1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Please be courteous to staff and post NEW threads for NEW Issues, instead of posting them in threads that are not related to said issue.

2nd amendment / gun discussion thread: Keep it in here

Discussion in 'Politics' started by LogrusMage, Nov 20, 2008.

  1. Hadoren

    Hadoren High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    500
    I agree with Immolo. The whole argument that "we can beat the military if we have machine guns" is a bunch of bullcrap. The army has heat-seeking missiles, tanks, bullet-proof armor, planes that can bomb you a mile high in the sky, artillery that can kill you from so far you can't see it, and nuclear weapons.

    Of course, the army's unlikely to shoot down American citizens. After all, it's composed of American citizens. That's why the way to deal with an army is massive, peaceful resistance. If the army shoots into a peaceful protesting crowd that doesn't shoot back, that does far more for your cause than fighting ever will. That's how the Soviet Union fell, after all. Quoting Darius
    The army would feel far more justified killing 50,000 protesters waving machine guns than killing 50,000 protesters waving signs. And many more Americans would support that.
     
  2. Darius

    Darius 13/m/box

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,582
    Location:
    The Octagon - Say that to my face and not online m
    What the fuck don't people get about this? Nuclear weapons? Are you serious?
     
  3. Krogan

    Krogan Alien in a Hat Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    130
    Location:
    Texas
    High Score:
    2,719
    I actually have to agree with Darius on this, nuclear weapons? Are you fucking retarded? Short of the end of the goddamn world, American nuclear weapons will never be used against the American populace or on American soil no matter what the reason. Next we come into the next most simple factor which is collateral damage, setting aside the fact that with the exception of a few stonecold psychos the American military would not actively fight American civilians the government would never use half the crap you keep spouting off about for the simple fact that its their country too and if they blow it to hell to quell a rebellion they kind of shot themselves in the foot there.
     
  4. Wizard Giller

    Wizard Giller Slug Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    california
    In regards to guns, I don't have one and i don't particularly want one. The only reason I would want one is if i lived in a neighborhood where I didn't feel safe. If I lived in east LA for example, i'd want one simply for insurance incase i ran across an illegal alien criminal totting a semi he brought over the border with him. The fact that situations like this are far too common in the US is why I am a supporter of the second amendment. The entire argument that we need guns to protect ourselves from our government is ludicrous. There are far more effective ways for us to enact change rather than at gun point. Gun point would never work anyway as you guys already said.

    Also Midknight, why do you so shamelessly quash Logrus' 1st ammendment rights? :) He's not hurting anyone. Since you think he's an idiot why not use reason to rebut his arguments and show him to be the moron you believe him to be. Maybe you can re-educate him and make him a productive member of society and our forums? To be honest you're coming off as a Nazi to his Jew on these boards from my pov.

    So ends my stream of conscious and possibly retarded thought tonight, have a good weekend folks.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 21, 2008
  5. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,801
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    The second you open the link to these forums you surrender your rights. Your freedom around these forums is pretty much the staff's discretion and if you act like a dickwad, they're gonna be revoked.

     
  6. Warlocke

    Warlocke Prisoner

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,819
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The armpit of Ohio
    They're not talking about a friggin' flash mob.

    A nationwide rebellion doesn't just start all of a sudden, or even overnight. If the government overheard something about a group of people fomenting rebellion, they would Go Go to Gitmo. :awesome People could, in fact, 'get disappeared'.

    No masterminds = no widescale rebellion. If you wipe out the few people starting the trouble in the first place, you never find yourself in a situation where you have to make everyone disappear.
     
  7. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,801
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    Which is anti-gun. Just like banning "Fire" in a crowded theater or "Death threats" against the President is anti-Free Speech. You give the government an inch and they'll hang you with it.

    Might also interest you to know the word is that this new bill will ban whole shotgun and rifle calibers, not just the fancy plastic stocks and magazines they went after last time.
     
  8. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Location:
    The Mouth of Ports
    High Score:
    9,373
    I'd just like to point out that there are bombs that can do a hell of a lot of damage without the side-effect of irradiating the area for the next thousand years. Air-fuel bombs are the major example, then you have precision bombing, bunker-busters, the MOAB, and then just the traditional napalm and cluster bombs.

    All of those are pretty much uncounterable by even the biggest gun nuts because most of them are dropped by planes that can evade even the best fortified air-defence stations. Stealth bombers, super-sonic jets, and heavy bombers the size of small sky scrapers. All of them piloted by the best pilots in the world, all of whom don't have to deal with the pesky guilt of watching men die because they're so far off the ground that those men might as well be ants.

    Also, the American military operates by turning ordinary men and women into automatons that have no qualms about shooting people. They are not driven by emotion, they are thoroughly trained to follow orders from higher up and would almost certainly have no problem with killing American citizens if the orders were made in a manner that suggested treason. After all, the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side of the fence you're on. It would basically turn into a PR campaign if it ever happened, so the best thing you can do is to prevent it from happening in the first place, and the best way to do that is through the established legal channels.
     
  9. Blaise

    Blaise Golden Patronus

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    6,195
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    I think the point that Hadoren was trying to make with bringing up nuclear weapons, was that the government has a helluva lot more funds/resources backing them if there was ever a mob vs. military situation. Nuclear weapons are simply a deterrent nowadays, but that's against other countries' armed forces.

    In this hypothetical situation, it would be the government's idea of a deterrent, i.e. nuclear weapons, versus the civilian idea of a deterrent...an AK-47.

    Please excuse me while I LOL.

    Yes, but we're talking about what amounts to a civil war. I've yet to meet a pilot that doesn't have friends/family; you tell a pilot of a war machine that they have to bomb the area where their family and friends are, and see where they end up pointing the missles.

    Again, the way that these military men are trained are based on the premise that they're defending the American people and their families. Tell them that their family is now the "enemy", and I'll bet that the results wouldn't be nearly as cut and dry as a scenario pitting American soldiers against foreign opponents.

    If we were talking about police officers (who go through a different regimen of conditioning to do their job), then we know how such a scenario would turn out.
     
  10. World

    World Oberstgruppenführer Moderator DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,176
    Location:
    Axis of Evil (Original)
    Since I'm by far not the only one annoyed by the clusterfuck that every thread becomes as soon as guns are mentioned, all gun discussion will be confined to this thread. Any post in any other thread in this subforum will be moved here or deleted, unless it is within the context of the original discussion.

    (Yes, I know Logrus is banned. Still.)

    So, post each other to death, gun nuts and freedom haters alike ;)
     
  11. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Location:
    The Mouth of Ports
    High Score:
    9,373
    Fair point, though the training they go through does more than simply train them to shoot a weapon. There is a fundamental difference between a person who can shoot a man without hesitation to an ordinary civilian. Most gun crimes are not premeditated, cold, rational attempts at murder. Would you agree on this? Because soldiers are trained to do exactly that, so much so that it's frankly quite scary.

    Soldiers in the modern world are not fighting for an ideology, they fight because they are ordered to. That is why I believe that a lot of soldiers would be more than capable of fighting against a rebelling civilian populace if they were told to.

    One extra point in favour of this would be the effect a mob would have on the soldiers, because no rebellion would form without becoming a mob (or several). Mob behaviour is a phenomenon that sociologists are still pondering over, because when a group of people form a mob it takes on an extra... personality (for lack of a better word) that makes it so much more dangerous than just a group of people. However, it's the other side of the fence that I'm looking at. When faced with a mob from the point of the military, the mind classifies it as a threat, not as a bunch of people who have lives, families, friends...

    I'm finding it hard to articulate this in the right way, but the way I see it is that when faced with a mob, soldiers would not be thinking of the individuals within it. They would see an armed force that is trying to kill them, and would respond accordingly. A few would defect, of course, but the sheer number of people that would be involved in a rebellion of the scale we're discussing would mean that no person could think of it as family... See what I mean when I say I can't articulate it yet?

    Bah, I'm gonna go think on it a bit, dissect my argument while I try to do that.
     
  12. Nukular Winter

    Nukular Winter The Chosen One DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,216
    Location:
    Seattle
    If you don't have a gun and you don't train with them, what on Earth makes you believe that you could use one effectively during an emergency against an armed adversary?

    Oh, and could you try to cram any more retarded stereotypes into one hypothetical?
     
  13. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,801
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    This is a stupid argument that's made all the time and needs to stop. Modern armies can't fight insurgencies. The Israelies can't, the US can't, the English can't, the Colombians can't, the Cubans couldn't - no one can.

    When the people revolt, they generally win. Vietcong, PIRA, Hizbullah and the state of Cuba & Ireland and whatever faction won in Colombia are all living testaments to this.

    It looks unbalanced on paper, and it is, but real life results shoot down the concept entirely.
     
  14. Nukular Winter

    Nukular Winter The Chosen One DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,216
    Location:
    Seattle
    You've misapplied the lessons learned from your "real life" examples. What history shows is that foreign, *occupying* armies haven't been able to eradicate insurgent forces who enjoy the support of the local public (That's not to say that they can't beat them, which is what you're implying, because the proper military force almost always does).

    And it's not as though an insurgency can ever win an outright victory, in fact it's been remarked that the American Army never lost a single battle in Vietnam. The best result for a guerilla force is to last long enough that the invaders decide to leave. Not really applicable in this discussion...
     
  15. Aekiel

    Aekiel Angle of Mispeling Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Location:
    The Mouth of Ports
    High Score:
    9,373
    It doesn't help that the longer the occupying force stays there the more people are willing to join the insurgents' cause.
     
  16. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,801
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    I don't think you understand my real life examples very well then, since in Cuba, Colombia, (arguably) Ireland and Lebanon it was the domestic government and military they rose against.

    ... I'm not implying it, it's a fact. The Irish Republican Army fought a three year insurgency, the Anglo-Irish war, and expelled the British army. Cuba should be a well-known example, as the government there was sent into exile, Lebanon and Colombia I'm less familiar with but the general concept holds in that I'm pretty sure they were both domestic and both more or less have autonomy. Also look up the Zapatistas.

    That's just pure revisionism, man. Many insurgencies have won wars outright not to mention numerous battles (including most recently in Iraq). Related reading material.
     
  17. Nukular Winter

    Nukular Winter The Chosen One DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,216
    Location:
    Seattle
    So...

    Your position is that it's possible for citizens to overthrow the American government by defeating the military, as long as they've got access to AR-15s and high-cap mags?

    Because I've heard the argument before, but it's generally only made by Mall Ninjas, wacky militia types, and people who beat off to Soldier of Fortune Magazine.

    Personally, I think that the ability to put a Tomahawk through your kitchen window from hundreds of miles away is going to trump everything in your basement armory (then again, I work for the DoD so I might be a tiny bit biased).
     
  18. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,801
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    My position is that futility isn't a reason to wipe your ass with the constitution. My personal views on rebellion don't really apply.
     
  19. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,322
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    Personally I want to take Scalia's definition of a 'prefatory clause' and apply it to the entirety of the Federalist Papers and to the US Constitution and then see how many of his opinions cite such supposedly meaningless filler.

    But that aside, I think that every citizen should be allowed to have weapons grade small pox just in case the US Government becomes too oppressive.
     
  20. Taure

    Taure Magical Core Enthusiast Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    941
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    High Score:
    13,152
    The line between civil disobedience and revolution is one of scale. I don't think any western country has the mindset that would make them leave their comfortable lives to revolt, and so any resistance against a government in the west will be limited and thus portrayed as civil disobedience/terrorism.
     
Loading...