[quote]Varqanir wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m surprised no one else has come out in support of gun control. I am starting to wonder why its such a large issue if most of the liberals agree with the conservatives here…
You know, Irish, I was wondering the same thing myself. Snipeout’s Gun Control thread a few months ago featured quite a few members of the “Guns are Icky” crowd. Where did they all go?
Maybe the reason is because, as I and Rainjack and others including yourself mentioned early on, the issue really isn’t about guns after all, but about remaining free in an increasingly unfree world.
So. The question then becomes one of semantics. If you are dedicated to conserving your personal liberty, does that make you a conservative, or a liberal?[/quote]
I could have been a Libertarian once long ago, before I became aware of the economic inequalities that exist. This mixed with racism and a little Marx and London has made me what I am.
But this is why I side with the Democrats on many issues- it seems to me that legislating things like abortion, what I can and can’t watch on TV (or radio), seatbelt laws, gun control, freedom of speech, is not what should be done. I think the government should stay out of nearly all personal social issues like this.
However, when it comes down to economics, you know my positions. The private individual cannot be trusted in order to: not be racist, not judge on color or creed or religion, not try to take as much as possible without screwing or torching all those in his way, including the workers, who there are inevitably always more of. So this is why I am a leftist and not a libertarian.
Nowadays, being called a “conservative” on social issues does not mean keeping the government out of your affairs- it means “decency standards”, abortion laws, bans on certain people marrying…it just seems like they are the ones that are more concerned with what private people are doing and seeing now.
Yeah, those icky statistics, always messing up fantastical arguments.
The problem is, your arguments aren’t based on facts. Rather, they are based on anecdotal evidence, quotations, and alleged “common sense” that has no foundation in reality.
It’s like trying to argue the scientific value of “Intelligent Design.”
Here are the facts.
Citizens don’t own handguns so they can defend their country. People own handguns because they are afraid. Almost every pro-gun response thus far has shown that.
Whether due to poor education, general stupidity, or dangerousness of the handguns themselves, thousands of people die accidentally each year. There are no unbiased scientific statistics, or facts, that prove handguns in the hands of private citizens help maintain public order.
The studies attempting to show this relationship that have been presented thus far are full of factual inaccuracies and source problems.
The Supreme Court realizes that the ownership of handguns has nothing to do with the defense of the United States, hence the upholding of the ban in Morris Grove. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like what the Supreme Court dictates or not - it’s the law. As of now, you have no right to own a handgun.
In fact, if the Second Amendment were followed and local militias were maintained capable of defending themselves against government armed forces, Stinger Missiles and Anti-tank mines would be purchasable, are you for that too?
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I’m not sure how you can take the second half of the amendment without taking the first half too. There’s no conjunction separating the two halves as in other amendments, they’re one and the same.
By the way, that quote you mentioned earlier equating statistics and lies, is not from Franklin.
Citizens don’t own handguns so they can defend their country. People own handguns because they are afraid. [/quote]
And you can back up this “fact” with statistical evidence?
Actually, most soldiers, in time of war, will try to obtain personal sidearms (that means handguns) by one means or another. Are you implying that they do so out of fear, or that they are not really defending their country?
Here’s a statement almost as silly as that one:
Whether due to poor education, general stupidity, or dangerousness of the bathtubs themselves, thousands of people die accidentally each year. There are no unbiased scientific statistics, or facts, that prove bathtubs in the hands of private citizens help maintain public hygeine.
The Supreme Court does not dictate law. They interpret the Constitution.
And actually, it was the United States Court of Appeals that decided that case, not the Supreme Court. Their decision was based on two aguments: that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to handguns, and that it doesn’t matter anyway because the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to Morton Grove(apparently they are not considered part of a “free state”).
In reading the transcript of that decision, I got an eerie sense of deja vu. You wouldn’t happen to be related to Circuit Judge Bauer, by any chance?
What was most enjoyable about reading that transcript was the dissent by Judge Coffee:
“The majority cavalierly dismisses the argument that the right to possess commonly owned arms for self-defense and the protection of loved ones is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Justice Cardozoi defined fundamental rights as those rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Surely nothing could be more fundamental to the “concept of ordered liberty” than the basic right of an individual, within the confines of the criminal law, to protect his home and family from unlawful and dangerous intrusions.”
He goes on to say that if Morton Grove wants to ban handguns in public places, that’s their own goddamn business, but they cross the line when telling a man he can’t keep a handgun in his own home:
"The right to privacy is one of the most cherished rights an American citizen has; the right to privacy sets America apart from totalitarian states in which the interests of the state prevail over individual rights. A fundamental part of our concept of ordered liberty is the right to protect one’s home and family against dangerous intrusions subject to the criminal law. Morton Grove, acting like the omniscient and paternalistic “Big Brother” in George Orwell’s novel, “1984”, cannot, in the name of public welfare, dictate to its residents that they may not possess a handgun in the privacy of their home. To so prohibit the possession of handguns in the privacy of the home prevents a person from protecting his home and family, endangers law-abiding citizens and renders meaningless the Supreme Court’s teaching that “a man’s home is his castle.”
So while it may be “the law” (imagine a Judge Dredd voice here) in Morton Grove, it is not the law of the land, and it sure as hell ain’t my law.
[quote]
In fact, if the Second Amendment were followed and local militias were maintained capable of defending themselves against government armed forces, Stinger Missiles and Anti-tank mines would be purchasable, are you for that too?[/quote]
Nah, but I’ll take a Vulcan 20mm cannon and an M1 Abrams tank, please.
In United States vs Miller, the only Supreme Court case dealing with whether a congressional law violated the 2nd Amendment, the court decided that a sawed-off shotgun is not covered by the amendment, because it is not generally considered a military weapon. They identified the United States Militia as:
"'comprising all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, who, when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
"Therefore, in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
"Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.‘’
Two points to be observed: one, that handguns are part of ordinary military equipment, and two, that since US vs. Miller, so have sawed-off shotguns become.
[quote]
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I’m not sure how you can take the second half of the amendment without taking the first half too. There’s no conjunction separating the two halves as in other amendments, they’re one and the same.[/quote]
I am unaware that I have ever posted anything anywhere that would imply that I “took the second half of the amendment without taking the first half too”. Reread my paraphrase of the amendment. It is not inconsistant with the original.
Ah, shit! You got me. I caught that right after I posted it, and figured it would be chickenshit to go back and change it. I’m sorry. You are right, I am wrong. Benjamin Disraeli, not Franklin.
Thank you, Ajax. And a Merry Christmas to you, too.
The wonderful thing about the US, there’s always dissent. My bad on the court of appeals mistake, I was typing hastily. About the law, my reference was to the abstract idea of “the law,” not the specific law of Morton Grove. The “law” currently says that handguns are legal, but not “rights,” based on the appeal’s court decision.
The way some people talk about bathtubs, I don’t know why you don’t just drop the guns and use the tubs for self-defense. They seem pretty treacherous.
Edit: By the way, i’m not sure your analogy holds up unless people wield bathtubs against other people in order to kill them, that and i’m not sure anyone would claim that bathing doesn’t increase hygeine. And stinkiness = bad.
About your taking the one half of the 2nd amendment without the other, I should have used “one” instead of “you” for that point, since although you yourself have not expressed it, there are people who claim the right to guns without any responsibility for the public good.
As for the citizen comment I made, I meant civilians. What military and police are entitled to own/do is an entirely different can of worms. I bet if you asked people why they owned handguns, the last reason, if they said it at all, would be “to protect America.”
But seriously, my cousin has this sweet over-under Berreta automatic shotgun. Fun stuff.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m surprised no one else has come out in support of gun control. I am starting to wonder why its such a large issue if most of the liberals agree with the conservatives here…[/quote]
Well, it is a weightlifting forum. I’m not expecting there to be lots of people here who actually represent the extreme left end of the spectrum, arguing that the 2nd amendment is meaningless and everyone who likes guns is a nutjob. Most of those people are eating soy and sipping on chai mocha starbucks coffee right now. [/stereotype]
[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
The wonderful thing about the US, there’s always dissent. My bad on the court of appeals mistake, I was typing hastily.
The way some people talk about bathtubs, I don’t know why you don’t just drop the guns and use the tubs for self-defense. They seem pretty treacherous.
[/quote]
Diabolical devices, bathtubs. But very difficult to conceal.
Are there any civilians in a “War on Terror”?
Well…okay, DemiAjax. I suppose you’ve established that you are not really a gun-hater, and that you are not a freedom-hater.
Not to be inflammatory or polarizing or anything…but I guess you’re with us after all.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
An armed society is a polite society.
The above statement is the peak of Absurdity. I can only hope Zap doesn’t mean it serious.
Here in Europe it is rather complicated to obtain a Handgun. And where are no guns, no one can be shot. It is that simple.
In the US of A every moron can get a gun, so it seems you just have to get one yourself to feel kinda safe.
Oh sure, there are european gangsters with pistols, but I guess for every armed criminal here you have thirty in the States.
Here in Germany, we’ve had one whacko going postal in his highschool.He was shooting around heavily armed, killing himself in the end. That was around 2002.
It was a totally new situation, so everyone found this very disturbing and the question was raised, if we had to make the law even more strict to prevent gun abuse.
The thing is: In America, people are so gun-crazy , they demand the opposite, saying, an armed determined teacher could have ended this quick.
This is where I see the difference - On the one side are people like Mr. Zap, who believe that everyone should aim at each other’s head, ensuring a nice society through fear of retribution.
On the other hand … how about just having a nice society without guns?
Apart from this, I’m just like every guy, meaning I find guns way cool.
[/quote]
The reason armed societies are polite is that if you get out of line, you are aware that there are several folks available and willing to shoot your ass. Therefore you learn to keep yourself under control.
The United states was founded upon an armed rebellion by free people rejecting oppression by an imperial power. Our founders were almost uniform in their praise of private firearms ownership. It is no accident that the right to keep and bear arms is the 2nd of our enumerated freedoms. It gives us the power to defend the rest of our rights.
It would be really great if the world was such that we could all just get along and there were no need to defend oneself from predation, but it isn’t. From the riots in France, to violence on Australia’s beaches, America is clearly not the only nation having problems with armed violent criminals. Free law abiding citizens should have the right and freedom to defend themselves. The police do their best but they can’t be in all places all the time. Unless of course you advocate a police state. Ask some of the older Jews in your part of the world what they think about that. Hitler outlawed private firearms ownership for Jews. Wonder why?
I bet it’s true that where there are no guns no one can be shot. Where is that place? Do you imagine that people would stop killing one another if all guns suddenly vanished off the earth tomorrow? The most commonly used implement for killing in the US is the humble screwdriver. Shall we outlaw those? And what about baseball bats, crowbars, knives, swords, hell why don’t we outlaw the ownership of hands, because people can kill with their bare hands, you know.
The point is, why should I as a law abiding person not be able to defend myself against a violent armed criminal using the best means to do so? Perhaps I should just cower and hope someone else will come to my rescue before I am raped or murdered? NO, I’ll keep my guns handy, thank you very much.
Huzzah, everybody! our first Armed Vixen on the thread!
[quote]WMD wrote:
The reason armed societies are polite is that if you get out of line, you are aware that there are several folks available and willing to shoot your ass. Therefore you learn to keep yourself under control.[/quote]
Self-control being the first requirement of being a man, so says Kipling, an Englishman. Wonder what he’d say about his homeland today.
You tell 'em, sister!
FRENCH!!!
One of the most outspoken men on gun rights in America today is Aaron Zelman, founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. That is obviously his thesis as well: More guns = less genocide.
[quote]
I bet it’s true that where there are no guns no one can be shot. Where is that place? Do you imagine that people would stop killing one another if all guns suddenly vanished off the earth tomorrow?[/quote]
Yes, the thousands of years prior to the development of gunpowder were completely free of violent crime. “When pointy stick outlawed, only outlaw have pointy stick.”
[quote]
The point is, why should I as a law abiding person not be able to defend myself against a violent armed criminal using the best means to do so? Perhaps I should just cower and hope someone else will come to my rescue before I am raped or murdered? NO, I’ll keep my guns handy, thank you very much.[/quote]
Yes. This is the essence of what we are saying. It’s not necessarily handguns that we are ardently in favor of, but handy guns.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Self-control being the first requirement of being a man, so says Kipling, an Englishman. Wonder what he’d say about his homeland today.
[/quote]
I’m generally interrested in your opinion of what kind of state our nation is in right now.
Thank you, JD. The Warsaw Uprising is precisely what I had in mind. If it had been even only 100 rifles and 100 shotguns, in every city in Europe, the Nazis would have been made into even bigger asses ,1000 rifles, shotguns and handguns, in every city, town and village, and they would have had a hell of a job even getting past the Sudetenlands.
Never underestimate the power of free, armed and angry people. Even against a “modern army”.
[/quote]
Hate to tell you but…Warsaw got his arse kicked pretty bad by the evil Nazis.
Also, the uprising was in no way done only by a few “angry and armed people”. We talk about the national guerilla (Armia Krajowa) who had about three times as many men around Warsaw. So, in the beginning, the retreating Wehrmacht was pretty outnumbered. Of course, they had better equipment and were reinforced quickly. But without the aid of the russian army, the rebels were no match for a trained army.
I know what I am speaking of, since our family has had soldiers on both sides.
But maybe you were referring to the Ghetto Uprising which took place about one year before. Although I admit the courage of fallen Jews, it was hopeless. They managed to stall the deportation for some time with terrible casualities.
So thanks for showing that a modern army cannot be trifled with. I thought that was my job.
Anyway, as DemiAjax pointed out…
[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
The problem is, your arguments aren’t based on facts. Rather, they are based on anecdotal evidence, quotations, and alleged “common sense” that has no foundation in reality.
It’s like trying to argue the scientific value of “Intelligent Design.”
[/quote]
…it’s a highly emotional debate, at least on your side:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Maybe the reason is because, as I and Rainjack and others including yourself mentioned early on, the issue really isn’t about guns after all, but about remaining free in an increasingly unfree world.
[/quote]
my friend: The world is very free nowadays, at least in in parts of the world, like the States, Western Europa or Japan.
People who seem to feel unfree or meaningless, often try to compensate this with a return to traditional values and/or a more autonomous lifestyle.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The result is that the people of my community, mostly fishermen, farmers, hunters and retirees, pretty much take matters into their own hands. The typhoon washed half the mountain down onto the road? Where’s my shovel. Wild boars digging up my potatoes? Where’s my rifle.
[/quote]
Through living with a shovel in one hand and a rifle in the other, life can be less complicated.
A gun is a useful tool in such a simple world.
But in my town, which happens to be Berlin, less gun control would be a disaster. Life is good without them.
As I already said, I admit that once a population is armed, it can be difficult, if it’s not impossible, not to disarm only the upright citizens.
One last word to the riots in France: I think we all agree that the situation would have been a lot worse with a better armed mob. So what’s the point?
Whatever the point is, it shouldn’t be that “the people” are kept powerless so that they are unable to exact punishment on their abusers.
Simply making it impossible for people to strike out against authority is not the solution either. Yes, yes, authority is always right… isn’t it?
Governments aren’t supposed to go around ignoring and casting off half of the population to the point that they are so cut off they feel like risking their lives to make a point about it.
Something is broken well before the guns and riots come to play…
But maybe you were referring to the Ghetto Uprising which took place about one year before. Although I admit the courage of fallen Jews, it was hopeless. They managed to stall the deportation for some time with terrible casualities. [/quote]
Yes. that is what both I and JD were referring to.
Seven hundred fifty starving, brutalized, demoralized men and women armed with a handful of pistols, rifles and molotov cocktails who held out for a month against the most powerful military force in Europe.
Yes, they were defeated. Just like that dumbass Leonidas and his three hundred Spartiates at Thermopylae. Silly bastards. They did not have a solitary hope for success. Yet they fought.
Perhaps it would have been wiser of them to have just meekly shuffled off into the cattle car for the one-way trip to Treblinka. [quote]
So thanks for showing that a modern army cannot be trifled with. I thought that was my job.[/quote]
Oh, hey, no problem. Anything I can do to demonstrate the idiocy and futility of human courage in the face of overwhelming odds.
Certainly the citizens of Stalingrad, seeing the advancing Nazi Army, should have just thrown up their hands in despair, knowing they had no chance against a Modern Army. What were those silly cossacks thinking, that they actually had a chance fighting the Third Reich with a bunch of rusty old Mosin-Nagant rifles?
Okay, enough sarcasm. Seriously, for anyone who would like to read a good account of the Warsaw uprising, written by Marek Edelman, one of its leaders and few survivors, please see The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, by Marek Edelman .
I am actually not a very emotional person, but this is one topic that makes my blood boil.
Which is almost as ridiculous as stating that a man owns a handgun to compensate for his cowardice, or drives a Mercedes to compensate for his small penis. I choose to live a more autonomous lifestyle than perhaps you do because I want to, and because I enjoy it; not in order to compensate for any feelings of meaninglessness or seeming unfreedom.
Notwithstanding, regarding your assertion that the world is becoming more free, allow me to direct your attention to yet another good Heinlein quote:
I felt that I now understood the new regime: absolute freedom…except that any official from dogcatcher to supreme potentate could give any orders whatever to any private citizen at any time. So it was “freedom” as defined by Orwell and Kafka, “freedom” as granted by Stalin and Hitler, “freedom” to pace back and forth in your cage.
[quote]Through living with a shovel in one hand and a rifle in the other, life can be less complicated.
A gun is a useful tool in such a simple world.
But in my town, which happens to be Berlin, less gun control would be a disaster. Life is good without them. [/quote]
Ach so! Du bist ein Berliner! Well, that explains things. Living in a city that was the seat of power for a fascist totalitarian regime, then was carved up and occupied by the armies of two opposing superpowers does tend to give one a unique perspective on things.
Well, things are not so terribly simple in Vienna and Zurich, so I hear, yet your German-speaking brothers in those complicated cities seem to get along quite well with a far lesser degree of gun control than you Volk seem to require. What could the difference be?
I love freedom. Expecially the freedom of thought. I will give you an example.
Far away from me, a gentleman(or woman perhaps?) types this …
“So thanks for showing that a modern army cannot be trifled with. I thought that was my job.”
My german friend is free to say and think anything he or she wishes, in spite of the facts.
Should I recount the story of the mighty Russian bear and his defeat at the hands of a band of loosely organized tribes?
Of course, you would then say:
“But the Afghans had some US weapons.”
or
“The Afghans were not alone, other warriors from throughout the Islamic world joined them in their fight.”
To wit I would say:
The fact still remains that they were in no way an organized army while the Russians put forth perhaps the most feared ground force in existance. Even with some US assistance(equipment mind you, not fighting men), they were poorly equipped. And while their numbers may have included others from outside their country, who is not to say a resistance in the United States would have no allies in the world should we ever find ourselves invaded? Perhaps even some of our brothers in Europe, who love us so dearly, would come to our aid as they did 2 centuries ago when our simple farmers humilated the English.
Afghanistan proves conclusively and forever that it can be done where there is enough will and enough small arms.
But you certainly have the freedom to ignore the truth and nothing I can say will change that.
[quote]Magnus157 wrote:
I’m not a gun lover. I hunted a little as a teenager and have fired a few different guns, and while they’re kinda cool, guns just don’t float my boat. Having said that, I think gun control is utterly useless at best and steps on personal liberty, at worst. Stats show that gun control does nothing to lower gun related crime. Conversely, while there is a small corrolation between more guns and less gun related crime, a closer look at the stats show no causation.
The bigger concern for me is those people who feel we should ban guns simply because they are inherently dangerous. How they miss the fact that this becomes a very slippery slope astounds me. Where do you stop? and for that matter where do you begin? For exmample, if you own both a gun (any kind) and a swimming pool, statistics show your child is over 100 times more likely to die in the pool than by the gun.
My 10 year old daughter swims in our pool like a mark spitz and shoots (.243 rifle and a .380 pistol) like annie oakley. AND IM ALWAYS STANDING RIGHT BESIDE HER…
So what which then is inherently more dangerous. How about recreational vehicles or even cars for that matter.
The best we can do is education, education, education and accept that the cost of personal liberty is the acceptance that we may kill ourselves or someone else if we’re not responsible with our “inherently” dangerous stuff.[/quote]
Should I recount the story of the mighty Russian bear and his defeat at the hands of a band of loosely organized tribes?
Afghanistan proves conclusively and forever that it can be done where there is enough will and enough small arms.[/quote]
Once again, JD, you take the words right from my mouth. Are we related?
Just this morning on the Rifle Lovers thread, I had this to say about the mighty SMLE rifle:
“Probably killed more Soviet soldiers during the Cold War than any other smallarm.”
To which Massif, in his inimitable Aussie way, replied,
[quote]Killed an ass load of Germans, too.
An experienced rifleman could fire 30 aimed shots per minute, including reloading. The military round was lethal at a range of 7 kilometres (4.4 miles). [/quote]
I know I started this thread talking about handguns, but while we’re on the subject, here’s another good quote from the Guru.
"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power… equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, because a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.
“Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
Be serious, the Russians, who were invaders, not an opressive government we were really talking about, were without question victorious in what they were up to: namely invading the land. Afterwards, they had to secure some puppet government and face guerilla war in order not to loose face.
The escalation of this full fledged guerilla war cannot be compared with an uprising of some upright citizens with small firearms:
the Mudjahedin were hand fed with hundreds of millions by US government and the Saudis.
They were given first class high tech equipment, like the stinger missile launcher
Likewise, they received training how to set up explosives, conduct ambushes etc.
The CIA provided the guerilla with vital military information like satellite photos or decoded sowjet radio messages.
The society of afghanistan is in no way comparable to a modern society of the western world. The circumstances, under which the mudjahedin fought, would be unbearable for modern and educated people like us.
After the war, the “loosely organized” and “good people” of afghanistan went directly to war with each other to create an optimal society. Apparently, you my fellow americans were’t so happy with the outcome because, well, you DID wage war with them didn’t you?
The losses: 15 000 fallen soldiers on soviet side.
The people of afghanistan lost over a million. Now tell me something about resisting a modern army.
Without help from outside, it is highly doubtful that the “russian bear” would have even flinched. Also, the soviets were experiencing greater problems at that time than to maintain a prestige occupation which was getting useless.
In rural parts of Afghanistan, guns are an essential part of the patriarchy. A man without a gun is not a real man.
It’s a good example of a society who shoots first, asks questions later. A society which claims to be just and moraly firm. A society I wouldn’t like to be part of. I like democracy and a government which may be shitty, but which I can dismiss on the next election.
Afghanistan won’t do the trick, so please provide us with reasonable arguments (statistics, historical data etc.) as why allowing the masses to arm themselves would be beneficial to a society.
@WMD: I already told in previous posts that in an armed society, I probably would get a weapon myself. I’m not telling you not to get a gun and stay helpless, whatever the cost.
Since Varqanir did not open this thread to talk about inner US politics, I contributed my general opinion. Which is: Allowing everyone to have access to weapons leads to more troubles.
Also, I’m pretty clueless if it’s really possible to disarm an already
armed society.
@varqanir: Please tell me straight and simple: in which century man has been more free than today? I really want to know.
Last request-
Would you rather live in a society where
a) no one has guns except police and military ?
b) everyone has full access to pistols rifles, automatic machine guns ?
I know this is simplified but let’s just assume it, kay? I’m curious.
And please, no more fairy tales (“just a few good men i say…”) or Heinlein poetry (“You can have peace or freedom, not both”).
I’d hate to bust your fantasy bubble, but if nobody at all had guns, why would the police need them?
I’d also like to know why I should assume that I can trust authorities such as the police and military. I mean, perhaps I trust them in my country today, but what about tomorrow?
Pandoras Box is open. Guns are in society. We can only go in two diections. Outlaw them so only outlaws have them or embrace their ownership, practice and be good and safe with them.
Should I recount the story of the mighty Russian bear and his defeat at the hands of a band of loosely organized tribes?
Afghanistan proves conclusively and forever that it can be done where there is enough will and enough small arms.
Afghanistan?
Be serious, the Russians, who were invaders, not an opressive government we were really talking about, were without question victorious in what they were up to: namely invading the land. Afterwards, they had to secure some puppet government and face guerilla war in order not to loose face.
The escalation of this full fledged guerilla war cannot be compared with an uprising of some upright citizens with small firearms:
the Mudjahedin were hand fed with hundreds of millions by US government and the Saudis.
They were given first class high tech equipment, like the stinger missile launcher
Likewise, they received training how to set up explosives, conduct ambushes etc.
The CIA provided the guerilla with vital military information like satellite photos or decoded sowjet radio messages.
The society of afghanistan is in no way comparable to a modern society of the western world. The circumstances, under which the mudjahedin fought, would be unbearable for modern and educated people like us.
After the war, the “loosely organized” and “good people” of afghanistan went directly to war with each other to create an optimal society. Apparently, you my fellow americans were’t so happy with the outcome because, well, you DID wage war with them didn’t you?
The losses: 15 000 fallen soldiers on soviet side.
The people of afghanistan lost over a million. Now tell me something about resisting a modern army.
Without help from outside, it is highly doubtful that the “russian bear” would have even flinched. Also, the soviets were experiencing greater problems at that time than to maintain a prestige occupation which was getting useless.
In rural parts of Afghanistan, guns are an essential part of the patriarchy. A man without a gun is not a real man.
It’s a good example of a society who shoots first, asks questions later. A society which claims to be just and moraly firm. A society I wouldn’t like to be part of. I like democracy and a government which may be shitty, but which I can dismiss on the next election.
Afghanistan won’t do the trick, so please provide us with reasonable arguments (statistics, historical data etc.) as why allowing the masses to arm themselves would be beneficial to a society.
@WMD: I already told in previous posts that in an armed society, I probably would get a weapon myself. I’m not telling you not to get a gun and stay helpless, whatever the cost.
Since Varqanir did not open this thread to talk about inner US politics, I contributed my general opinion. Which is: Allowing everyone to have access to weapons leads to more troubles.
Also, I’m pretty clueless if it’s really possible to disarm an already
armed society.
@varqanir: Please tell me straight and simple: in which century man has been more free than today? I really want to know.
Last request-
Would you rather live in a society where
a) no one has guns except police and military ?
b) everyone has full access to pistols rifles, automatic machine guns ?
I know this is simplified but let’s just assume it, kay? I’m curious.
And please, no more fairy tales (“just a few good men i say…”) or Heinlein poetry (“You can have peace or freedom, not both”).
[/quote]>The society of afghanistan is in no way comparable to a modern society of the western world.
“The circumstances, under which the mudjahedin fought, would be unbearable for modern and educated people like us”
Please edit your post to read “me” instead of “us”. It clearly doesn’t include me, a lot of the posters on this thread, and millions of Americans.
Your missing the point. The American Citizen-Soldier will always rise to the task at hand. Always has. You underestimate the potential of one man with a rifle. That’s good. A lot of amatuers do.
