For your consideration.
For your consideration.
Right, great idea. While we're at it, I hate it when people bash the military, they're giving so much to the nation, why should they have to endure hate from the people they protect? We should make that illegal too. Oh and I find rape to be a particularly heinous crime, I think we should use waterboarding on rapists to discourage rape. While we're at that, let's use it for police interrogation too. I bet if we gave the police free use of waterboarding and didn't require they charge people with a crime to hold them we could easily reduce crime 50%, maybe even more!Originally Posted by Lallante
How many people believe in X has every indicator and is the most important factor when it comes to civil liberties. If the people believe they have the right to do X, and the people who believe in it number in significantly large numbers, enough to change the polls at an election, then clearly the number of people who believe in X very much so does matter.
Your first response is so weak I'm not going to even bother.Right, great idea. While we're at it, I hate it when people bash the military, they're giving so much to the nation, why should they have to endure hate from the people they protect? We should make that illegal too. Oh and I find rape to be a particularly heinous crime, I think we should use waterboarding on rapists to discourage rape. While we're at that, let's use it for police interrogation too. I bet if we gave the police free use of waterboarding and didn't require they charge people with a crime to hold them we could easily reduce crime 50%, maybe even more!
How many people believe in X has every indicator and is the most important factor when it comes to civil liberties. If the people believe they have the right to do X, and the people who believe in it number in significantly large numbers, enough to change the polls at an election, then clearly the number of people who believe in X very much so does matter.
Your second response, only marginally less weak, is confusing whether something matters IN PRACTICE with whether it SHOULD matter.
More than likely, you don't have a response. Just because you claim that the Second Amendment wasn't meant for modern firearms doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you. Obviously everyone doesn't since I'm currently an owner of two pistols.Your first response is so weak I'm not going to even bother.Right, great idea. While we're at it, I hate it when people bash the military, they're giving so much to the nation, why should they have to endure hate from the people they protect? We should make that illegal too. Oh and I find rape to be a particularly heinous crime, I think we should use waterboarding on rapists to discourage rape. While we're at that, let's use it for police interrogation too. I bet if we gave the police free use of waterboarding and didn't require they charge people with a crime to hold them we could easily reduce crime 50%, maybe even more!
How many people believe in X has every indicator and is the most important factor when it comes to civil liberties. If the people believe they have the right to do X, and the people who believe in it number in significantly large numbers, enough to change the polls at an election, then clearly the number of people who believe in X very much so does matter.
Your second response, only marginally less weak, is confusing whether something matters IN PRACTICE with whether it SHOULD matter.
I only suggest that since today's world is so different that clearly the founding fathers could have never understood the world as it is today that maybe we need to just throw the entire thing out the window. In the 18th century wars were fought over land and resources and for all the wars the US saw in the 18th and 19th centuries they were all on US soil(save for parts of the Mexican American war) and I doubt that the founding fathers could have ever envisioned a world with so much media coverage.
Obviously I don't actually believe that. I think the founding fathers were quite certain where their liberties might lead people. I seriously doubt that they didn't understand that technology can advance since some of them created some of the greatest advancements of their field. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" I think Ben Franklin knew exactly what he was talking about with that. I think he knew that as technology advances that the law he helped lay down might change in meaning but he still paved the way and wrote that law.
If you can't understand that the Bill of Rights protects all of your civil liberties and to infringe upon one or to just casually toss to the side part of that document only invites us to infringe upon all of them. I belive John Adams(oh look another founding father!) found that one out the hard way.
You seem to have to incorrect impression that I wrote "How many people believe X does not matter". But I didn't.
I wrote How many people believe X has no indicator whatsoever that the reasoning behind it is also right.
Do I really need to explain to you the difference?
Of course is telling lies loud and often enough that a lot of people, who are too lazy to check them, believe them an effective political strategy to get people to vote for you* (Exhibit A: The Republican party), but no matter how many blindly believe what you* say, it does not make it true or your* fallacious arguments flawless facts.
*And before we get a 'Nicho Void' here again, no, I do not mean YOU personally here.
I do not really know if I should gobecause that statement is so rediculous or
because you apparently believe it (pleasebeatrollpleasebeatrollpleasebeatroll).
Basically all predictions from 50 years ago about "the world of tomorrow" fell pretty much flat, but the supermen-genius-founding-fathers (or sgff) could reliably predict the future in 200 years? Rrrrrrright.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 27 2012 at 03:26:45 PM.
Heh, the whole point to this forum is to debate things intelligently. I think it's fair to say that unless you say something along the lines of "Cue is a massive faggot and retard and I think we should burn him at the stake" I'm not going to take it personally.That's part of intelligent discussion.
Right and wrong mean nothing for civil liberties. This very discussion is an excellent argument. Americans believe that gun ownership is a right granted by the very founding document of our government. Europeans believe that gun ownership is something terrible and that the government should have a monopoly on violence(obviously these are sweeping generalizations, both areas have proponents to either side). These are two very different schools of thought but neither the US or Europe as a whole would have anywhere near the power they do if one was wrong and one was right. If gun ownership was completely wrong then the US would have a population of 4 and a GDP of $2 because we'd all be too busy killing each other for the sport of it to actually make money. Likewise, if it was the way to go, then Europe would just be a totalitarian middle-of-no-where-no-one-gives-a-fuck-land.
The fact is that for civil liberties who and how many believe it IS a civil liberty does make it right. You're completely right that in any other given situation who believes something doesn't make it right. There are 1.6billion Muslims in the world, that doesn't make them right, and likewise there are more than 2billion Christians in the world, that still doesn't make them right. However, if a vast majority of a country believes that they have the right to do something then they do. If that wasn't true then white, male, land owning citizens of the US would be the only ones with the power to vote.
That's funny. No seriously, it is. Gun technology from the 17th century forward was always focused on attempting to make guns fire faster. Time and time again people tried to figure out ways to make guns fire faster and faster. Shorting the reload process, compacting more and more of the needed ingredients together so as to be easier to put down the barrel and eventually self-containing it all. That was the goal of modern firearms manufacturers of the time. 200 years later, guess what, guns fire faster. You can't seriously believe that since all the technological development in firearms was focused in a faster rate of fire that they expected guns to continue to fire at a rate of one shot per 60 seconds?I do not really know if I should go
Basically all predictions from 50 years ago about "the world of tomorrow" fell pretty much flat, but the supermen-genius-founding-fathers (or sgff) could reliably predict the future in 200 years? Rrrrrrright.
Last edited by Cue1*; July 27 2012 at 03:45:11 PM.
"if personal handgun ownership was wrong, EVERYONE WOULD BE DEAD. Everyone ISNT dead, so therefore personal handgun ownership CANT BE WRONG"
All you've shown is that gun control or lack thereof wont end civilisation, it doesnt mean it isnt (morally/politically) right or wrong.
The thing you still miss is that I am not talking about civil liberties. As in "should they be granted or not".
I am perfectly neutral there. If I would have to pick a side there I would go with the anti-gun side because their arguments are not bullshit, but I do not care what happens in the US. It does not effect me. I am not arguing if there should be a change.
I am arguing about the validity of the arguments used by the pro-gun side. If they would go "Guns have some 'bad' effects, but we think they are worth them because of liberty, lifestyle and crying eagles" I would be perfectly fine with them. The have an opinion, they do not twist the truth about their reasoning or spread misinformation and give people an unmanipulated choice which side to choose.
However they don't. They go "Guns have no effect whatsoever in certain death rates, if anything they prevent them. USA! USA! USA!". With that, I have issues. I see it morally in no way less reprehensible as the "There is no evidence whatsoever that smoking causes cancer" misinformation campaign of the tobacco lobby of a few decades ago.
Guns do not exist in a vacuum. 200 years ago a unit with guns could beat even the most hightech device at that time, the cannon. Now this is another story however. You want to claim that the founding fathers could foresee jet planes (or even just a 1st world war bomber), tanks and tomahawk missiles, nevermind the atom bomb?That's funny. No seriously, it is. Gun technology from the 17th century forward was always focused on attempting to make guns fire faster. Time and time again people tried to figure out ways to make guns fire faster and faster....
If you would have limited the civilian population 200 years ago to bow and arrows they would then still have been better armed for a "freedom fight" against the government than the population is today with firearms.
This is an incorrect perception of war. War, ultimately, is won and lost by the infantry. Everything else, artillery, air support, tanks, are all in support of the infantry. A populace armed with rifles represents a large, albeit poorly-equipped infantry. The purpose of all the high-tech tools of war you mentioned is to blunt the infantry, to attack them asymmetrically, to kill them before they reach their effective range. However, in the end all war is around the footsoldier. Aircraft need airfields, tanks need maintenance and supply lines for both fuel and ammunition. Any mechanized unit is orders of magnitude more vulnerable to having their supply lines cut than an infantry unit.
Arming the populace does present a moderate, albeit bloody, chance at victory in a revolt against the government, even without the legalization of heavy anti-armor muntions, MANPADS, or other specialized weaponry.
-O
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
It is. But still we use it. And spend very large amounts of money for it.
Yes, ultimately, war is won and lost by the infantry. However, infantry without that support is extremely vulnerable. Which is why we have it, despite it being vulnerable and expensive.
The independence war wasn't exactly a easy pushover of the enemy forces and there the revolutionary side had the home advantage and a far smaller power difference between population and military.
And you say now they have a chance to defeat a military which has the same home advantage and which is far better equipped? You, sure, about as much as the Taliban has a chance to throw the US troops out of their own country. Or like the rebels in Libya were able to do anything but retreat till they got air support from Europe and the US.
A war is ultimately won by the infantry. But only if you keep it alive. Which you cannot do without all these little toys which civilians cannot own.
In a modern context, I believe the primary benefit of civilians owning guns is that it would force the army to engage them in a fight, producing a violent conflict against American civilians that most American solders are unlikely to obey orders to engage in.It is. But still we use it. And spend very large amounts of money for it.
Yes, ultimately, war is won and lost by the infantry. However, infantry without that support is extremely vulnerable. Which is why we have it, despite it being vulnerable and expensive.
The independence war wasn't exactly a easy pushover of the enemy forces and there the revolutionary side had the home advantage and a far smaller power difference between population and military.
And you say now they have a chance to defeat a military which has the same home advantage and which is far better equipped? You, sure, about as much as the Taliban has a chance to throw the US troops out of their own country. Or like the rebels in Libya were able to do anything but retreat till they got air support from Europe and the US.
A war is ultimately won by the infantry. But only if you keep it alive. Which you cannot do without all these little toys which civilians cannot own.
Without said weapons, there would be no fight. The army would gain control with little more than a very large policing action.
It's the reverse of the gun regulation argument (which I support). The idea is to make it difficult to do, not impossible to do. The more bloody and difficult, the more likely the solders are to say "fuck this, I'm siding with mum and dad"
A policing action only works if your targets comply. You can threaten to shoot them and do so if they do not stop, but then you have your fight.
It isn't really different to what would happen if everyone had a gun. Do you think they would let a gun wielding horde en route to lynch the president travel till they can use their weapons? Artillery and rockets would disperse them before they can even use their rifles if they do not react on calls to turn away.
Even if a population had only fists they could force the military rather quickly into firing on them. What would you do as garrison commander if half the city (or even only 1/10th of it) is driving towards you to throw you out of town? Even if their biggest weapon is a crowbar you have realistically only 2 options - get out or open fire.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 27 2012 at 06:24:06 PM.
A policing action only works if your targets comply. You can threaten to shoot them and do so if they do not stop, but then you have your fight.
It isn't really different to what would happen if everyone had a gun. Do you think they would let a gun wielding horde en route to lynch the president travel till they can use their weapons? Artillery and rockets would disperse them before they can even use their rifles if they do not react on calls to turn away.
An unarmed mob can be dealt with via water-cannon, rubber bullets and ketteling. All of which are non-lethal and well within the boundaries of an extended policing action. These are likely to be met with little more than light condemnation.
An armed mob needs to be dealt with through deadly force. As you said, Rockets and Artillery. Once this happens we are at the point of American soldiers being ordered to kill American civilians en masse. American solders are required to disobey orders of this nature.
I would also ask that you read posts a little more closely. Your rebuttal actually reinforces my point, which makes me think you didn't actually read it and instead just saw someone disagreeing with you, then cherry picked a few words out of it so that you could regurgitate an argument you were having with someone else.
I think you grossly underestimate the volume of people. If a sizable amount of your population rebels even if you put every single military person on a water cannon you won't be able to suppress it. You won't have that many water cannons, of course.
With reserves the US has 3 million military personnel. If 20% of the population was rebelling and noone in the military would switch sides that would have a 20:1 disadvantage. Good luck suppressing that with non-lethal means.
Also, accusing someone not to have read 3 lines of text. Seriously?
They are also required to disobey orders to attack unarmed civilians. So what will you do when your small stock of non-lethal bullets runs out and your water cannons do not work because the water supply to your base has been cut days ago by the population?American solders are required to disobey orders of this nature.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 27 2012 at 06:56:21 PM.
I chose the least insulting option.I think you grossly underestimate the volume of people. If a sizable amount of your population rebels even if you put every single military person on a water cannon you won't be able to suppress it. You won't have that many water cannons, of course.
With reserves the US has 3 million military personnel. If 20% of the population was rebelling and noone in the military would switch sides that would have a 20:1 disadvantage. Good luck suppressing that with non-lethal means.
Also, accusing someone not to have read 3 lines of text. Seriously?
The alternative was that you did read it and posted a counter argument that actually reinforced my point. I prefer not to assume stupidity in others. It runs counter to good debating.
And I prefer if people avoid circular reasoning and not write a response which is basically "You are wrong, it happens like I said it it does, what you wrote just reinforces my point. Because, you know, you are wrong.".
If you think "Artillery and rockets would disperse them before they can even use their rifles" reinforces your point then you should take your own advice and read the posts you quote. What do you think "A war is ultimately won by the infantry. But only if you keep it alive." means? The military hugging the revolting civilian infantry?
Of course armed civilians will get shot at. How is repeating what I already said "reinforcing your point"?
But the issue is - so will unarmed ones. At least if you do not want to retreat, but that is also an option against armed civilians. Your problem is that you assume that any amount of people can just be dispersed magically by non-lethal means. Except we are not talking about a smallish 1000 (or 10.000) people demonstration getting "a little violent".
Last edited by Aramendel; July 27 2012 at 07:22:30 PM.
Again, when thinking about an armed revolution within the United States you cannot frame it in terms of normal warfare.
Any order to engage American civilians would be met with serious resistance amongst the regular army and would probably fall on deaf ears for the national guard and the reserves. That cuts pretty far into your combat ready troops available immediately domestically as well as logistics.
If that order is fulfilled by some portion of the army big or small you are most likely looking at an armed revolution lead by military unit who no longer recognize either the legislative branch, executive branch, or both.
But lets forget about that. Lets say the entirety of the military drinks the koolaid. Even then their hands are tied. They wont fulfill orders that endanger their own families. They can't bomb city's because the country will go broke. They can't kill many people because they need the income tax.
All any armed revolution in the US needs to do is trade time for power. Every day conditions worsen for the neutral regular citizen the revolutions numbers swell. They dont even have to fire many shots. All they have to do is not pay their taxes. Not go to work at their government jobs. Sabotage from the inside. Inspire some nice civil disobedience in our nice shiny red tape jungle and everything grinds to a halt.
I don't know where you guys are getting these grandiose skirmishes and battles from. Nothing of the kind would ever happen. You simply can't have American soldiers engaging in those kinds of fights much less get them to do it in the first place.
However, the weapons are needed in case something or someone needs to be attacked, blown up, or otherwise violenced.
I like how they included the spike in "Shall Issue" States right around the beginning of the decline. Shame they're almost transparent grey and almost unnoticed. Also find it interesting that the AWB and Brady Act didn't even speed bump the number of owned firearms.
Image was taken from a cite showing the correlations between the deaths and firearm ownership and so on. Interestingly, this chart starts just as violence was increasing. It had been in a major decline just before.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/0...cs_matter.html
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/0...he-second.html
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...-part-two.html
Also, another long term chart. You'll notice a spike in the mid 90's but overall a general reduction over time. Note that these are HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides. You'll also notice rifle and shotgun decreases long before the AWB which specifically targeted long rifles.
Effectiveness of Brady Bill = Poor: http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf
Peer reviewed study on the Gunshow Loophole or rather why it's fluff: http://closup.umich.edu/research/wor...pt08-final.pdf
Yeah, that graph linked by FourFiftyFour is incredibly biased. Between the use of color selection (Human eye sensitivity peaks at green, using that color for the trend you want to emphasize is an old trick) to the placement of labels (Helpfully also placed on the trend you want to emphasize) and the fact that it doesn't even start at 0 (Amplifying the apparent magnitude of the changes presented), it's doing everything it can to point a giant neon sign at 'look here see legislation works!' without even touching the steady decline in per-capita gun deaths since the beginning of the chart, the sharp drop at/around 1993 (Which coincides with but may not be caused by the increase in shall-issue states.), or pointing out how incredibly minor those changes actually are compared to the total.I like how they included the spike in "Shall Issue" States right around the beginning of the decline. Shame they're almost transparent grey and almost unnoticed. Also find it interesting that the AWB and Brady Act didn't even speed bump the number of owned firearms.
Image was taken from a cite showing the correlations between the deaths and firearm ownership and so on. Interestingly, this chart starts just as violence was increasing. It had been in a major decline just before.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/0...cs_matter.html
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/0...he-second.html
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...-part-two.html
Also, another long term chart. You'll notice a spike in the mid 90's but overall a general reduction over time. Note that these are HOMICIDES, and do not include suicides. You'll also notice rifle and shotgun decreases long before the AWB which specifically targeted long rifles.
Spoiler:
Effectiveness of Brady Bill = Poor: http://www.guncite.com/JAMABradysurvey.pdf
Peer reviewed study on the Gunshow Loophole or rather why it's fluff: http://closup.umich.edu/research/wor...pt08-final.pdf
-O
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
My 2 germancents on the "guns are needed to overthrow a government":
If the population starts to use armed force against government forces (police/military) it will not help their cause. Attacking an unarmed civilian population with lethal force is an entirely different thing than attack armed rebels who are wanting to:
a) shooting you and your comrades
b) ambushing you and your comrades
c) blowing you and your comrades up with IEDs
If the population uses lethal force, there is no more black and white, innocents on both sides will get killed, the military is less likely to side completely with the population, resulting in civil war.
Civil disobiediance, strikes, demonstrations might be the better way to overthrow a western government.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks