|
Military hardware is insanely expensive anyway. |
|
CVWJoin Date: 2010-02-25
Post Count: 7780 |
A decent AKS-74u is around two thousand dollars in the US.......
So I don't call that "expensive" per-se. |
|
|
I mean serious hardware not small arms, like a Javelin, 200 000 or so. An older Dragon costs 13 000. Armoured vehicles cost millions. |
|
|
Oh my god here we go with the "BAWT WITH NO GUNS WE HAVE TYRANNY" argument again.
First off, gun ban =/= tyranny, all of EU has strick gun laws and there is no country that would be tyrannical at all.
Second off, you don't need guns legally to overthrow a goverment, almost every "sucessful" revolution happened in a country that banned guns, yet they still overthrown the goverment by getting those guns illegaly or seizing it from goverment armories.
Third off, armed revolutions usually don't end good, ever wondered why I put "sucessful" in quotas? That is because most armed revolutions resulted in a tyranny replaced with a tyranny, the only exceptions I can think of is the American revolution and parts of the '89 revolution. Libya is still disputed, and as much as they write a secular, legit constitution I cannot consider it a sucessful revolution.
Fourth off, you don't even need any arms to have a sucessful revolution, the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia suceeded, and the only thing they did was that they protested. Same happened in Poland and Hungary.
Fifth off, Japan actually did invade the US, the US however mobilised and was able to hold off the Japaneese.
Sixth off, almost all of the regimes you listed were forth caused by extremists getting power or an armed revolution which you so much praise.
And finally, seventh off, if everyone rioted because of every law, then the goverment will be bound to fail, you might think this is good, well in that case I advise you to go for 2 weeks to somalia, please tell me what you think of failed goverments when you return, that is, if you return. |
|
|
>What about Germany? They induced gun laws 11 Million were killed. Checkmate.
I Found one person who won the lottery, that means everyone will win the lottery. Checkmate |
|
gamert7Join Date: 2008-11-18
Post Count: 4986 |
>I Found one person who won the lottery, that means everyone will win the lottery. Checkmate
What about all the examples the OP listed? It is proven what happens. Also executive power is not above our Constitution |
|
CVWJoin Date: 2010-02-25
Post Count: 7780 |
But OMG isn't the president above EVERYTHING?!?
End sarcasm/ |
|
|
The constitution can be changed. |
|
|
What about all the examples the OP listed? It is proven what happens. Also executive power is not above our Constitution
---
Once again forth there was a violent coup, which happaned thanks to guns, or because of an extremist party getting the majority of the votes by, oh I don't know, you as a citizen? |
|
|
This song fits this thread: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqkLYTBUkE0 |
|
b3njam1nJoin Date: 2007-11-05
Post Count: 19389 |
"Second off, you don't need guns legally to overthrow a goverment, almost every "sucessful" revolution happened in a country that banned gun...."
However, it makes it much MUCH more easier and more possible to conduct a righteous revolution. Less blood, less problems. That's kinda...like ya know, the whole reason it was added to our constitution...? |
|
|
What is a righteous revolution? Things go animal farm really fast. |
|
gamert7Join Date: 2008-11-18
Post Count: 4986 |
Righteous revolution...? |
|
|
However, it makes it much MUCH more easier and more possible to conduct a righteous revolution. Less blood, less problems. That's kinda...like ya know, the whole reason it was added to our constitution...?
---
Surely it will be a little bit easier, but I highly doubt that this would be a good enough reason to allow automatics. The only use for them are rebellions, and rebellions aren't usually good, especially when they're armed. The only peaceful reeason to have automatics is to collect time, otherwise you simply don't need them. |
|
|
Also the point of my point is that even if gun control would result to extremists somehow getting power (which is completely absurd because otherwise they would get much cheaper guns), you would be able to counter them even without automatics legalized, you still would have rifles and pistols, and even if the goverment would take the country over, you could just import cheap arms from Russia or make the weapons yourself and start another rebellion. |
|
twigs182Join Date: 2008-04-13
Post Count: 2109 |
Oh my god here we go with the "BAWT WITH NO GUNS WE HAVE TYRANNY" argument again.
First off, gun ban =/= tyranny, all of EU has strick gun laws and there is no country that would be tyrannical at all.
-
Well, the point is that gun control LEADS to tyranny. Any attempts to prevent that is what we are trying to do. Just like rounding up people into detention centers LEADS to genocide, but it doesn't mean genocide is being committed.
Second off, you don't need guns legally to overthrow a goverment, almost every "sucessful" revolution happened in a country that banned guns, yet they still overthrown the goverment by getting those guns illegaly or seizing it from goverment armories.
-
The American Revolution, German Revolution, and Yugoslav Wars disagree. And those are three I can list off the top of my head.
Fourth off, you don't even need any arms to have a sucessful revolution, the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia suceeded, and the only thing they did was that they protested. Same happened in Poland and Hungary.
-
Tinamen Square disagrees.
Fifth off, Japan actually did invade the US, the US however mobilised and was able to hold off the Japaneese.
-
Small uninhabited islands in US territory. Comparable to say the invasion of the Falklands, except 10x smaller.
Sixth off, almost all of the regimes you listed were forth caused by extremists getting power or an armed revolution which you so much praise.
-
They gained power by enforcing a monopoly of violence and aggression.
And finally, seventh off, if everyone rioted because of every law, then the goverment will be bound to fail, you might think this is good, well in that case I advise you to go for 2 weeks to somalia, please tell me what you think of failed goverments when you return, that is, if you return.
-
Somalia has actually improved a lot since its government collapsed. |
|
|
When the entire world is improving, you will be dragged long government or not.
Not to mention, it has improved on the backs of the millions in ransom money, so I guess yeah, minarchisim/anarchism works when what is normally perceived is evil is common place.
Not most of humanities's type of society. |
|
|
Oh my god here we go with the "BAWT WITH NO GUNS WE HAVE TYRANNY" argument again.
First off, gun ban =/= tyranny, all of EU has strick gun laws and there is no country that would be tyrannical at all.
-
Well, the point is that gun control LEADS to tyranny. Any attempts to prevent that is what we are trying to do. Just like rounding up people into detention centers LEADS to genocide, but it doesn't mean genocide is being committed.
---
But does EU commit any laws that make it a tyranny? Nope.
As much as moderates are in power, there is not going to be tyranny, not always do gun laws lead to tyranny, in fact, gun laws were most of the time applied AFTER the country got took over by a dictatorship/one-party state/whatever, not before which would support your argument.
___
Second off, you don't need guns legally to overthrow a goverment, almost every "sucessful" revolution happened in a country that banned guns, yet they still overthrown the goverment by getting those guns illegaly or seizing it from goverment armories.
-
The American Revolution, German Revolution, and Yugoslav Wars disagree. And those are three I can list off the top of my head.
---
Point me to a source where in all three you had listed here did allow you to legally carry guns.
Fourth off, you don't even need any arms to have a sucessful revolution, the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia suceeded, and the only thing they did was that they protested. Same happened in Poland and Hungary.
-
Tinamen Square disagrees.
---
If the goverment shoots your little bunnies, then you can begin an armed revolution. But I would like to point me to the fact that in all three countries, the protesters were being continously arrested. Not to mention Czechoslovakia was actually occupied. Did they result to violence? Nope. That is what led to success.
___
Fifth off, Japan actually did invade the US, the US however mobilised and was able to hold off the Japaneese.
-
Small uninhabited islands in US territory. Comparable to say the invasion of the Falklands, except 10x smaller.
---
But they did invade the US, their country however, bother with pointless expansion, had most troops stationed in other countries, so Japan couldn't en large invade the US.
___
Sixth off, almost all of the regimes you listed were forth caused by extremists getting power or an armed revolution which you so much praise.
-
They gained power by enforcing a monopoly of violence and aggression.
---
Yes.
With guns.
By a violent uprising/coup.
In rare cases elected by the common populace.
This would more over support the goverment of gun controllers, because guns lead to tyrannical regimes.
___
And finally, seventh off, if everyone rioted because of every law, then the goverment will be bound to fail, you might think this is good, well in that case I advise you to go for 2 weeks to somalia, please tell me what you think of failed goverments when you return, that is, if you return.
-
Somalia has actually improved a lot since its government collapsed.
---
The only people that improved are pirates and warlords, the common populace the everyday cycle is forth that they have nothing to harvest or that they have something llittle to harvest but such a harvest is stolen by militia. |
|
twigs182Join Date: 2008-04-13
Post Count: 2109 |
But does EU commit any laws that make it a tyranny? Nope.
-
Doesn't mean a dictator like a Golden Dawn member could take over and institute a tyranny.
Point me to a source where in all three you had listed here did allow you to legally carry guns.
-
There was no gun control laws in America, Germany, or Yugoslavia before there revolutions. This is fact. If you don't think there was gun control in colonial America, pre-Weimar Germany, or in Yugoslavia, you are being dellusional. I was refuting your point on armed populace uprising.
If the goverment shoots your little bunnies, then you can begin an armed revolution. But I would like to point me to the fact that in all three countries, the protesters were being continously arrested. Not to mention Czechoslovakia was actually occupied. Did they result to violence? Nope. That is what led to success.
-
Okay, well when they begin shooting at us, and we have no guns, what do you do?
___
But they did invade the US, their country however, bother with pointless expansion, had most troops stationed in other countries, so Japan couldn't en large invade the US.
-
It was to divert US attention away from the Pacific, not to expand their empire.
___
Yes.
With guns.
By a violent uprising/coup.
In rare cases elected by the common populace.
This would more over support the goverment of gun controllers, because guns lead to tyrannical regimes.
-
What part of tyrannies begin with the enforcement of a monopoly of violence and aggression do you not understand?
___
The only people that improved are pirates and warlords, the common populace the everyday cycle is forth that they have nothing to harvest or that they have something llittle to harvest but such a harvest is stolen by militia.
-
Which is why the average life expectancy, GDP, and literacy among adults in Somalia has gone up right? The only serious situation is the drop in access to clean water, which is happening throughout Africa. |
|
|
But does EU commit any laws that make it a tyranny? Nope.
-
Doesn't mean a dictator like a Golden Dawn member could take over and institute a tyranny.
---
In that case, I might agree with you, when extremists get in power, it is bad.
However if we give guns to people to defend themselves from the extremists, and they will defend themselves, it will start a civil war, with many deaths, which will increase the popularity of extremists, and even if moderates would win, the result would forth be tyranny which the armed populace tried to prevent, or a much increased ammount of popularity for the extremists.
So extremism is bad, and it would be bad if they rised, but giving out guns won't solve the problem.
___
Point me to a source where in all three you had listed here did allow you to legally carry guns.
-
There was no gun control laws in America, Germany, or Yugoslavia before there revolutions. This is fact. If you don't think there was gun control in colonial America, pre-Weimar Germany, or in Yugoslavia, you are being dellusional. I was refuting your point on armed populace uprising.
---
I might believe in colonial american gun control.
Maaaaaaybe pre-weimar Germany.
But I highly doubt Yugoslavia wouldn't ban guns.
So please give me a source and I'll believe you.
___
If the goverment shoots your little bunnies, then you can begin an armed revolution. But I would like to point me to the fact that in all three countries, the protesters were being continously arrested. Not to mention Czechoslovakia was actually occupied. Did they result to violence? Nope. That is what led to success.
-
Okay, well when they begin shooting at us, and we have no guns, what do you do?
---
Seize their armories, that's what pretty much almost every armed revolution did.
___
But they did invade the US, their country however, bother with pointless expansion, had most troops stationed in other countries, so Japan couldn't en large invade the US.
-
It was to divert US attention away from the Pacific, not to expand their empire.
---
But they invaded anyway, whether that be to expand or to prevent intervention.
___
Yes.
With guns.
By a violent uprising/coup.
In rare cases elected by the common populace.
This would more over support the goverment of gun controllers, because guns lead to tyrannical regimes.
-
What part of tyrannies begin with the enforcement of a monopoly of violence and aggression do you not understand?
---
And how exactly does no gun control prevent extremists from rising?
___
The only people that improved are pirates and warlords, the common populace the everyday cycle is forth that they have nothing to harvest or that they have something llittle to harvest but such a harvest is stolen by militia.
-
Which is why the average life expectancy, GDP, and literacy among adults in Somalia has gone up right? The only serious situation is the drop in access to clean water, which is happening throughout Africa.
---
Source. |
|
twigs182Join Date: 2008-04-13
Post Count: 2109 |
In that case, I might agree with you, when extremists get in power, it is bad.
However if we give guns to people to defend themselves from the extremists, and they will defend themselves, it will start a civil war, with many deaths, which will increase the popularity of extremists, and even if moderates would win, the result would forth be tyranny which the armed populace tried to prevent, or a much increased ammount of popularity for the extremists.
So extremism is bad, and it would be bad if they rised, but giving out guns won't solve the problem.
-
It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Do you think the Spanish Republicans should of let Franco just waltz right into power?
I might believe in colonial american gun control.
-
Might? Have you heard of minute men?
Maaaaaaybe pre-weimar Germany.
-
Pre-Weimar Germany's lax gun control laws led to the people rising up against the Kaiser. It is called the German Revolution. lrn2history.
But I highly doubt Yugoslavia wouldn't ban guns.
-
They didn't. Which is why so many civilians in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and Slovenia were able to defend themselves against the Serbian military's aggression.
Seize their armories, that's what pretty much almost every armed revolution did.
-
Except that is wishful thinking. This isn't the USSR. US military bases and armories are the most heavily guarded things in America.
But they invaded anyway, whether that be to expand or to prevent intervention.
-
They invaded an island with only a weather station full of 10 soldiers to draw American attention away from the islands. In fact, most of the Japanese left the Alaskan Islands after the US started to recapture them.
And how exactly does no gun control prevent extremists from rising?
-
It gives those that the extremists wish to execute violence against a means of fighting back.
Which is why the average life expectancy, GDP, and literacy among adults in Somalia has gone up right? The only serious situation is the drop in access to clean water, which is happening throughout Africa.
---
Source.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365
About halfway down the article. |
|
|
In that case, I might agree with you, when extremists get in power, it is bad.
However if we give guns to people to defend themselves from the extremists, and they will defend themselves, it will start a civil war, with many deaths, which will increase the popularity of extremists, and even if moderates would win, the result would forth be tyranny which the armed populace tried to prevent, or a much increased ammount of popularity for the extremists.
So extremism is bad, and it would be bad if they rised, but giving out guns won't solve the problem.
-
It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Do you think the Spanish Republicans should of let Franco just waltz right into power?
---
But do you think it is worth it to allow automatics when it won't influence the result at all and just kill more people?
___
I might believe in colonial american gun control.
-
Might? Have you heard of minute men?
Maaaaaaybe pre-weimar Germany.
-
Pre-Weimar Germany's lax gun control laws led to the people rising up against the Kaiser. It is called the German Revolution. lrn2history.
But I highly doubt Yugoslavia wouldn't ban guns.
-
They didn't. Which is why so many civilians in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and Slovenia were able to defend themselves against the Serbian military's aggression.
---
But I would like a source to that claim.
Please post me one and I will believe it.
___
Seize their armories, that's what pretty much almost every armed revolution did.
-
Except that is wishful thinking. This isn't the USSR. US military bases and armories are the most heavily guarded things in America.
---
In that case, import weapons from other countries, I'm pretty sure there is a country who will give you weapons that will enable you to rebell.
___
But they invaded anyway, whether that be to expand or to prevent intervention.
-
They invaded an island with only a weather station full of 10 soldiers to draw American attention away from the islands. In fact, most of the Japanese left the Alaskan Islands after the US started to recapture them.
---
Okay, but Pearl Harbor happened, you definitely can't deny that.
Also, OP said that Japan didn't invade mainland Alaska because it feared armed Americans, you said that they couldn't even properly invade them anyway and just had to distract Americans from their mainland.
___
And how exactly does no gun control prevent extremists from rising?
-
It gives those that the extremists wish to execute violence against a means of fighting back.
---
And how do extremists gain power? But of course, a crisis.
Which is why the average life expectancy, GDP, and literacy among adults in Somalia has gone up right? The only serious situation is the drop in access to clean water, which is happening throughout Africa.
---
Source.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12285365
About halfway down the article.
---
"The figures in the table above do not tell the full story. The relative stability in living standards may in part be because of the work of international aid agencies.
Throughout some of the worst periods of conflict, Somalia has still received assistance with food and health.
These figures from the UN World Food Programme show that food aid has increased in recent years, coinciding with a period of fighting between Islamists and forces loyal to the Somali government."
From your source.
Charities are the source of Somalian improvement, not the fact that it's a failed country, noone really cared in particalar for somalia before it collapsed, that's why it improved. |
|
|
Also, majority of the Somali non-charity income is from piracy, which really isn't a source of income one would simply wish. |
|
twigs182Join Date: 2008-04-13
Post Count: 2109 |
But do you think it is worth it to allow automatics when it won't influence the result at all and just kill more people?
-
Automatic weapons have already been banned, and guess what, handguns are the most popular weapons to commit murder with, so your have an invalid point.
___
I might believe in colonial american gun control.
-
Might? Have you heard of minute men?
Maaaaaaybe pre-weimar Germany.
-
Pre-Weimar Germany's lax gun control laws led to the people rising up against the Kaiser. It is called the German Revolution. lrn2history.
But I highly doubt Yugoslavia wouldn't ban guns.
-
They didn't. Which is why so many civilians in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and Slovenia were able to defend themselves against the Serbian military's aggression.
---
But I would like a source to that claim.
Please post me one and I will believe it.
-
I cannot find any sources, however, I would like a good source telling me gun control was in place in Yugoslavia, Imperial Germany, or the American Colonies (Which it wasn't). I know for a fact that civilian guns contributed to the victories of the German revolutionaries against the Kaiser and the American civilian against the Redcoats.
Now watch this entire documentary, which details the civilian impact of the Yugoslav Wars and the partisans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L5Qm-qRjqg
OH! I also forgot, lax gun control laws led to the Spanish beating the French out of Spain during the Napoleonic Wars.
---
In that case, import weapons from other countries, I'm pretty sure there is a country who will give you weapons that will enable you to rebell.
-
Good luck running a blockade by the worlds largest navy.
Also, OP said that Japan didn't invade mainland Alaska because it feared armed Americans, you said that they couldn't even properly invade them anyway and just had to distract Americans from their mainland.
-
A better argument would be that Japan was scared to invade Hawaii, which they were.
___
And how do extremists gain power? But of course, a crisis.
-
And extremists gaining power isn't a crisis?
"The figures in the table above do not tell the full story. The relative stability in living standards may in part be because of the work of international aid agencies.
-
The problem is that the article says MAYBE! Out of about 10 million people, about 2/100ths are receiving international aid according to this source from the Red Cross, and I refuse to believe that 2/100ths are skewing the data that much.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2011/somalie-news-2011-08-01.htm
And way to pull the pirate argument out of no-where.
|
|
|
But do you think it is worth it to allow automatics when it won't influence the result at all and just kill more people?
-
Automatic weapons have already been banned, and guess what, handguns are the most popular weapons to commit murder with, so your have an invalid point.
___
I might believe in colonial american gun control.
-
Might? Have you heard of minute men?
Maaaaaaybe pre-weimar Germany.
-
Pre-Weimar Germany's lax gun control laws led to the people rising up against the Kaiser. It is called the German Revolution. lrn2history.
But I highly doubt Yugoslavia wouldn't ban guns.
-
They didn't. Which is why so many civilians in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and Slovenia were able to defend themselves against the Serbian military's aggression.
---
But I would like a source to that claim.
Please post me one and I will believe it.
-
I cannot find any sources, however, I would like a good source telling me gun control was in place in Yugoslavia, Imperial Germany, or the American Colonies (Which it wasn't). I know for a fact that civilian guns contributed to the victories of the German revolutionaries against the Kaiser and the American civilian against the Redcoats.
Now watch this entire documentary, which details the civilian impact of the Yugoslav Wars and the partisans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L5Qm-qRjqg
---
Alright, but there also many other tyrannic countries where revolution suceeded with gun control, I'm pretty sure that countries like Libya had a gun ban.
___
OH! I also forgot, lax gun control laws led to the Spanish beating the French out of Spain during the Napoleonic Wars.
---
In that case, import weapons from other countries, I'm pretty sure there is a country who will give you weapons that will enable you to rebell.
-
Good luck running a blockade by the worlds largest navy.
---
Actually, USA is not good with protecting it's borders from illegal things, dr0g cartels easily transport alot of dr0gs into the country, so why can't a country like Russia get an import easilly through Alaska and Canada into the United States?
___
Also, OP said that Japan didn't invade mainland Alaska because it feared armed Americans, you said that they couldn't even properly invade them anyway and just had to distract Americans from their mainland.
-
A better argument would be that Japan was scared to invade Hawaii, which they were.
___
And how do extremists gain power? But of course, a crisis.
-
And extremists gaining power isn't a crisis?
---
Crisis is why extremists gain power, so if extremists exist widely in that country, it is in a crisis.
___
"The figures in the table above do not tell the full story. The relative stability in living standards may in part be because of the work of international aid agencies.
-
The problem is that the article says MAYBE! Out of about 10 million people, about 2/100ths are receiving international aid according to this source from the Red Cross, and I refuse to believe that 2/100ths are skewing the data that much.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/news-release/2011/somalie-news-2011-08-01.htm
And way to pull the pirate argument out of no-where.
---
Alright, I drop that argument. |
|