn't some support the government?

Ah, the mythical "line". You want me to define something that hasn't happened.

And why wouldn't peaceful demonstrations or general strikes be more effective, as was illustrated by Solidarnosc or the people in the former GDR for example?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Depends on the Gov't.


Which is absolutely vital if you're going to argue that people need to have the right to keep guns to preserve political freedoms.

No, no it's not "vital". That's a movement of the goalposts.


Either you are going to argue that you need guns to defend against the military, or you're going to argue that the military won't really do anything. You can't do both at the same time.

False again. I'm not doing both. You're modifiying the argument. Show me where I said the military "won't really do anything."


I never asserted they had CCW. I asserted that rifles for hunting and the like were just as easily available, to the rural population at least, as they were in the USSR or China. And the Japanese government was bad against its population in the sense that it was undemocratic and did not allow basic freedoms American citizens would take for granted. It did offer a lot of nationalism and delusions of grandeur, but can you honestly say that there aren't a lot of Americans who'd buy into the same stuff?

You claimed the Japanese could carry thier weapons around w/ them. Now you're changing your tune. Should I go back and quote you? You're also moving the goalposts on what is defined as "bad".

Here's some infor on Japanese social controls:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

WOuld you accept yearly monitoring by the police?

That came from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Balance_of_power):

So an unsourced wiki article. Great. Let's use a bit from that same article.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord, sometimes known as the Shot heard 'round the world, in the 1770s, were started in part because General Gage sought to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the populace. This order and the events surrounding it are important to the development of modern democratic institutions because of the effect the founding of the United States had on contemporary governments and the downfall of monarchies in the rest of the world.[citation needed]



Not really fear, unless you mean the fear of being bombed to bits by the Allies.

Or the SA, SS, Gestapo, etc. You might want to include them.

They were voted into parliament multiple times, occasionally close to a stand-alone majority. When they actually took over, most non-left Germans actually ended up quite happy with the economic upswing and the like. As for the later years, there's no telling how many people honestly believed the propaganda and how many were actually dissatisfied. You can't believe what they said afterwards.

If anything you can blame guns and lax policing for some of the Nazis' success. If it hadn't been for the SA being armed and there had been a strong police force, the intimidation tactics and street battles against communists and various other opponents wouldn't have occured, and the NSDAP might have had a lot less influence and credibility with its eventual rich ex-army backers.

And why were they armed? Because the party considered them "dependable" as compared to the average citizen. Now you're using the SA, etc. Convienent.Try again.



And besides, we've said this before: fear is just as valid a reason why armed resistance is unlikely as any other. Whether they have a gun or not, people will still be scared, even if they decide to go out and fight. The thing is just that most people have too much to lose if they decide to fight, and don't do it as a result.

You've said it before but it is an "assertion" by you.


Which I'm quite aware of, but is of no consequence to the argument. We're not talking a Chinese-imposed tyrannical government here, we're talking Jeb Bush suspending elections or something.

And if he wasn't overthrown or arrested, you don't think the populace would do something about it?


I'd never deny it. But they survived because they went into hiding into the forests, and they won because they got everything they needed sent to them by the Chinese to the point where they fielded an actual army.

"Everything they needed"? Prove that one.

If they hadn't had that support, they would've continued to hide in the jungle and among the rural population. There would've been no pressing reason for the French to leave Vietnam.

Yet they managed to survive and eventually win.

At best they might have left eventually for political reasons, but you can't expect a tyrannical US Government to just give up because there's a few people in the woods they can't find. They'd fight to the last and are in a decidedly better position to do so.

Another assertion w/o proof.

No, they just needed 17 divisions of non-hungarians.
Yes. What's your point?

And most of that technology is also available to the public.
So how come the insurgents aren't flying around predators?

As of now. Can you state that it will always remain as strong as it is?
No, I cannot. Do you think you can argue for your rights to military-grade weaponry on the basis that a future tyrannical government will also not have enough money to buy ammunition for its military?

Define "military grade weapon". Military sniper rifles are modified civilian rifles. Assault rifles have selective fire instead of only semi-auto like their civilian counterparts. Heavy weapons can be obtained from armories and still have vulnerable people needed to operate them.
And yet, it seems that whenever insurgents face troops in open battle, they lose.

You stated revolutions were fought by single males w/ nothing to lose. I asked you to provide evidence.
I suppose you can include females in that too.

I'm basing that statement on basic economics. You have a certain payoff to going off to fight, and you have something to lose from doing so. The probability of either event happening is unknown and depends on what everyone else is doing.

If you have more to lose, your expected payoff is lower, so you are less likely to go fight. Finding actual statistics on the members of revolutions in the past is rather difficult, but you'll find that it's always "student protests" (rather than, say, "middle management protests") that you hear about, because students are precisely the type of people for whom the expected value would be highest.

Ah, the mythical "line". You want me to define something that hasn't happened.
But we're talking hypotheticals here. I'm asking you to paint me a picture. What do you think would happen if Jeb Bush was the next president and decided to start suspending more rights over his two terms in office like his brother, until he finally decides to "postpone" elections due to, say, another terror attack.

No, no it's not "vital". That's a movement of the goalposts.
No, it's not. Look, either the military is supporting the tyrannical government, in which case you have to fight it, or the military is not supporting the government, in which case you'd best leave the fighting to the parts of the military supportive of your cause.

And even if still more fighters were needed, the military would most likely be equipping the militia fighters, so no one needs to bring guns from home.

False again. I'm not doing both. You're modifiying the argument. Show me where I said the military "won't really do anything."
Again, if you don't think the military would do whatever it takes, non-violent protests are going to be enough.

As you said, it depends on the government in question.

You claimed the Japanese could carry thier weapons around w/ them. Now you're changing your tune. Should I go back and quote you? You're also moving the goalposts on what is defined as "bad".
If people hunt deer, they will carry their guns around with them, yes. And besides, whether it's gun ownership or CCW doesn't make a difference as far as possible rebellion is concerned. That's more a question of protection against crime.

As for "bad"...people have been talking about political freedom. Japan was bad in that respect because it did not offer political freedom. It offered other stuff, which people liked. I'm arguing that the same is true in almost all other regimes, and most likely would also be the case if the US turned undemocratic.

WOuld you accept yearly monitoring by the police?
I wouldn't enjoy it. But then, would I believe that owning a gun would protect me from it? Would I somehow believe that me owning a gun would guarantee me anything other than aforementioned controls?

So an unsourced wiki article. Great. Let's use a bit from that same article.
I told you it was unsourced, I just thought I'd let you have a look at it yourself.

Now, I don't really see what the point of your quote was. I believe we all know that militias played their role in the Revolution. The question is whether that has anything to do with the situation today.

Or the SA, SS, Gestapo, etc. You might want to include them.
Don't make the mistake of confusing Nazi Germany with North Korea.

And why were they armed? Because the party considered them "dependable" as compared to the average citizen. Now you're using the SA, etc. Convienent.Try again.
Actually, the SA had its heyday before the Nazi weapons law. They were bashing and shooting people before the Nazis came to power.
Groups like them were the reason the government had so strict rules on guns. They didn't police those laws properly though, and so guns were still used to help introduce a tyrannical government of sorts.

You've said it before but it is an "assertion" by you.
I refer you to what I said above about basic economics.

And if he wasn't overthrown or arrested, you don't think the populace would do something about it?
I'm sure some would. I'm just as sure others wouldn't. And again others would actually support him.

I think I've painted enough of a picture of what I think might happen in such a case to an armed uprising. The question is: What alternative picture can you paint?

"Everything they needed"? Prove that one.
When the Viet Minh fought its final successful battles against the French, they did so with regular divisions, Soviet weaponry and heavy artillery. Unless you're going to tell me that they had heavy artillery factories somewhere, these had to come from China, where Mao had just managed to take control and was supporting commies all over the place.

Yet they managed to survive and eventually win.
Yes. They survived by hiding, they won by getting outside support.

Now, if you're going to add outside support to the equation, the prospects of the uprising may get better. But at the same time, this outside support eliminates the need for having guns already in your home. Even if there were no privately owned guns in the country, the EU or Canada or whoever could ship them in.

Another assertion w/o proof.
So you're saying this tyrannical government would not fight as hard as it could to stay in power?

Yes. What's your point?

They needed overwhelming force of non-locals for fear of their troops supporting the Hungarians. Once again, a factor the US Gov't doesn't have.


So how come the insurgents aren't flying around predators?

You mean like the unmanned drone that hit the Isreali warship? You mean like all that tech that isn't available in the US? Those same insurgents that are causing all the grief to the US and allied forces even w/o alot of tech behind them?


No, I cannot. Do you think you can argue for your rights to military-grade weaponry on the basis that a future tyrannical government will also not have enough money to buy ammunition for its military?

Yes.


And yet, it seems that whenever insurgents face troops in open battle, they lose.

And another moving of the goalposts. Who said "open battle"?


I suppose you can include females in that too.

I'm basing that statement on basic economics. You have a certain payoff to going off to fight, and you have something to lose from doing so. The probability of either event happening is unknown and depends on what everyone else is doing.

If you have more to lose, your expected payoff is lower, so you are less likely to go fight. Finding actual statistics on the members of revolutions in the past is rather difficult, but you'll find that it's always "student protests" (rather than, say, "middle management protests") that you hear about, because students are precisely the type of people for whom the expected value would be highest.

You're basing it off of nothing but your unsupported assertion. Find the proof.


But we're talking hypotheticals here. I'm asking you to paint me a picture. What do you think would happen if Jeb Bush was the next president and decided to start suspending more rights over his two terms in office like his brother, until he finally decides to "postpone" elections due to, say, another terror attack.

No, you're wanting a definite scenario that you can poke holes in. Define "more rights". I answere the "postponed elections" one already.


No, it's not. Look, either the military is supporting the tyrannical government, in which case you have to fight it, or the military is not supporting the government, in which case you'd best leave the fighting to the parts of the military supportive of your cause.

And even if still more fighters were needed, the military would most likely be equipping the militia fighters, so no one needs to bring guns from home.

Can we say "false dichotomy" children? Or some support the Gov't, some don't and there aren't enough weapons to go around. Another option you keep ignoring.


Again, if you don't think the military would do whatever it takes, non-violent protests are going to be enough.


As you said, it depends on the government in question.

See above false dichotomy.


If people hunt deer, they will carry their guns around with them, yes. And besides, whether it's gun ownership or CCW doesn't make a difference as far as possible rebellion is concerned. That's more a question of protection against crime.

Fine. Let's show what you said:

Japanese citizens have always been able to carry handguns with minimal control for as long as they were available.

Nothing about hunting there. Try moving those goalposts again.

As for "bad"...people have been talking about political freedom. Japan was bad in that respect because it did not offer political freedom. It offered other stuff, which people liked. I'm arguing that the same is true in almost all other regimes, and most likely would also be the case if the US turned undemocratic.

Another unsupported assertion. For berating people for them, you sure make a lot.


I wouldn't enjoy it. But then, would I believe that owning a gun would protect me from it? Would I somehow believe that me owning a gun would guarantee me anything other than aforementioned controls?

So you would accept indepth monitoring of your life? Good for you. Do I think an armed populace would keep the Gov't from attemting something like this? Yes.



I told you it was unsourced, I just thought I'd let you have a look at it yourself.

And it has no support when the other sections say they had strict gun control. You said they could carry handguns w/ few restrictions when it clearly says that Japan had strict restrictions for centuries.


Now, I don't really see what the point of your quote was. I believe we all know that militias played their role in the Revolution. The question is whether that has anything to do with the situation today.

Of course you don't see it. Didn't happen to read about what started the revolution, eh?



Don't make the mistake of confusing Nazi Germany with North Korea.

So Nazi Germany DIDN'T have people disappearing? They DIDN'T have records on practically everyone?



Actually, the SA had its heyday before the Nazi weapons law. They were bashing and shooting people before the Nazis came to power.
Groups like them were the reason the government had so strict rules on guns. They didn't police those laws properly though, and so guns were still used to help introduce a tyrannical government of sorts.

But you said they were disarmed BEFORE the Nazi's came into power. The Nazi's relaxed the laws for themselves, you know, the ones" whose trustworthiness is not in question". Not your average citizen.


I refer you to what I said above about basic economics.

Which supports nothing of what you said.


I'm sure some would. I'm just as sure others wouldn't. And again others would actually support him.

I think I've painted enough of a picture of what I think might happen in such a case to an armed uprising. The question is: What alternative picture can you paint?

Why should I "paint a picture"? You dismiss everything w/o providing evidence. It has happened, and can happen again


When the Viet Minh fought its final successful battles against the French, they did so with regular divisions, Soviet weaponry and heavy artillery. Unless you're going to tell me that they had heavy artillery factories somewhere, these had to come from China, where Mao had just managed to take control and was supporting commies all over the place.

You said they were provided everything. I asked you to support that statement.


Yes. They survived by hiding, they won by getting outside support.

And that couldn't happen again?

Now, if you're going to add outside support to the equation, the prospects of the uprising may get better. But at the same time, this outside support eliminates the need for having guns already in your home. Even if there were no privately owned guns in the country, the EU or Canada or whoever could ship them in.

Or they don't need the outside support (or less of it)if they're already armed. You seem to be supporting people having access to military grade weaponry.


So you're saying this tyrannical government would not fight as hard as it could to stay in power?[/QUOTE]

They needed overwhelming force of non-locals for fear of their troops supporting the Hungarians. Once again, a factor the US Gov't doesn't have.
So in other words, if the locals have guns, the troops who get shot at will switch sides, and if the locals don't have guns, the troops will not?

Why?

You mean like the unmanned drone that hit the Isreali warship?
It wasn't a drone, it was a missile, and it came straight from Iran.

Those same insurgents that are causing all the grief to the US and allied forces even w/o alot of tech behind them?
The grief they are causing is not due to their posession of handguns, it's mainly due to them having access to home-manufactured explosives.

And besides, on a tactical level the Coalition Forces win every actual engagement.

Yes.
Which is precisely the problem. Rather than being rational, you have a preconceived notion (namely: "I want guns!") and try to support it by building the most unlikely scenario imaginable.

Guess what, I'm not against gun ownership, though I think guns can be dangerous and there should be mechanisms to make sure they don't go into the wrong hands.

But I do not deceive myself with romantic notions of me getting out there and freeing the nation from oppression thanks to my gun.

And another moving of the goalposts. Who said "open battle"?
You're not going to overthrow a government without engaging them at some point.

You're basing it off of nothing but your unsupported assertion. Find the proof.
Look, we all know that revolutionary movements don't tend to publish member lists on the internet. But we also know that it you hear about student protests a lot more than you hear about middle management protests or housewife protests.

I don't know about your economic persuasion, but I don't think the idea that people weigh up alternatives to reach a decision, based on expected outcomes, is too far-fetched.

No, you're wanting a definite scenario that you can poke holes in.
Precisely. Let's look at the things that have to happen for there to be an armed revolution thanks to guns from home:

There needs to be a government being oppressive enough to call people into action.
A large number of people must be called into action at the same time, otherwise the police could simply deal with troublemakers.
Two possible things: either a large public demonstration, or some sort of attack on a government installation. If it is the latter, the response could be swift and overwhelming. CCTV and the like will identify the assailants, and they'll be removed.
If it is the former case, the government has to feel sufficiently bothered to respond with violence, which causes all the little wannabe revolutionaries to run home and get their guns.
But despite the government being ready to use violence against a demonstration, it now has to be hesitant to actually use its arsenal against the wannabe revolutionaries. If they did, the revolution would end right there.
If they are being hesitant, their soldiers must be sufficiently loyal. If they are not, they would simply switch sides or not open fire in the first place, and no armed revolution occurs.
If they are loyal, they need to be poorly equipped or trained, so they can actually be defeated at any point by a bunch of wannabe revolutionaries. If they were not, all the revolutionaries could do would be roadside bombs and the like, which may be annoying, but not actually expel a military from a place.
So now the wannabe revolutionaries have killed all the poorly trained, poorly equipped soldiers. All this must have occured in the capital of course, with the heads of the government being captured or killed. Otherwise all the revolution would have done is "freed" a city for a short while until the counter-offensive.
And during all that time there can be no outside supply of weapons, because the revolution must be due to privately owned guns for your claim to work.

Do you realise how unlikely a combination of all these things are? And the stuff that I've left out as well (like the pro-government militias which might pop up to kill the terrorists and hippies and so on)?

I'm not surprised you refuse to think about it seriously.

Define "more rights". I answere the "postponed elections" one already.
How about a new sedition law which defines what can and can't be reported in the media? More CCTV cameras? More unwarranted home searches and wire taps?

And I can't find you saying anything about postponed elections.

Can we say "false dichotomy" children? Or some support the Gov't, some don't and there aren't enough weapons to go around. Another option you keep ignoring.
The military is not going to run out of guns.

And that is because no military commander will see a need to just hand out weapons to randoms. They will look at the most capable volunteers and choose those to train and equip. Random citizens with guns are going to do more harm than good in serious engagements.

As for the false dichotomy...you can keep saying that, but that doesn't make it so. Either there are going to be parts of the military which help the revolution, or not. If there are, they will be organising the fighting, including equipment and tactics.

Fine.
All right, I made a mistake on that one. Your own source about gun control in Japan tells me that registrated handguns were indeed available during that time, but I shouldn't have put it like I did.

Which is really quite meaningless, because it's a miniscule side issue to what we're actually talking about. I think we can both agree that the Japanese were quite happy with their Emperor and his military leaders and wouldn't have revolted against His divine will, even if they did have guns.

Another unsupported assertion. For berating people for them, you sure make a lot.
So there are no nationalists in the US? No neocons? No pseudo-fascist "we must fight the Muslim/Commie/whatever enemy"? No people so scared of terrorism they think it's okay for basic rights to be suspended?

You need to think of a better response to that one. Dictatorships offer things to their people. Every dictatorship in history has had its supporters as well as its detractors (and the biggest group being the apathetic people who just never felt strongly enough either way to actually do anything).

Do I think an armed populace would keep the Gov't from attemting something like this? Yes.
Is it my turn now to ask for support for that one?

Of course you don't see it. Didn't happen to read about what started the revolution, eh?
People didn't like their guns taken away.

Seems however like people had their guns taken away in many places many times, without massive revolutions.

Here is my idea: Given that the most likely source of the tyrannical government would be ultra-conservative PNAC types...would those guys not have the support of organisations like the NRA? Why would such a government need to take anyone's gun?

So Nazi Germany DIDN'T have people disappearing? They DIDN'T have records on practically everyone?
Sure they did. But it's not like people had to be forced to support Hitler and his decisions.

But you said they were disarmed BEFORE the Nazi's came into power. The Nazi's relaxed the laws for themselves, you know, the ones" whose trustworthiness is not in question". Not your average citizen.
I said "poor policing of the law". It wasn't properly enforced.

The Communist Militias, the Freikorps Militias and the SA Militias all had guns, despite them being illegal. Unfortunately none of these militias had political freedom on their minds, while the government arguably did.

Which supports nothing of what you said.
Yeah, right, because people don't weigh up alternatives before making decisions?

It has happened, and can happen again
No, what has happened are a whole bunch of things which had nothing to do with gun control or civilian gun ownership which pro-gun people subvert to tell themselves that their teenage rebel fantasies could be true afterall.

You said they were provided everything. I asked you to support that statement.
I would've thought you knew enough about the matter for yourself.

http://www.vietquoc.com/0007vq.htm
Ho and the French together massacred hundreds of leaders and thousands of rank-and-file members of various nationalist groups. The French gave the Viet Minh military equipment, troops and even artillery support to carry this out. In July 1946, Ho's forces stormed the headquarters of all the remaining nationalist groups while French armored personnel carriers cordoned off surrounding areas. Most of the few remaining opposition leaders were arrested and later killed. (No More Vietnam, Richard Nixon, page 34, 35)

On December 19, 1946, the War of Resistance against the French forces burst out. The French seized control of several cities. Ho Chi Minh and the resistance forces had to withdraw from those key cities and conducted the guerrilla warfare against the French Expeditionary Army.

If Mao Tse Tung had not taken over China in 1949, Ho Chi Minh would have been responsible for turning Vietnam over to France. Since 1949, communist China armed and trained Viet Minh. This led to the Viet Minh victory at the China-Vietnam Border Battle. Later, it was the Chinese artillery that helped Viet Minh to defeat the French at Dien Bien Phu.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/bw-index-1945.html
January 1950 - The People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union recognize Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam.

China then begins sending military advisors and modern weapons to the Viet Minh including automatic weapons, mortars, howitzers, and trucks. Much of the equipment is American-made and had belonged to the Chinese Nationalists before their defeat by Mao. With the influx of new equipment and Chinese advisors, General Giap transforms his guerrilla fighters into conventional army units including five light infantry divisions and one heavy division.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/02/22/edold_ed3__47.php
1952: Viet Minh Get U.S. Arms : IN OUR PAGES: 100, 75 AND 50 YEARS AGO

LISBON: The latest American military equipment, captured in North Korea, is being transferred across China for use against the French in Indo-China, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman told the North Atlantic Council today [Feb. 21]. These weapons were recaptured by the French from the rebel forces of Ho Chi-minh. M. Schuman laid impressive figures on the table to illustrate the increasing assistance which he said the Chinese Communists were giving to Viet Minh groups.

And that couldn't happen again?
Sure. But again, you don't need guns at home to hide and wait for outside support.

The West Papuans are doing that in Indonesia right now. Indonesia has the usual gun laws, I believe.

Or they don't need the outside support (or less of it)if they're already armed. You seem to be supporting people having access to military grade weaponry.
If they're fighting an oppressive government, I'm not going to be against them.

I do not believe non-military grade weaponry is going to be enough. So you'd have to be okay with tanks, helicopters and planes and all sorts of missiles and explosives being kept by civilians. And you'd have to somehow work out how to organise that. I don't believe the NRA for example is lobbying for that.

So in other words, if the locals have guns, the troops who get shot at will switch sides, and if the locals don't have guns, the troops will not?

Why?
Which isn't what is being said at all. Try again.


It wasn't a drone, it was a missile, and it came straight from Iran.

Source it.


The grief they are causing is not due to their posession of handguns, it's mainly due to them having access to home-manufactured explosives.

And besides, on a tactical level the Coalition Forces win every actual engagement.

They also have lots and lots of firearms. Every "stand up" engagement. You really don't know much of what's going on over there, do you?


Which is precisely the problem. Rather than being rational, you have a preconceived notion (namely: "I want guns!") and try to support it by building the most unlikely scenario imaginable.

And now the inane personal attacks. I think you're done.

Guess what, I'm not against gun ownership, though I think guns can be dangerous and there should be mechanisms to make sure they don't go into the wrong hands.

But I do not deceive myself with romantic notions of me getting out there and freeing the nation from oppression thanks to my gun.

Yes, you're against ownership. Every thread you post measures that do nothing but restrict the owenership of those who follow the law.


You're not going to overthrow a government without engaging them at some point.

engaging /= stand up fight. Try again.


Look, we all know that revolutionary movements don't tend to publish member lists on the internet. But we also know that it you hear about student protests a lot more than you hear about middle management protests or housewife protests.

I don't know about your economic persuasion, but I don't think the idea that people weigh up alternatives to reach a decision, based on expected outcomes, is too far-fetched.

So you admit you're just making it up.


Precisely.

Do you realise how unlikely a combination of all these things are? And the stuff that I've left out as well (like the pro-government militias which might pop up to kill the terrorists and hippies and so on)?

I'm not surprised you refuse to think about it seriously.

More unsupported assertions and personal attacks. You make up a list and expect that it should be completely factual. Keep trying.

At least you admit you're just trying to poke holes in absolutes and don't want to look at possibilities.


How about a new sedition law which defines what can and can't be reported in the media? More CCTV cameras? More unwarranted home searches and wire taps?

Are those possibilities? Yes. WIll I say definite? No. I can't predict the future.

And I can't find you saying anything about postponed elections.

Guess you're not reading the thread then.


The military is not going to run out of guns.

Never said it was. Of course you keep trying to move the goalposts.

And that is because no military commander will see a need to just hand out weapons to randoms. They will look at the most capable volunteers and choose those to train and equip. Random citizens with guns are going to do more harm than good in serious engagements.

Another assertion w/o proof.

As for the false dichotomy...you can keep saying that, but that doesn't make it so. Either there are going to be parts of the military which help the revolution, or not. If there are, they will be organising the fighting, including equipment and tactics.

You keep making these "all or nothing" scenarios. That is a false dichotomy. Now you're changing it to "parts". You didn't include that before.


All right, I made a mistake on that one. Your own source about gun control in Japan tells me that registrated handguns were indeed available during that time, but I shouldn't have put it like I did.

Which is really quite meaningless, because it's a miniscule side issue to what we're actually talking about. I think we can both agree that the Japanese were quite happy with their Emperor and his military leaders and wouldn't have revolted against His divine will, even if they did have guns.

It was an issue because you made up some history to "prove" that totalitarian gov'ts don't use gun control.


So there are no nationalists in the US? No neocons? No pseudo-fascist "we must fight the Muslim/Commie/whatever enemy"? No people so scared of terrorism they think it's okay for basic rights to be suspended?

And they're the majority? They have political control? Move the goalposts some more?

You need to think of a better response to that one. Dictatorships offer things to their people. Every dictatorship in history has had its supporters as well as its detractors (and the biggest group being the apathetic people who just never felt strongly enough either way to actually do anything).

Translation: You have nothing to support your assertion. Gotcha.


Is it my turn now to ask for support for that one?

Now you get to reread what I wrote.


People didn't like their guns taken away.

Seems however like people had their guns taken away in many places many times, without massive revolutions.

Here is my idea: Given that the most likely source of the tyrannical government would be ultra-conservative PNAC types...would those guys not have the support of organisations like the NRA? Why would such a government need to take anyone's gun?

The NRA supports only "ultra-conservatives"? Now you're just getting into the realm of stupid political stereotypes.


Sure they did. But it's not like people had to be forced to support Hitler and his decisions.

Making family members disappear isn't "forcing people"?


I said "poor policing of the law". It wasn't properly enforced.

The Communist Militias, the Freikorps Militias and the SA Militias all had guns, despite them being illegal. Unfortunately none of these militias had political freedom on their minds, while the government arguably did.

So you're now saying "gun control" allowed these groups to take control or that the laws were inneffectual? You're bouncing all over the place on your claims.


Yeah, right, because people don't weigh up alternatives before making decisions?

You're saying everyone does?


No, what has happened are a whole bunch of things which had nothing to do with gun control or civilian gun ownership which pro-gun people subvert to tell themselves that their teenage rebel fantasies could be true afterall.

More unsupported ad hominems. Have a nice day.


I would've thought you knew enough about the matter for yourself.

http://www.vietquoc.com/0007vq.htm


http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/bw-index-1945.html


http://www.iht.com/articles/2002/02/22/edold_ed3__47.php

Lots of guns but they got support from the people to survive. You said everything.



Sure. But again, you don't need guns at home to hide and wait for outside support.

So you should wait for outside support which may never come? Or take matters into your own hands.

The West Papuans are doing that in Indonesia right now. Indonesia has the usual gun laws, I believe.

And how many are being killed while they're "waiting"?


If they're fighting an oppressive government, I'm not going to be against them.

I do not believe non-military grade weaponry is going to be enough. So you'd have to be okay with tanks, helicopters and planes and all sorts of missiles and explosives being kept by civilians. And you'd have to somehow work out how to organise that. I don't believe the NRA for example is lobbying for that.

No, you wouldn't. That's already been shown over and over. Nice slippery slope.

To Kecibukia
why should they be registrated? because when some gun totting idiot shoots my son or someone I want police to know who's damned gun it was.

To Myseneum
If Hungarian people had that kind of weapons they would have been smashed, rounded up and sent to syberia. They had NO CHANCE against Soviet Union. Several people DID have that kind of weapons, read about what happened to Chechens.
And yes you can say anything you like. Ofcorse so can I. That doesnt make it true, sane or inteligent. On either of our parts.
Weapons are for killing. and no matter how well armed you are, to a properly trained military you are a joke. And I seriously doubt Queen of England will try to steal your house tomorrow.

to gun manufacturers

You are right. you also need heat seeking missiles and if all else fails anthrax and V-series nerve agents. NO DUCK SHALL SURVIVE!

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

An armed populace still can be a very effective threat to the US military. (I'll leave this in the US for now)
Bassically, If the US government for some reason goes all police state, and the People of the United States now feel seperated, and oppressed by their government, What you have is, at least 100million armed, supporters of rebbellion, vs, about 2 million trained professional soldiers. Its a pretty land slide victory there. I dont care how you scream about the modern firepower of conventional amries these days, or their special forces. The fact is the US military would be swallowed whole by a wide sweeping national revolution against the government. No matter how much firepower they have. Several, several guerrila wars threwout all of human history prove this. They biggest key of guerrila warfare is that as time goes by, the conventional army gets weaker, and the guerrilas get stronger, more organized, and more effiecent, not matter thier loses. They feed off the conventional army for supplies, weaponry, everything, its as if the conventional forces are supplying and feeding their own enemy. After long, the balance of power is tipped, and a rebels have more power then the conventional forces, and rush out into the open to seize power. By this time the conventional forces are so weak they simply crumble, no effective air support to some crying to. And so, the rebels win.

to gun manufacturers

You are right. you also need heat seeking missiles and if all else fails anthrax and V-series nerve agents. NO DUCK SHALL SURVIVE!

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Air-Air missiles can be either radar guided or heat seeking.

No duck shall survive? I don't want to kill all ducks, just 1 (or 2, if I'm having company over) to fill the oven with.


/I want to get a pet duck eventually.
//It'll be a mallard.
///I almost got the opportunity to carve a wooden duck in high school.
////what's with the /'s? :D

Source it.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20060719.aspx
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hezbollah-hit-israeli-ship-with-iranian-missile

They also have lots and lots of firearms. Every "stand up" engagement. You really don't know much of what's going on over there, do you?
Other than from what I hear about it by the various people on NSG who are or have been there, and the news reports, no.

Yes, you're against ownership. Every thread you post measures that do nothing but restrict the owenership of those who follow the law.
And I used to be in favour of the welfare state too. Like many other stances I have changed my view on gun control when I moved towards libertarianism.

But that still doesn't mean I have to ignore the fact that the likelihood of a revolution being successful due to home-owned guns is miniscule at best.

engaging /= stand up fight. Try again.
You can blow up the occasional convoi, or try the occasional ambush. That's not going to force a dictator out of office. The only way you can do that is to actually capture the capital, for example, which requires an open battle against military forces.

So you admit you're just making it up.
In the same way that all other economic (or indeed scientific) theory is made up, yes.

More unsupported assertions and personal attacks. You make up a list and expect that it should be completely factual. Keep trying.
No, it's your turn now to tell me what is wrong with the list. Simply saying "it's wrong" is not enough.

At least you admit you're just trying to poke holes in absolutes and don't want to look at possibilities.
I think the list includes all the possible decisions made by all parties concerned. I do not believe that a "I don't know how, why or when, but I'm sure my guns will protect my freedom" sort of argument is valid.

Are those possibilities? Yes. WIll I say definite? No. I can't predict the future.
My point was that not everyone will react the same way to these various policies. Some have a much lower threshold than others, so they'd start engaging in protests or armed resistance at different points of time, thus splitting the population and weakening its resistance.

I don't believe it will happen, but that's not the point. If we say that there is no risk of a tyrannical government appearing, you don't need guns to protect yourself from that.

Guess you're not reading the thread then.
I did, and I even used the search function to look at all your posts of the past few days. I'll need more direction.

Never said it was. Of course you keep trying to move the goalposts.
You said there wouldn't be enough military guns to go around.

Another assertion w/o proof.
Look, they did that even during the Revolution. Not every random who volunteered would actually be asked to fight.

For example, the US (like much of the Western world) has a bit of a weight problem. Do you think that the military commander would be handing out guns to people with massive beer bellies for the purposes of guerilla warfare?

No, they'll know that the smaller the force, the less likely it will be to be spotted. Since direct engagements would be difficult anyways, it's not about numbers, more about the sort of tactics used. So they'll pick guys who are physically fit and can be trained in the relevant tactics fairly easily.

You keep making these "all or nothing" scenarios. That is a false dichotomy. Now you're changing it to "parts". You didn't include that before.
As a matter of fact I did say "parts" before.
No, it's not. Look, either the military is supporting the tyrannical government, in which case you have to fight it, or the military is not supporting the government, in which case you'd best leave the fighting to the parts of the military supportive of your cause.
I know that militaries aren't hiveminds, and they often split in situations like this. But if you do have military units supporting your cause, it only makes sense for those units to take charge of the armed resistance.

It was an issue because you made up some history to "prove" that totalitarian gov'ts don't use gun control.
Now you're moving the goalposts.

Totalitarian states have often used gun control. They've also used sports control, school control, TV control and so on. By definition, totalitarian states control things.

What I doubt is that they singled out guns as any different from all the other things because they feared that an armed populace would actually do anything. And the reason I say that is because most dictatorships had a lot of support among the population and that they had inertia on their side, apart from the control mechanisms like secret police etc which made any organised resistance difficult.

And they're the majority? They have political control? Move the goalposts some more?
They don't have to be the majority, though they may well be if you take all those groups together. Remember, the majority of Americans was fairly easily deceived into thinking that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and Iraq was a necessary target in the 'War on Terror'.
And they would have political control in a tyrannical government, yes.

Translation: You have nothing to support your assertion. Gotcha.
Look, I know people who lived under the Nazi Regime, and I know people who lived under the Communist Regime in the GDR.
Politics was not always on everybody's mind! They had their own lives to worry about.

In both cases there were certainly those who disagreed with the regime, but neither ever managed to put together enough force to threaten it. And in both cases there were supporters (which in both cases probably outnumbered those who disagreed, thanks to some good propaganda and state-owned education). But the biggest group was the group that put their own lives first, and politics second.

That's what this whole Nazi guilt thing is about, afterall. It's not about everyone being a Nazi, it's about so many people seeing what's going on but not bothering to do anything about it.

Now you get to reread what I wrote.
I did, but you didn't actually tell me why an armed populace would somehow not fall to propaganda and support a tyrannical government in doing what it wants.

The NRA supports only "ultra-conservatives"? Now you're just getting into the realm of stupid political stereotypes.
The NRA supports pro-gun politicians. Those are overwhelmingly on the Republican side of the spectrum.

Assuming that it is indeed the radical right wing of the Republican Party which would initiate this shift towards dictatorship, every indication is that the would-be dictator would be all for guns in every home, so he'd most likely have the support from the NRA.

Making family members disappear isn't "forcing people"?
You don't support a regime because it kills your family. You might be scared of it, but you don't like it, nor do you really support it.

But in the case of the Nazi Regime, there were millions of people who liked Hitler and his goons, and supported them. That's due to some good propaganda, a bit of populism and the government giving people what they wanted, for example a powerful Germany.

So you're now saying "gun control" allowed these groups to take control or that the laws were inneffectual? You're bouncing all over the place on your claims.
I'm saying that guns were part of their strategy (as it was for all the various militias and revolutionaries), and that gun control was enacted to counter it.

The Republic failed to enforce it though, so guns played a vital part in the removal of political enemies of the Nazis.

You're saying everyone does?
Not always consciously, but the only people who don't weigh up alternatives are people who can't think, ie severely disabled people.

More unsupported ad hominems. Have a nice day.
Unsupported? You find case after case of revolutions and revolts, and I point out every time that the outcome of those cases wasn't related to whether or not people had privately owned guns.

Lots of guns but they got support from the people to survive. You said everything.
You're not seriously going to start arguing like this, are you?

If I mean "everything they needed", I obviously meant military equipment, seeing as to how that's what we're talking about. It doesn't mean non-weapons related stuff.

So you should wait for outside support which may never come? Or take matters into your own hands.
You can try, but you'd fail, just like all the other revolutions fail if they don't get outside support.

And how many are being killed while they're "waiting"?
Rather less than if they'd fight, like the Viet Minh or the Hungarians did. Or indeed as were killed during the time the OPM did indeed wage armed resistance (and failed, of course).

No, you wouldn't. That's already been shown over and over. Nice slippery slope.
Look, we know that you need military-grade weapons to fight successfully.

There are two ways to get them: Either supportive military units give it to you (in which case you need no privately owned guns), or you need to capture them (in which case we said your chances of winning are slim because you don't have military-grade weapons yet - or do you really think you can attack Fort Riley with your hunting rifle?).

What you have is, at least 100million armed, supporters of rebbellion, vs, about 2 million trained professional soldiers.
The thing is that you'd never get anything even approaching that number.

Please, God, not this ridiculous argument. It's bad enough that we've strayed from the original post to the current level, but can we please stay away from the ludicrous argument that taxation is theft? Taxes are the dues we pay for a stable society.
Wrong.

I owe nothing to "society".

The only entities to which I owe anything are *individuals*--and in each case, that particular individual and I are the only ones who have any say in the terms of that particular agreement.

It is ludicrous to say I am obligated to surrender some of my property--which is mine by right, not by permission or privilege--in order to maintain other of my property--which is also mine by right rather than permission or privilege.

That is the argument of the mugger, of the protection-racketeer, and of the tyrant.

And property is not life either.
Yes, it is.

Let's say it took me ten hours to be able to make enough money (before you say "not all societies had money", remember that they DID have trade, and money is just an intermediary to facilitate trade) to buy a couch. If you take that couch from me, you have essentially taken ten hours of my life from me that I will never get back--it's morally equivalent to killing me ten hours before I would have otherwise died.

Now, the state takes about a third of my income each year from me, without my consent, by threatening me with violence if I resist. Assuming I live ninety years, then the state is, in essence, murdering me at age sixty.

i think guns should be outlawed or strenghten the laws...in europe guns have been outlawed for years...look at the crime rate?
Yup, it's higher than in the US.

Not that it would matter either way, of course.

the constitution was written when native americans attacks were a constant threat and hunting supported people in the winters...its over 200 years later. hunters can have them, but otherwise, thwres no reason

If the populace at large is not heavily armed, how the hell are we supposed to fight back against the state when we need to?

i think that people should just have hunting guns and old guns.

Then you're wrong.

People should have right to own weapons.
Rights are not a matter of "should" or "should not".

It is absurd to say "X should be a right" or "X should not be a right."

Rights are a matter of IS/ARE or IS/ARE NOT.

They are an inherent consequence of the mere fact of one's existence, and they are eternal, static, and unchanging. Every individual, throughout history, has possessed the exact same set of rights. The only variable is the degree to which the local governments respected those rights--and that is the degree to which those governments were legitimate.

NOT a military issue automatic rifles, NOT bazookas.
How are we supposed to effectively revolt against the state if we don't have parity?
And don't tell me you want f-16 with air-ground missiles for duck hunting.
What's duck hunting got to do with anything?

Let's say it took me ten hours to be able to make enough money (before you say "not all societies had money", remember that they DID have trade, and money is just an intermediary to facilitate trade) to buy a couch. If you take that couch from me, you have essentially taken ten hours of my life from me that I will never get back--it's morally equivalent to killing me ten hours before I would have otherwise died.

Now, the state takes about a third of my income each year from me, without my consent, by threatening me with violence if I resist. Assuming I live ninety years, then the state is, in essence, murdering me at age sixty.

Now, I haven't been following your debate, but this logic presented above barely deserves the designation as such.

It is correct, as you say, that if they steal your couch, then you lose that 10 hours. But you do not lose that ten hours of life, merely that ten hours of investment.

See, you still lived that ten hours. It was not taken away, and can not be taken away, since it is in the past.

You merely lost that ten hours in which to do something else.

If your reasoning is to follow, then the ten hours you spent on earning the couch will be deducted from your life whether someone takes your couch away from you or not. Since you spent the ten hours on the couch, you have given it away.

I do not see how you can spend ten hours, and then 'lose' it again, in the future.

Air-Air missiles can be either radar guided or heat seeking.

No duck shall survive? I don't want to kill all ducks, just 1 (or 2, if I'm having company over) to fill the oven with.


/I want to get a pet duck eventually.
//It'll be a mallard.
///I almost got the opportunity to carve a wooden duck in high school.
////what's with the /'s? :D

I've got no problem with that. Unless you shoot my pet duck in my back yard.
I've got no problem with sane people owning light weapons for defense or hunting.
I DO have a problem with mental patients, violent criminals and racist militia freaks owning military hardware they intend to use on civilians at first opportunity and no one governing that.