|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Should a private citizen be able to own...  [Re: Xlea321]
#2390914 - 03/01/04 01:01 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
To be honest I'm struggling with the whole idea that small arms protect you from tyrants. Has there ever been an example where armed citizens have fought off tyrants?
yes. many. don't dodge the question.
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2391137 - 03/01/04 02:19 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
someone defends themself from the nazis so they go after you -the easy target- instead. sorry, but they've got a right to defend themself
Even if that means certain death for my wife and kids? Where does that lie on the old neocon "no right to use force against someone" theory?
someone defends themself from the nazis so they go after you -the easy target
No, they kill the asshole who fired his 5 bullets at them, then kill everyone in the village for his stupidity. At least there were some survivors of the concentration camps.
the old monarchies didn't just volunteer to hand over their power you know.
Anything within the last hundred years or so?
the vietnamese were able to kick out first the french, then the americans, with small arms, though these countries had superior technology including fighter aircraft
But that wasn't really because of armed citizens letting fly at the americans from their huts was it. It was an organised army launching enormous offensives like Tet.
same is true of the afghans, who booted the soviets out of their country using small arms
Those US stinger missiles helped an awful lot tho..
the nazis banned private gun ownership on March 18, 1938. look it up.
Think we've been over this one before mush. From what I remember the Nazi's didn't introduce much that hadn't already been passed by the Weimar republic in 1928. And seeing as Hitler had already been in power for 5 years by then gun control certainly wasn't one of his priorities.
|
 JameZTheNewbie
The Mahatma OfZalu
Registered: 05/24/02
Posts: 736
Loc: pass the gates of hell 2 ...
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2391163 - 03/01/04 02:26 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
NO
YES
NO
--------------------
Mice have feelings
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2391224 - 03/01/04 02:43 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Even if that means certain death for my wife and kids? Where does that lie on the old neocon "no right to use force against someone" theory?
huh? if a person is attacked, they have a right to defend themself, even if it will cause the attacking party to attack others in retribution.
Anything within the last hundred years or so?
vietnam and afghanistan are recent examples of native forces with small arms overpowering large, technologically advanced enemies. it can happen and it does work.
Those US stinger missiles helped an awful lot tho..
they certainly did.
From what I remember the Nazi's didn't introduce much that hadn't already been passed by the Weimar republic in 1928.
gun control was law in germany when the genocide against the jews was being carried out. while i can admit that it wasn't essential for the "final solution", and probably didn't weaken the jews very much (they were not exactly well-armed or of a martial character even before the laws), the fact still remains that gun control was a nazi policy, and that hitler himself thought it necessary.
" Der gr??te Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen k?nnte, sei der, den unterworfenen V?lkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, da? alle Herrenv?lker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten."
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
--- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.
[Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
the myth of nazi gun control
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2391233 - 03/01/04 02:46 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
where would you draw the line??
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2391244 - 03/01/04 02:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I think he already gave an indication of where his line would be drawn...
Quote:
Alex123 said:
At least there were some survivors of the concentration camps.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2391730 - 03/01/04 05:18 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
huh? if a person is attacked, they have a right to defend themself, even if it will cause the attacking party to attack others in retribution.
Don't be stupid. If by your actions you cause the death of hundreds of men, women and children who otherwise have a chance of life what right have you to do so? If you want to kill yourself for fucks sake get as far away from the village as you can before launching your "attack". At least that way you don't take everyone else down with you.
vietnam and afghanistan are recent examples of native forces with small arms overpowering large, technologically advanced enemies
You're dodging the question. As I've already explained they were both well equipped armies backed by superpowers. Not civilians.
they certainly did.
Exactly. It wasn't small arms. Incidentally you've already mentioned you wouldn't allow civilians anything like stinger missiles so what point are you trying to make?
the fact still remains that gun control was a nazi policy
Well as I've pointed out it was the Weimar republic who introduced gun control. If only they had done so sooner it is doubtful Hitler could ever have attained power. Having millions of armed men under his control gave him a power and influence he could never have attained otherwise.
and that hitler himself thought it necessary
No shit. Not arming the people you've just fought a war with is pretty obvious. I assumed we were talking about gun control in countries that arn't currently under military occupation by "conquerors" as Hitler put it.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2391734 - 03/01/04 05:20 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
where would you draw the line??
Seeing as you were unable to provide a single example of a handgun armed populace fighting off tyrants it appears no guns at all still makes the most sense. I was hoping you could provide a reason to suggest otherwise.
Maybe there's some other valid arguments why people should carry guns but the "fighting off tyrants" idea would appear to be bullshit.
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2391789 - 03/01/04 05:42 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Seeing as you were unable to provide a single example of a handgun armed populace fighting off tyrants it appears no guns at all still makes the most sense. I was hoping you could provide a reason to suggest otherwise.
One ghetto in Germany the Jews managed to do so, I forget the name, I'll try to find it. Why is this just limited to handguns?
Quote:
Maybe there's some other valid arguments why people should carry guns but the "fighting off tyrants" idea would appear to be bullshit.
I know personally that if a tyrant were to take over in America, I'd use my guns, so I can say with 100% surity that I, at least have that option.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2391791 - 03/01/04 05:44 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting take on the "Hitler was for gun control" theory from (amusingly enough) a neo-nazi:
Is Gun Control a Nazi Scheme?
With gun owners increasingly aware of the Jewish leadership of the gun-banning
movement, a group of Jews in Milwaukee claiming to be defenders of the Second
Amendment have been noisily denouncing gun control as a "Nazi" scheme. The group,
calling themselves Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, assert that Adolf
Hitler was the father of all gun grabbers. The proof of this, they claim, was the German
Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938, which was enacted by Germany's
National Socialist government. They have succeeded in persuading at least one magazine
read by firearms enthusiasts to publicize their claims repeatedly (Guns and Ammo, May
1993 and March 1994).
The truth of the matter is that the 1938 German law specifically provided for the ownership
and carrying of firearms, including handguns, by law-abiding German citizens. Jews, of
course, were not German citizens -- the National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic
terms -- and the law specifically barred Jews from having any role in the manufacture of
firearms or ammunition or from being firearms dealers (but not from purchasing or owning
firearms).
The German law certainly was not an ideal one from the viewpoint of today's beleaguered
American patriot, because it did have certain licensing requirements. A permit
(Waffenerwerbschein) was required to buy a handgun (but not a long gun), and a separate
license (Waffenschein), good for three years, was required to carry any firearm in public.
Actually, the German law was less restrictive than most state and local laws in the United
States were before the current campaign to nullify the Second Amendment shifted into high
gear in 1993. More significantly, it ameliorated a law which had been enacted ten years
earlier by a Left-Center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government
headed by Wilhelm Marx and consisting of a coalition of Socialists and Catholic Centrists).
The 1938 law irritated the Jews by pointedly excluding them from the firearms business,
but it clearly was not a law aimed at preventing the ownership or use of firearms, including
handguns, for either sporting or self-defense purposes by German citizens. As noted
above, it actually relaxed or eliminated the provisions of a pre-existing law.
The facts, in brief, are these:
* The National Socialist government of Germany did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was
the most popular leader Germany has ever had.
* The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and
self-reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave.
The notion of banning firearms ownership was alien to National Socialism.
* Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by
an anti-National Socialist government in Germany five years before the National Socialists
gained power. Five years after they gained power they got around to rewriting the gun law
enacted by their predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example,
long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun
ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; and the period of validity of a permit to carry
weapons was extended from one to three years). They may be criticized for leaving certain
restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but they had no intention of preventing
law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms.
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Diversity/Diversity-PierceVsJPFOOnNaziGunControl.htm
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2391808 - 03/01/04 05:48 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
Seeing as you were unable to provide a single example of a handgun armed populace fighting off tyrants...
So what happened to rifles? Now it's only pistols that count? Why exclude .50 caliber bolt action rifles (they're pretty good for picking off despots and their minions at a long range)? Why exclude .308 autoloaders (they make excellent hunting rifles as well as working efficiently on jack-booted thugs)?
Quote:
it appears no guns at all still makes the most sense.
Only to those who would prefer to live in subjugation and die at the hands of their rulers without a fighting chance as opposed to living as a free people.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Evolving]
#2391816 - 03/01/04 05:52 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So what happened to rifles?
They don't fit his agenda and make his arguments even weaker than they already are.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2392011 - 03/01/04 07:16 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Don't be stupid. If by your actions you cause the death of hundreds of men, women and children who otherwise have a chance of life what right have you to do so?
you do not understand the idea of causation and responsibilty very well. if someone tells me, "come with me or i'm killing the village", and i don't go with him, and he kills the village, the blood is on his hands, not mine.
You're dodging the question. As I've already explained they were both well equipped armies backed by superpowers. Not civilians.
they fought using mostly small arms. they had little or no armor, artillery, or air support, and they did just fine. that is the point. a determined population with small arms can overpower (or at the very least outlast) a better equipped adversary. they certainly do it better than people with no guns at all. a population with no arms at all has no chance of freeing itself.
Exactly. It wasn't small arms. Incidentally you've already mentioned you wouldn't allow civilians anything like stinger missiles so what point are you trying to make?
i said that civilians in time of peace shouldn't have rocket launchers. like i said, there is a balance. in my opinion, letting civilians in time of peace have rocket launchers is on one side of it. confiscating their rifles is on the other.
i understand that the afghanis are armed to the teeth. i know that even without stinger missiles, they have a lot more than just rifles... and more than i think american citizens, in peacetime, should have. rifles are still the backbone of any army. this is why almost every soldier in the world carries one. they are the most versatile and effective military weapon available to a single fighter.
considering that they are certainly better than nothing, that they are used in peacetime by millions of americans for peaceful purposes like hunting and target shooting, and that so few people are actually killed by rifles each year, it seems strange to me that anyone but the most zealous anti-gunner would call for a banning of rifles.
from 1993-2001, rifles were used to kill an average of 611 people annually, or 3.4% of total homicides. to put this into a general perspective, at the current death rate in the US, there are almost 2.5 million deaths in the united states per year.
this would mean that we can safely estimate that homocide by rifle accounts for around .0024% of total deaths per year (1 per 41,000 deaths). about 1 in every 476,000 americans is killed by a rifle each year.
CIA World Factbook: United States Population Data
US Dept. of Justice Special Report: Weapon Use and Violent Crime
hardly makes a good case for banning rifles, considering their usefulness in peacetime, nevermind in times of strife.
Edited by mushmaster (03/01/04 07:45 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2392057 - 03/01/04 07:37 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Seeing as you were unable to provide a single example of a handgun armed populace fighting off tyrants it appears no guns at all still makes the most sense. I was hoping you could provide a reason to suggest otherwise.
i'm talking mostly about rifles here, not handguns, as should be pretty apparent by now.
rifles are better than handguns (or swords) in combat. the statement:
"Seeing as you were unable to provide a single example of a handgun armed populace fighting off tyrants it appears no guns at all still makes the most sense."
makes about as much sense as saying "Seeing as you were unable to provide a single example of a sword-armed populace fighting off tyrants it appears no weapons at all still makes the most sense."
obviously handguns are shitty in combat. that's why i'm not talking about them. i am referring to RIFLES here.
i could give you many examples of times in which people armed with small arms have defended themselves from organized aggressors. in pretty much every example though, there might be instances of some of the resistors using heavier weapons as well. i suppose because a few RPG's or mortars were used in some examples, they're tainted in your eyes and not evidence of the rifle's efficacy in combat. is that right? must there be an example of rifles being used exclusively? can they be mixed in with captured heavy weapons? heavy weapons supplied by foriegn supporters? i just don't see how a person can ignore the military usefulness of a rifle. it's awfully strange that so many soldiers are carrying one.
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 17 years, 8 months
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2392070 - 03/01/04 07:45 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
No, they kill the asshole who fired his 5 bullets at them, then kill everyone in the village for his stupidity. At least there were some survivors of the concentration camps.
You are assuming that the resistance will be only capable of firing five bullets, and that the invading army will be so total in their control of the nation, that they can execute citizenry with impunity. This isa worst-case scenario for the resistance. I think that the French Resistance did fairly well against the Nazis, tho they did have the backing of a superpower.
Lets say inyour example that it was the other way around. The resistance was made up of highly organized, trained and armed individuals and the men who were comprosing teh invasion force had just fought through a tough line and were weary and running short on supplies. The resistance could use scoped rifles to decimate the invaders numbers and force htem to stay in their own turf, on the "safe" section of town. The resistance would be blowing up bridges, putting bombs on trains that were filled with supples, spiking roads, putting additives in gasoline storage tanks, using mortars to make brief harassment attacks, and knifing any lone soldiers that were caught out in town. This would quickly have the effect of demoralizing the enemy.
It really coems down to the will of both parties. If the resistance turely istrained and willing to fight to the death, but the occupying army doesn't have much strategic value in possessing that nation, the occupiors will see it right to leave the nation after enough attacks.
Quote:
But that wasn't really because of armed citizens letting fly at the americans from their huts was it. It was an organised army launching enormous offensives like Tet.
I bet that the guerilla and clandestine activites in the jungles had as much of a psychological effect as the Tet offensive and others.
Bottom line, an organized group with large enough numbers, training and access to equipment could make life quite difficult for an occupying army. IF the occupying army tried to become so brutal to the public in retaliation for the resistances action, it would probably just serve to drive more people into the resitance movement.
With al lof the private firearm ownership in America and the accessibility of knowledge and materials to improvise explosives with, I think that any occupying nation would have a real problem. Look at how much damage the DC Sniper's caused with ONE rifle. Imagine what a team of five individuals per large city, trained in the use of firearms, unconventional warfare tactics, and explosives, could do to an invasion force. I personally think that they could do enough to keep most invasion forces, at the very least, spending a great deal of time and effort hunting them, and possibly allowing the regular military of the country being occupied to attack.
|
CerebralFlower
whats left?
Registered: 02/09/04
Posts: 1,326
Loc: only the truth is left
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Baby_Hitler]
#2392110 - 03/01/04 07:56 PM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Fuck yes to all. You shouldnt have any restrictions. Basically the people who own this become the government, by using it against you...
--------------------
God says dance with your heart
And shake free of you desire
Where theres a will theres always a way
When you get confused listen to the music play
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2393252 - 03/02/04 02:03 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
you do not understand the idea of causation and responsibilty very well.
Thank god the resistance in these countries had more idea than you. They realised that unless the target was of massive importance it was utterly stupid attacking the germans because the retaliation would make it too costly for innocent people. After Heydrich was killed by a British special operation the Germans flattened an entire town and killed every last man, woman and child.
they fought using mostly small arms
Nah, certainly without stinger missiles to take down helicopters the fundamentalists would have been destroyed very rapidly. They themselves would tell the americans unless we get more stingers we are doomed.
a determined population with small arms can overpower
No, a determind guerilla ARMY can do well in certain situations. A guerilla army is not the same as civilians with guns. And guerilla armies usually need arms and financial support from somewhere.
a population with no arms at all has no chance of freeing itself
I'll have to call bullshit that on one. Rumania, East Germany, Poland etc etc can't remember armed bloody uprisings there. The people just went onto the streets.
i said that civilians in time of peace shouldn't have rocket launchers
So what defence from tyranny do they have? Or is your plan to distribute stinger missiles AFTER the tyrant is in control?
considering that they are certainly better than nothing
Agreed.
about 1 in every 476,000 americans is killed by a rifle each year.
What argument are you going for here mush? Is this to do with defence from tyranny or are you going into other arguments about why rifles should be legal?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: ]
#2393264 - 03/02/04 02:05 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i'm talking mostly about rifles here, not handguns, as should be pretty apparent by now.
Ok, so give me an example where an armed populace with rifles fought off a tyrant. Not Afghanistan or Vietnam where you had guerilla armies backed and armed by superpowers. Ordinary people with rifles who fought off a tyrant.
|
Baby_Hitler
Errorist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 26,161
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 hour, 23 minutes
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2393892 - 03/02/04 05:12 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Ok, so give me an example where an armed populace with rifles fought off a tyrant
See, it works so well as a deterrent that they were never needed to be used.
Has anyone mentioned the American Revolution yet?
--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~ ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (> SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )> SOLDIERS
/ \
Don't vibe my harsh, bro.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Should a private citizen be able to own... [Re: Xlea321]
#2394462 - 03/02/04 11:24 AM (17 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
i don't think i can find an example of rifles being used exclusively by regular citizens to overpower a tyrant or invader. once the fight gets going, the fighters seem to always train themselves into what you would call a guerrilla army, capture or otherwise obtain heavier weapons, be joined by deserting regular military units, or all 3.
can the military importance of rifles be any clearer? almost every soldier in the world carries one. they are essential in combat, even if they are not used entirely exclusively.
i posted those crime statistics to show how rarely rifles are used to commit crimes. if you confiscated americans' rifles, and everyone, including the criminals, actually gave them up, and no one who would have commited a murder with a rifle used a different weapon instead... then you could cut the homocide rate by .0045%. my question is: why, understanding that rifles are used for hunting, target shooting, and whether you like to admit it or not, a citizens last line of defense against his government or an invader, would you strip them of their rifles when it would have a negligible effect on violent crime? is there some other reason that you think citizens should be barred the possession of rifles?
| |
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
