TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
Pages (10): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 »

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Hey diggerz, do you need any more proof at just how skewed your fellow countrymens opinions are? Just look at the responses from them. If you disagree with them, then you've managed to break the mold and there's hope for you yet. If you agree with them, then my points are all the more valid.

You do realize he isn't an American right?

quote:

Originally posted by Zild You do realize he isn't an American right?

He came across to me as if he lived there. Just because his flag isn't a US one, doesn't mean he doesn't live there. If he isn't, apologies.

As a European living in US, I wish Europeans wouldn't be so myopic to immediately dismiss guns out of hand.

Self defense is one thing, but being able to protect yourself from abuses of a given government is entirely different, no one should ever give up that right or be mocked for it.

im hurt

really dissapointed

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Self defense is one thing, but being able to protect yourself from abuses of a given government is entirely different, no one should ever give up that right or be mocked for it.

give me an example in a western democracy of a civilian militia that has been able to effect meaningful change/protection of/from their government?

the idea that this could be achieved is absolute bollocks.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN give me an example in a western democracy of a civilian militia that has been able to effect meaningful change/protection of/from their government? the idea that this could be achieved is absolute bollocks.

By definition, that sort of a thing doesn't happen in a "western democracy". Because if it had, that country would no longer be considered a "western democracy".

However, there are plenty examples of states in the 20th century for whom one of the first acts to enslave its people was to outlaw firearm ownership. That's certainly no coincidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne By definition, that sort of a thing doesn't happen in a "western democracy". Because if it had, that country would no longer be considered a "western democracy". However, there are plenty examples of states in the 20th century for whom one of the first acts to enslave its people was to outlaw firearm ownership. That's certainly no coincidence.

ugh, we're going through that old chestnut again are we? the fact of the matter remains that no strong state has ever been destabilised because of mummy and daddy's gun collection.

zild



-----------------.---










me.

take it with a grain of salt, a glass of new Orleans bourbon while the Dylan record spins.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ugh, we're going through that old chestnut again are we? the fact of the matter remains that no strong state has ever been destabilised because of mummy and daddy's gun collection.

You're not really buttressing your argument here.

The state isn't destabilized by gun ownership. To the contrary, the state is destabilized by malignant forces in the government which firearm ownership keeps in check to some extent. Thus, firearm ownership is a stabilizing force within a state.

Furthermore the definition of a "strong state" is certainly debatable. Strong based on what benchmarks?

Also, I'm not sure what your problem of is with "going through the same old chestnut" but there is a reason why USSR, Nazi Germany and several Asian dictatorships are used as an example of what happens when gun ownership is banned. Because it's true. Conversely, it's also the reason why Saddam was never able to pacify the Kurds during his reign, as much as he wanted to.

I think PKC means that people like Hitler and Stalin, rulers of oppressive governments, were not overthrown by armed civilians within their state but by outside forces.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I think PKC means that people like Hitler and Stalin, rulers of oppressive governments, were not overthrown by armed civilians within their state but by outside forces.

Exactly. And one of the first things that both of them did was to ban firearm ownership in their respective states.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles I think PKC means that people like Hitler and Stalin, rulers of oppressive governments, were not overthrown by armed civilians within their state but by outside forces.

no, he never assumed that in the first place. We all know that the Nazis were responsible for igniting the war. Oppressive? Germany was a great place to live in if you were not a Jew.

haha I'm a bit drunk, seriously Texas is fucked up!

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Conversely, it's also the reason why Saddam was never able to pacify the Kurds during his reign, as much as he wanted to.

really? see im pretty sure he slaughtered thousands of them. with gas. where were all the men with their gun-club memberships then? biding their time? surely they didnt need the the US airforce to be constantly monitoring the country?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Exactly. And one of the first things that both of them did was to ban firearm ownership in their respective states.

so what? there are plenty of countries in the world that have banned firearm ownership, whats your point? hitler built lots of roads and mussolini made the trains run on time. should we then be suspicious of modern states that attempt the same?

are you going to compare the US to nazi germany or the USSR? if not, why are you bothering with a comparison?

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne To the contrary, the state is destabilized by malignant forces in the government which firearm ownership keeps in check to some extent.

so, im still waiting for the example i already asked you for. i want a modern country who was saved from the brink of dictatorship with mum and dad's licensed weaponry.

quote:

Originally posted by diggerz Oppressive? Germany was a great place to live in if you were not a Jew.

Or gay or a Gypsy or mentally ill or retarded or Communist or critical of Hitler's policies or not a fan of marching around and waving a flag or an artist who did anything other than produce nationalistic rubbish...

I hope you get the picture.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Or gay or a Gypsy or mentally ill or retarded or Communist or critical of Hitler's policies or not a fan of marching around and waving a flag or an artist who did anything other than produce nationalistic rubbish... I hope you get the picture.

hahaha. still though, that's no less illogical than the argument "hitler banned guns, therefore banning guns is EVIL".

this bird wants to fly north...

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Or gay or a Gypsy or mentally ill or retarded or Communist or critical of Hitler's policies or not a fan of marching around and waving a flag or an artist who did anything other than produce nationalistic rubbish... I hope you get the picture.

it was a joke,

those were rough times indeed

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN hahaha. still though, that's no less illogical than the argument "hitler banned guns, therefore banning guns is EVIL".

Well, that isn't quite the point. The point is not just that Hitler was evil and banned guns, but that he banned guns as a means to more easily do evil. And some would argue that if keeping guns among civilians helps keep in check the evil, oppressive tendencies of governments, then it is worth it.

Personally I don't usually bother with the "keeping tyranny in check" argument, though.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Well, that isn't quite the point. The point is not just that Hitler was evil and banned guns, but that he banned guns as a means to more easily do evil. And some would argue that if keeping guns among civilians helps keep in check the evil, oppressive tendencies of governments, then it is worth it.

but nobody has established that those laws made it easier for hitler to do "evil".

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Personally I don't usually bother with the "keeping tyranny in check" argument, though.

yes, because you know its absolute horseshit. yeah, good luck taking out that tank with your M-16.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN really? see im pretty sure he slaughtered thousands of them. with gas. where were all the men with their gun-club memberships then? biding their time? surely they didnt need the the US airforce to be constantly monitoring the country?

There's a difference between slaughtering and pacifying. I don't expect you to understand it with the level of discourse that you had brought so far. But to make it an obvious example for you... it took US 3 weeks to invade and topple Iraq. But 5 years later they still have not pacified it.

quote:

so what? there are plenty of countries in the world that have banned firearm ownership, whats your point? hitler built lots of roads and mussolini made the trains run on time. should we then be suspicious of modern states that attempt the same?

How is that even comparable to anything?

What is the link between firearm ownership to make sure that citizens have a way to regain their government should it ever become out of control and building an autobahn? Please explain to me, I would love to hear the logic for this one.

quote:

are you going to compare the US to nazi germany or the USSR? if not, why are you bothering with a comparison?

You can make an example without having to compare the two directly. It is fact that one of the first things that dictatorships and totalitarian states do is outlaw firearm ownership because that is the first and major threat to that government's legitimacy, whether that legitimacy is real or not.

You can't deny that, so you might as well learn from it.

quote:

so, im still waiting for the example i already asked you for. i want a modern country who was saved from the brink of dictatorship with mum and dad's licensed weaponry.

Sure. United States.

Or Chechnya in 1994 if you want something a bit more recent.

Or Nepal this year.

The examples are plentiful.

So tell me, why do you oppose firearm ownership?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, good luck taking out that tank with your M-16.

Well, civilian forces can do real damage to an occupying army, as the U.S. is learning once again in Iraq. Actually killing more of their guys than they kill of yours is probably hopeless, but that has not been the point of most guerrilla warfare anyway: the point is to sap the morale of the occupying army, and that can be done pretty effectively.

Of course, the occupying army, if it is brutal enough, can use its own morale-sapping technique in the form of collective reprisal.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes, because you know its absolute horseshit. yeah, good luck taking out that tank with your M-16.

You really should learn more about this before running your mouth.

In the 21st century where the vast majority of combat will be in urban environments, tanks have virtually no use or utility.

As a matter of fact, in the 21st century, I would rather own an armful of M-16s than a tank.

stay on the topic,please

No keyboard here�

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne But to make it an obvious example for you... it took US 3 weeks to invade and topple Iraq. But 5 years later they still have not pacified it.

was mid-post, and i am amazed you bothered with the such an absurd example.

Case in point: iraq. With borders like a sieve, and weapons overflowing, the US is still planted as firmly as ever, after 5 years of occupation. This is despite people moving to iraq specifically to fight the US. Yet we're meant to believe that a few people with their handguns and shooting range licenses can act against the greatest military machine the world has ever seen? Just ludicrous.

Incidentally, who do you think have suffered more casualties by fighting against the US government, US soldiers or iraqi civilians?

so, what youre saying is that firearm ownership is NOT good at anything but an annoyance. gotcha.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Sure. United States.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Or Chechnya in 1994 if you want something a bit more recent.

oh really? and what happened to the chechans again? that's right, back under the boot of russia. in any case, i find your attempts to make a parallel between a society of gang-bangers and a former soviet vassal to be a little problematic.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Or Nepal this year. The examples are plentiful.

im unfamiliar with nepal so you will have to fill me in.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.