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 Aquadyne 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.

I was painting a picture there champ. Tank. Or helicopter gunship. Or armoured vehicle. Don�t blame me if you don�t get the gist and need to 'win' pedantic meaningless points of contention.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles 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.

and like i said, the US are still there with iraq firmly underneath its boot. and again, i find the comparison between al qaida, al sadr and other professional militia outfits with the average gun owner in the US to be pretty disingenuous.

Repost

I would also like to point out that the US could have levelled iraq and killed everyone had it chosen to do so, which of course it didn�t because it wouldn't have been politically prudent to do so. Are you saying you expect this fictitious american despot to show similar restraint?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and like i said, the US are still there with iraq firmly underneath its boot. and again, i find the comparison between al qaida, al sadr and other professional militia outfits with the average gun owner in the US to be pretty disingenuous.

Certainly an army of average gun owners would stand little chance. But in the rather fanciful scenario of an oppressive U.S. government trying to round up and kill some set of civilians en masse, there would probably be at least some rebellion by current and former members of military and police, who could provide tactical and weapons knowledge necessary for resistance.

What we are really talking about here is a subset of a more general set of scenarios: all the situations that involve a vastly less powerful and less experienced "army" trying to defeat powerful occupiers. Obviously such a defeat has happened before (think Vietnam); whether it could happen in the U.S. is very doubtful, I agree, given the current massive size and technological advancement of our military. Which is why I normally leave this argument alone.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Which is why I normally leave this argument alone.

yes, your other argument is much more compelling, and despite my opposition to gun ownership i completely agree. if i lived in the US i would own everything that i legally could!

quote:

Originally posted by diggerz im hurt really dissapointed

I was just explaining why there was 'hope' for you as he put it. No reason to get upset as there was no malice involved.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Certainly an army of average gun owners would stand little chance. But in the rather fanciful scenario of an oppressive U.S. government trying to round up and kill some set of civilians en masse, there would probably be at least some rebellion by current and former members of military and police, who could provide tactical and weapons knowledge necessary for resistance. What we are really talking about here is a subset of a more general set of scenarios: all the situations that involve a vastly less powerful and less experienced "army" trying to defeat powerful occupiers. Obviously such a defeat has happened before (think Vietnam); whether it could happen in the U.S. is very doubtful, I agree, given the current massive size and technological advancement of our military. Which is why I normally leave this argument alone.

I think the military would have a tough enough time holding Texas.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild I think the military would have a tough enough time holding Texas.

Certainly some states would be tougher to conquer than others.

One tough thing about oppressing the United States as a whole would be the sheer size of the country.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 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.

LOL, how is exactly US is firmly planted as ever? They can't even transport a dignitary in Baghdad from Green Zone to the airport without a whole armored column and aerial recon and support.

They are sitting in a fortress in Baghdad, afraid of what's going on outside their own doorstep. Every time they need to move somewhere whether its Kirkuk, Anbar, etc., they need to move in force, like little girls that hold hands to go to the bathroom.

And all that accomplished against the strongest military force in the world by a bunch of guys who have AK-47's and RPG's. So yeah, it does work.

quote:

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.

What does that have to do with anything? There is only one kind of collateral damage in Iraq and that is Iraqi civilians. Of course they are going to suffer disproportionate casualties since every US soldier wears body armor, transports around in an APC or Humvee and sleeps behind a military perimeter.

quote:

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.

It doesn't really matter what happened in the 2nd war. The point made was clear - it is possible to overthrow a government from within with small arms even in modern times. I believe that is the example you were asking for.

quote:

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

Why don't you try Google instead. You seem to be chronically misinformed anyways, so you can get your fill of info in one fell swoop.

quote:

I was painting a picture there champ. Tank. Or helicopter gunship. Or armoured vehicle. Don�t blame me if you don�t get the gist and need to 'win' pedantic meaningless points of contention.

Ok. I would still rather have an armful of M-16's than a helicopter gunship, an armored vehicle or a tank.

It's not a pedantic point since you don't seem to grasp the concept that 21st century warfare doesn't involve lining up in rows and marching across an open field to attack tanks with bayonets. As a matter of fact, small arms like assault rifles and RPGs would be the preferred weapons in case of a rebellion in the 21st century.

quote:

and like i said, the US are still there with iraq firmly underneath its boot. and again, i find the comparison between al qaida, al sadr and other professional militia outfits with the average gun owner in the US to be pretty disingenuous.

Yeah, definitely delusional.

I'm such a fucking idiot. If I would've kept my mouth shut nothing like this would have happen.

quote:

I would also like to point out that the US could have levelled iraq and killed everyone had it chosen to do so, which of course it didn�t because it wouldn't have been politically prudent to do so. Are you saying you expect this fictitious american despot to show similar restraint?

You can't rule a populace if it's dead. Since you would obviously surrender to this fictitious despot rather than resist, I would hope that your fellow citizens would at least have the luxury of owning one firearm to put a bullet in the back of a head of a traitor such as yourself, rather than having to go through the arduous task of beating you to death with half a dozen baseball bats.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne LOL, how is exactly US is firmly planted as ever?

oh, so the US isn't in the country any more? my mistake!

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne And all that accomplished against the strongest military force in the world by a bunch of guys who have AK-47's and RPG's. So yeah, it does work.

and yet, despite this the US is still there with no real signs of moving at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne What does that have to do with anything?

EVERYTHING, if you were capable of following your arguments through. firstly, the militia's in iraq have done far more damage to the country than they have the occupiers. so what youre really saying is that a US militia could stand up....and kill lots of other americans in the process. woohoo!

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne It doesn't really matter what happened in the 2nd war. The point made was clear - it is possible to overthrow a government from within with small arms even in modern times. I believe that is the example you were asking for.

no, its not close to an example i was asking for. the guerilla fighters of chechnya are a far cry from the average US citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Why don't you try Google instead. You seem to be chronically misinformed anyways, so you can get your fill of info in one fell swoop.

i just figured you might wish to provide another nonsensical and irrelevant examples to your mighty fine collection.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Ok. I would still rather have an armful of M-16's than a helicopter gunship, an armored vehicle or a tank.

right. so when the shit hits the fan you can defend the country against the shells pounding your house with your assault rifle. and you'll instantly connect, all "hive-mind" with all the other ragtag bunch of mercenaries and deliver pinpoint and organised resistance.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne It's not a pedantic point since you don't seem to grasp the concept that 21st century warfare doesn't involve lining up in rows and marching across an open field to attack tanks with bayonets. As a matter of fact, small arms like assault rifles and RPGs would be the preferred weapons in case of a rebellion in the 21st century.

as above. good luck trying to make war when you've already been killed by the howitzers miles away. good luck keeping that building upright by prying it up with your AK. perhaps it might prevent the phosperous from burning through to the bone? and lets not forget the glaringly obvious: good luck holding off the SAS (or the american equivalent) with the guys at your gun club.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Yeah, definitely delusional.

i know english probably isn't your first language, so i dont mind too much that simple concepts seem to be flying through to the keeper. you certainly speak better english than i do russian.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne You can't rule a populace if it's dead. Since you would obviously surrender to this fictitious despot rather than resist, I would hope that your fellow citizens would at least have the luxury of owning one firearm to put a bullet in the back of a head of a traitor such as yourself, rather than having to go through the arduous task of beating you to death with half a dozen baseball bats.

good to see that the russian concepts of free will and determination are as alive and well as ever!

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne You can't rule a populace if it's dead.

I don't think that was his point. Look at it this way: somehow the U.S. government and military go ballistic and decide to kill off a certain set of people. But a large portion of the population decides to resist.

The U.S. military, now being berserk and brutal, rounds up five hundred kids from local daycares and puts them in a well-guarded football stadium with TV cameras broadcasting nationally. They announce that in the event of any attack on any government facility, twenty kids will be killed. And twenty more for any subsequent attack. Just to show that they mean business, they take ten little kids out into the center of the football field and shred them up with machine gun fire.

How long do you think the populace is likely to resist with such an enemy?

In the west, we have the rule of law to prevent our governments from suddenly siezing control. The traditions and institutions of government and western democracy are what keeps tyrants at bay, not the local gun collector.

pages and pages of a misinterpreted generation of knowledge-hungry youth - soldiers of love and wisdom

i dont know you diggerz but i like your style!

quote:

I don't think that was his point. Look at it this way: somehow the U.S. government and military go ballistic and decide to kill off a certain set of people. But a large portion of the population decides to resist. The U.S. military, now being berserk and brutal, rounds up five hundred kids from local daycares and puts them in a well-guarded football stadium with TV cameras broadcasting nationally. They announce that in the event of any attack on any government facility, twenty kids will be killed. And twenty more for any subsequent attack. Just to show that they mean business, they take ten little kids out into the center of the football field and shred them up with machine gun fire. How long do you think the populace is likely to resist with such an enemy?

And what makes you think that US soldiers would execute that kind of order? And what makes you think that sort of thing wouldn't make your "average American" even more inclined to resist as much as possible?




PKC,

Since you live in Australia, I would actually advise you to loosen some gun laws seeing the problems that you have...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

quote:

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[28] In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[15] Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies.[29] The majority of firearm related deaths involved the use of hunting rifles, with their share being most pronounced in firearm suicides.[14]

Might as well just start legalizing them. At least you would give responsible citizens a chance to defend themselves too.

For now, I wouldn't worry about a malevolent government trying to rob the citizenry of its rights since Kevin Rudd doesn't seem to be that clever.

As it is, I bid you a good night.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne And what makes you think that US soldiers would execute that kind of order?

Nothing, of course, but I thought we were talking about a fantasy scenario where a Hitleresque or Stalinesque leader with blind and cruel followers takes hold of the U.S. In that case, the scenario or something very like it would fit.

quote:

And what makes you think that sort of thing wouldn't make your "average American" even more inclined to resist as much as possible?

Historical precedent. Resistance simply does not last very long in the face of collective punishment of the innocent.

The reason it gets used so little is that few people are psychotic enough to put it into practice and still live with themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN In the west, we have the rule of law to prevent our governments from suddenly siezing control. The traditions and institutions of government and western democracy are what keeps tyrants at bay, not the local gun collector.

Ah yes, the laws they write and pass themselves to override those principles. Whether its unauthorized surveillance or something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

The biggest threat to a civilized society is not guns, it's the people who place blind faith into the hands of their government. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne PKC, Since you live in Australia, I would actually advise you to loosen some gun laws seeing the problems that you have... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia Might as well just start legalizing them. At least you would give responsible citizens a chance to defend themselves too. For now, I wouldn't worry about a malevolent government trying to rob the citizenry of its rights since Kevin Rudd doesn't seem to be that clever. As it is, I bid you a good night.

what are you banging on about? you just told me that the buy-back scheme got a massive amount of unregistered firearms out of the hands of the populace. so what?

firearm use in crime is also miniscule compared to the US, and is also down compared to australia's history. the gun laws in australia are pointed to as an example of what can be achieved with strict gun control.

your "logic" confuses me

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne Ah yes, the laws they write and pass themselves to override those principles. Whether its unauthorized surveillance or something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84 The biggest threat to a civilized society is not guns, it's the people who place blind faith into the hands of their government. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

very true. however these are still a far cry from any situation we have invented here for ourselves. you just wouldnt be able to do what hitler did after assuming government in 33.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Nothing, of course, but I thought we were talking about a fantasy scenario where a Hitleresque or Stalinesque leader with blind and cruel followers takes hold of the U.S. In that case, the scenario or something very like it would fit.

Even the American Revolution happened over a taxation issue, a far cry from a despot terrorizing and enslaving the population. Should the US ever rebel, the impetus to do so will be far lighter than some dramatic despot seizing power. The lack of willingness of the military to execute obscene orders is a major component of the resistance.

quote:

Historical precedent. Resistance simply does not last very long in the face of collective punishment of the innocent. The reason it gets used so little is that few people are psychotic enough to put it into practice and still live with themselves.

True, but there have been a large number of cases where exactly the opposite happened. I suspect that given the American national character that surrender would not be an option.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne The lack of willingness of the military to execute obscene orders is a major component of the resistance.

so why then does the citizenry need to be armed?

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