Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Xargos on September 02, 2007, 12:51:36 PM
-
I knew about the event, but never that it had a name. To me this is a very good reason for not depending on the State to protect you from harm.
Kristallnacht (http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/kristallnacht/frame.htm)
Edited for improper sentence structure.
-
Absolutely.
-
Totally
-
I dont think Nazi Germany is a good example of a state trying to protect you citizens from harm though. Especially not since the citizens under attack were jews.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I dont think Nazi Germany is a good example of a state trying to protect you citizens from harm though.
Well maybe not all citizens of Germany at the time. But certainly 'Aryans.'
-
had an interesting conversation with a guy from poland last night. i was trying to express to him why americans so cherish the right to bear arms...i was attempting to explain to him that an armed populace is the only possible temper to an armed government doing harm to an unarmed citizenry or as protection against a foriegn invader...appearantly losing 35% of the population of poland in ww2 (his statistic) wasnt enough to persuade him that self defense isnt such a bad idea.
-
Two questions.
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.
If the Government had to face hundreds or even thousands of Waco's at the same time, things would have turned out very different.
Our Founding Fathers where wise enough to know that all forms of government become corrupt over time. That is the reason they gave us the second amendment, so that we could overthrow that corrupt government when the time came. That is the reason liberals want to take our guns away, so that they could force their will upon the masses even more.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
let me get this straight, people on here say the US military can't defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but a foreign invader could defeat a "armed citizenry' in America? :lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
let me get this straight, people on here say the US military can't defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but a foreign invader could defeat a "armed citizenry' in America? :lol
The only reason people say that is because they are idiots.
If the US wanted to, they could easily put an end to all violence in Iraq by enforcing what we could call "soviet methods" of crowd control and anti-insurgency tactics. In an invasion of the USA-scenario, I dont think the US citizenry should count on an invader being that civilized.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.
Hortlund... here, c'mon... here grab my gun. Bet you can't.
BTW you Swedish lil Biyatch what do you know about Waco? Or maybe yer a lil Liberal American hiding behind a different flag?
Sweden LOL the Liberal hemoroid of the World.
With Love,
Mac
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Hortlund... here, c'mon... here grab my gun. Bet you can't.
Mac
What are you gay?
-
i don't think that you have to be a right winger to respect the second amendment mac. im not...and i do.
but that's just mizzizzle yo.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
If the US wanted to, they could easily put an end to all violence in Iraq by enforcing what we could call "soviet methods" of crowd control and anti-insurgency tactics. In an invasion of the USA-scenario, I dont think the US citizenry should count on an invader being that civilized.
I agree. We'd need a few more troops to pull it off. If we actually did it like this and not be all PC about it we'd see quite a backlash from the international community. If you think the anti-American movement is big now...
-
Walter Chronkite told a story i totally agree with once. He said he was with the allies as they were liberating a certain concentration camp. A German citizen ran up to him crying. He told Walter Chronkite hysterically, "I didn't know what was going on in there." Chronkite told the person doing the interview that night, that he thought the person crying was almost as responsible for the event as the ones that commited it. One more reason why governments can never be totally trusted and they should be kept an eye on. Why, because they are run by the most fallible objects in the universe, us, people.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
You have to remember, much of that armed citizenry is ex-military for one thing, and for two, much of the total citizenry is highly educated. That's two things we have going for us.
We also have (and this might seem a little arrogant, but look at our history), a population almost completely blessed with the "plucky gene." Now it might not always show, but just about every single one of us here, no matter what race or creed, is descended from someone who went through a lot of hell to make it over here, and make it once they got here.
That only tends to come out when times are tough, but when times are tough you can see that. If you'd been here after 9/11, you'd have noticed. If we are ever invaded, you will notice.
Finally, our geography and infrastructure is perhaps the best suited for defense on the planet. Assuming all our air support was destroyed, that might take away our advantage in the latter, but it wouldn't take away the former. Moutains, hills, and wooded areas are still very much all over the place. It's a partisan's dream.
Invading America would be an absolute nightmare, and a large part of the reason is that in EVERY town you visited, you'd have to expect to be shot at. You can't say the same about England.
2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.
They would fare infinitely better than an unarmed citizenry.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.
there is ample evidence of guerillas overthrowing gov'ts. here in my beloved florida the seminoles and the miccosuki tribes held the federal government at bay, never losing a battle while armed with stone age weapons.
draw a parallel to today.
-
If the US wanted to, they could easily put an end to all violence in Iraq by enforcing what we could call "soviet methods" of crowd control and anti-insurgency tactics. In an invasion of the USA-scenario, I dont think the US citizenry should count on an invader being that civilized.
Oh was Afghanistan that long ago??
The vaunted Soviet military crowd control, anti insurgency tactics, and superior weaponry sure made short work of those Afghan freedom fighters. :D:D:D
In an Invasion of the U.S. I don't think the invader will find that the majority is a bunch of whining liberals that will die, unarmed, while on their knees. I think it more likely that they will find a nation that is mostly uncivilized and murderous and armed to the teeth ...
-
WOLVERINES!!!!!
(http://meekmok.com/muaddib/images/blog/wolverines.jpg)
:D
-
Unfortunately, liberals took over europe after WW2. This has a lot to do with the conservative europeans immigrating to the US. The reason you couldn't convince the polish man is that he has liberalism ingrained in his genes.
He just can't understand that a government may do something bad. Especially when he's been raised by the government to think of it well.
-
let me get this straight, people on here say the US military can't defeat the terrorists in Iraq, but a foreign invader could defeat a "armed citizenry' in America?
I'd say if the Iraqis were using the sort of weapons Americans now hold, the US army would defeat them pretty easily.
US soldiers aren't being killed by hunting rifles and handguns, not even by AK 47s in any great numbers. It's bombs and RPGs that are causing the most problems for the US army.
For example, in August 41 US soldiers were killed by IEDs and RPGs, 2 by mortar fire, 9 by small arms/sniper fire. (out of 81 total, including many killed in 2 helicopter crashes, and some cases where the exact circumstances haven't been released yet)
If the US citizens were to fight against either their own government or an invading army, like in all other modern cases they'd do so with proper military weapons supplied from abroad and explosives, not with rifles and handguns they currently own.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
2) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against a government trying to disarm them? If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.
Worked pretty good when Vietnam tried it out bud!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What are you gay?
get yer mind out of the gutter
-
i thought squeaker season was over.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by JB88
(http://www.safetinspector.com/pix/nohairme.jpg)
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
lol.
you forgot these.
(http://www.augustradio.com/horns.jpg)
-
lol
:aok
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Unfortunately, liberals took over europe after WW2. This has a lot to do with the conservative europeans immigrating to the US. The reason you couldn't convince the polish man is that he has liberalism ingrained in his genes.
He just can't understand that a government may do something bad. Especially when he's been raised by the government to think of it well.
huh?
Europe after war taken over by liberals? witch part?
JB88, LOL i thought you are like 14-15 yo
-
shshsh...the ladies like me young.
:cool:
-
Vudak, interesting comment about England.....had to reread it a couple of times till I got it.....and your right, topographically we dont have the space/woodland/mountains etc...........but pretty sure anyone who invaded this place wouldnt enjoy it too much........we can be pretty feisty when our teabreaks are interrupted you know.....and you dont want to know what we're like if you spill our beer.....;)
:aok
Wurzel
-
hi,bye:noid
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Unfortunately, liberals took over europe after WW2. This has a lot to do with the conservative europeans immigrating to the US. The reason you couldn't convince the polish man is that he has liberalism ingrained in his genes.
He just can't understand that a government may do something bad. Especially when he's been raised by the government to think of it well.
This may be the dumbest thing i've ever read in my life.
*dripping with sarcasm* Yes Laser, you are absolutely right. Polish people LOVE Nanny states. So much so in fact, that they rose up and threw off the SOVIET F****** UNION, essentially breaking the back of the original "Evil Empire" all because they swallow BS and never ask questions. That was very insightful. :rolleyes:
-
dude JB88, you live in Santa Rosa?????????
omg, I live in Santa Rosa!!!
small world after all
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Hortlund... here, c'mon... here grab my gun. Bet you can't.
BTW you Swedish lil Biyatch what do you know about Waco? Or maybe yer a lil Liberal American hiding behind a different flag?
Sweden LOL the Liberal hemoroid of the World.
With Love,
Mac
Gotta love this guy, 20 years in the military and all it taught him was that..Sad. Bet he retired as a PFC 2nd class.
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Gotta love this guy, 20 years in the military and all it taught him was that..Sad. Bet he retired as a PFC 2nd class.
PFC 2nd class?
Private first Class 2nd class?
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
PFC 2nd class?
Private first Class 2nd class?
You know what i mean Panzer sheeessh lol. Thanks for counting my pubic hairs though, didn't know i lost one. :p
-
?
-
Oh wait ..... there it is....... (examines it in the light).
-
alrighty then
(http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/allposters/04/1800201304p.jpg)
-
I must take a moment and laugh at that........
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I'm sorry that was damn funny. :cool:
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
Gotta love this guy, 20 years in the military and all it taught him was that..Sad. Bet he retired as a PFC 2nd class.
You being the expert on all thing coming out of your mouth and all.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
If the government really really wanted they could and would go Waco on all your tulips and take your guns.
uh, yeah.... sure
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
I must take a moment and laugh at that........
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
I'm sorry that was damn funny. :cool:
if I was a dictator your profile would be edited, I really think your sig is messed up, no offense.
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
dude JB88, you live in Santa Rosa?????????
omg, I live in Santa Rosa!!!
small world after all
lol.
beach or county?
-
"Private first Class 2nd class?"
:lol
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Two questions.
1) How well do you think an "armed citizenry" would fare against an invader? It might have worked in 1776, but in 2007, most invaders come armed with tanks and aircraft.
Well, the Afghans did pretty good against the soviets
-
LOL... it is absolutely true that the whiny liberal socialists here think that the US can't defeat a few thousand iraqi's but that they could crush 8 million (10% of the armed population) or so armed citizens...
Soo... in order to not look too foolish they first say... "but yeah... that is cause the US army is too kind in iraq and they would turn into stalin against you"
Yeah.. that would work... What do you think the cops and the army would do if their own government asked em to do that?
Then... cause that is such a stupid thing to say.. they compound it with the statement made by the guy who knows nothing about firearms...
That... "we don't have RPG's so we couldn't win with the 50 caliber sniper rifles and semi auto weapons we have."
This is just plain dumb... For the type of fights we would have we have the best weapons... I don't even want a full auto 223. If I did find I wanted one... I would simply remove it from the dead guys hands.
And... JB... you don't hang out with the right poles.. they guy is a sissy and you can tell em for me. I know a pole and some russians who are citizens now... I went to the range with em and we shot the crap out my guns and theirs. they would call your friend a sissy too.
Plenty of American estrogen filled types are freightened of guns and don't want anyone to have em... it is not a surprise that you could find one or two brainwashed poles too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, the Afghans did pretty good against the soviets
I'd love to see americans living like afghans even for just a week... Afghan TV is terrible.
-
Originally posted by JB88
lol.
beach or county?
County.
-
Originally posted by bozon
I'd love to see americans living like afghans even for just a week... Afghan TV is terrible.
I dont know about Afghan TV but Iranian TV for kids is basically a show about suicide bombers jumping off cliffs with alot of bombs and detontating above trucks full of Jewish soldiers. Very disturbing especially when the children and women start cheering.
-
alright, they didnt have the cartoon I saw easily findable but heres this, it shows how much Iran TV sucks.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7695557866349652449
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
County.
<---beach
still pretty close though.
;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yeah.. that would work... What do you think the cops and the army would do if their own government asked em to do that?
To be perfectly honest with you, I'd imagine many would. I know this is going to be *extremely* unpopular to say on this board but, uh... Not every soldier of ours enlisted out of patriotism or love of country... Many did so for money. And the money's not that good.
I'm just saying - if you get a general as charismatic as Caesar, offering bonuses on the same scale as Caesar... You're going to get a rebellion rate on par with Caesar's. It's a huge part of the reason the 2nd Amendment is so vital to protect.
And... JB... you don't hang out with the right poles.. they guy is a sissy and you can tell em for me. I know a pole and some russians who are citizens now... I went to the range with em and we shot the crap out my guns and theirs. they would call your friend a sissy too.
Yep... While we're over here talking about Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc., no one's mentioned Warsaw yet. Sure, they lost in the end, but those Poles in '44 put up a ferocious fight. Imagine that happening in every major city across a country, and you've got a pretty good idea of what an invasion of the US would look like.
-
the only way that an invasion the size of that which happened in poland could
happen is if mexico...oh wait...nevermind.
:noid
- it is worth noting that they had to bring troops in from western china to slaughter the people in tianimen square...so we'd probably have a heads up if we heard that they were moving texan guard units around the country to start slaughtering us.
:noid
-
Why Texans?:(
:D
-
Originally posted by Slash27
You being the expert on all thing coming out of your mouth and all.
Who says i'm an expert ???? You????
I never said that...
......wait.....what the hell did i say???? :confused: :rolleyes: :D
-
Originally posted by Vudak
To be perfectly honest with you, I'd imagine many would. I know this is going to be *extremely* unpopular to say on this board but, uh... Not every soldier of ours enlisted out of patriotism or love of country... Many did so for money. And the money's not that good.
I'm just saying - if you get a general as charismatic as Caesar, offering bonuses on the same scale as Caesar... You're going to get a rebellion rate on par with Caesar's. It's a huge part of the reason the 2nd Amendment is so vital to protect.
Yep... While we're over here talking about Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc., no one's mentioned Warsaw yet. Sure, they lost in the end, but those Poles in '44 put up a ferocious fight. Imagine that happening in every major city across a country, and you've got a pretty good idea of what an invasion of the US would look like.
Thought they were Jewish Poles?
-
vudak... "many" is not enough. the more you strayed from American values the more soldiers who would desert.
And.. unlike the government.. the citizens wouldn't need more than about 10% backing.
As for an invasion... not a good idea in a country where everyone is armed.
The only way it would work is if the invaders were seen to be liberators.
lazs
-
We have a total active and reserve force of about 2.6 million. We have over 90 million firearm owners in the US. We have about four times as many gun owners in the US as there are people in Iraq.
As Lazs points out, even 10 percent armed resistance would dwarf the US military. Throw in some heavy handed carpet bombing here or there and you likley have 30 million armed resisters. Given at least some lingering respect for the Constitution at such a time in the future, you could at best expect lukewarm support among a purged military that would start to evaporate as the collateral damage mounted. This would also apply to the general support for the tyrannical government among those citizens that accepted whatever argument was being sold.
More collateral damage, less support, more armed resistance. The powerful ordnance, not enough anyway IMO, are neutered.
Of course, this is exactly why we have the 2nd in the first place, as James Madison outlined in Federalist 46:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the Federal Government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State Governments with the people on their side would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield in the United States an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Against a foreign invader...
The same applies, but in support of the military. It really is an absurd argument though.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I knew about the event, but never that it had a name. To me this is a very good reason for not depending on the State to protect you from harm.
Kristallnacht (http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/kristallnacht/frame.htm)
Edited for improper sentence structure.
This was the "State". Anti-jew. Nazi government.
As for if the government wanted to bend it's own citizens in the USA, have you considered the govt assisted by the military just taking over key points like powergrids, water supplies, comms, and key transport?
You can have all the ammo in the world, but no food, no water, no service, and no connection except the verbal one.
The army just needs to have a whole grip on these key points for the govt to rule. As a point, remember what has been happening in the USA post catastrophies. Service-out for just a few days has caused riots and heavy vandalism.
Many nations have dealt with such for an incredibly long time, but those were maybe different cultures.
It's not about the authorities being able to boot into every home, it's the other way around.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Thought they were Jewish Poles?
2 revolts. One in the Getto, the other a total one. 1943 and 1944.
There was something similar in Bialistok as well if I recall.
In Warsaw the Nazis, at some cost, squashed the uprisings, eventually leaving the city in total ruins.
Now a US citizen is better armed than a starved jew normally. The jew had nothing to loose though, and at the time, knew it. And the Gerries didn't have IR, flashbangs and some nice SWAT gadgets.
All up for ponder....
-
My water comes from a private well, as do many of the homes around here. Many people also keep a large supply of food because of hurricanes. The American government can only go so far before it's own troops start to turn on them. The idea is to keep them at bay until the common American soldier starts to question his orders. The only real threat to America is the UN, they are worse then any Muslim terrorist.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
My water comes from a private well, as do many of the homes around here. Many people also keep a large supply of food because of hurricanes. The American government can only go so far before it's own troops start to turn on them. The idea is to keep them at bay until the common American soldier starts to question his orders. The only real threat to America is the UN, they are worse then any Muslim terrorist.
Get your point, but the Majority of citizens do NOT have a private water or power source, nor long term supplies of unfrozen food. And there is a history of riots and looting after power outs. Just power outs that last a couple of days.
-
In Warsaw the Nazis, at some cost, squashed the uprisings, eventually leaving the city in total ruins.
Now a US citizen is better armed than a starved jew normally. The jew had nothing to loose though, and at the time, knew it. And the Gerries didn't have IR, flashbangs and some nice SWAT gadgets.
All up for ponder....
Of course, the Nazi's were killing Jews in a foreign city. Here' the military would be tasked with killing friends, family and fellow citizens either directly or as collateral damage while destroying home towns, etc. Any assault on a massed resistance where there was any question about the validity of the resistance would be a non starter.
A protest by 5,000 citizens, mothers, fathers brothers, sisters, friends, cousins, etc. many armed would not be a Waco. You cannot use non lethal methods with such numbers, particularly if the protesters return tear gas with rifle fire. Lethal methods would result in heavy casualties and spur a dramatic end to such nonsense. Jut look at Kent State.
There is only so far you can oppress a minority, and you can't effectively suppress a majority, particularly if it is armed. Guys like Hitler and Stalin didn't have that worry. They had the passive to active support of most of the population. And when Hitler met significant opposition to policies like the euthanasia campaign or even the resettlement of married Jews in Berlin ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenstrasse_protest ) he backed down.
Charon
-
Originally posted by wrag
Thought they were Jewish Poles?
There were two uprising's in Warsaw. The first was by Jewish Poles (The Ghetto Uprising). The second was by the general population.
- Edit, Angus beat me to it.
-
I did not know about that Charon...Thank You.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
My water comes from a private well, as do many of the homes around here. Many people also keep a large supply of food because of hurricanes. The American government can only go so far before it's own troops start to turn on them. The idea is to keep them at bay until the common American soldier starts to question his orders. The only real threat to America is the UN, they are worse then any Muslim terrorist.
You do realize that the well runs on electricity, and that you'd need some other form of power to keep it running.
Not an insult at all, we just need to realize how the stuff we take for granted runs because of other utilities.
-
Yup, got an old hand crank generator. :D Does take a lot of cranking though.:(
Wonder if I should get a small solar panel to help with that.
P.S. I went two weeks without running water after Hurricane Hugo came through. Not fun at all.
-
Charon:
"Of course, the Nazi's were killing Jews in a foreign city. Here' the military would be tasked with killing friends, family and fellow citizens either directly or as collateral damage while destroying home towns, etc. Any assault on a massed resistance where there was any question about the validity of the resistance would be a non starter."
What setup do you use as a comparison.
Pre war Germany had several hundred thousands of jews. They got "ausgerotten" down to what, - 1000? Those Jews were Germans!
Same went with many other countries. Several officials did turn in on their own countrymen under fascist rule. They would do it even if they didn't have a special gain in it. And some would out of fear.
Facsist/Nazi control really did manage to bite in properly.
You wouldn't have to "storm" areas, and you wouldn't need the military except to guard a sideline, you have special troops for such a job, and you don't do all 1% in one go.
Say the U.S. government turns on a group of......1% of the population 3 million people. ?? Say...all from arabic origin. Say that the official goal was to "camp them up". Would it be possible?
Maybe I ask to much, but I think it would.... The liberals make it less likely though :D
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Yup, got an old hand crank generator. :D Does take a lot of cranking though.:(
Wonder if I should get a small solar panel to help with that.
P.S. I went two weeks without running water after Hurricane Hugo came through. Not fun at all.
windmill might be easier.
;)
-
Hurricane Hugo? The one from 1990?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hurricane Hugo? The one from 1990?
1989.
-
Pre war Germany had several hundred thousands of jews. They got "ausgerotten" down to what, - 1000? Those Jews were Germans!
Same went with many other countries. Several officials did turn in on their own countrymen under fascist rule. They would do it even if they didn't have a special gain in it. And some would out of fear.
Facsist/Nazi control really did manage to bite in properly.
You wouldn't have to "storm" areas, and you wouldn't need the military except to guard a sideline, you have special troops for such a job, and you don't do all 1% in one go.
Say the U.S. government turns on a group of......1% of the population 3 million people. ?? Say...all from arabic origin. Say that the official goal was to "camp them up". Would it be possible?
Maybe I ask to much, but I think it would.... The liberals make it less likely though
The Jews were an oppressed minority, considered as a society apart from the formal German culture. Gypsies and Homosexuals as well. Non mainstream and beyond mainstream concern by the German people, unfortunately. One of the video presenters at the Imperial War Museum Holocaust Exhibit said as much, to paraphrase: "My one regret is that we didn't get to know our neighbors better."
Also, one of the first things the Nazis also did was revoke the rights of Jews to own firearms. If you are a powerless minority than too bad, no one will care when the special squads roll over you. And of course, there was the functional history of rolling with the pogroms and surviving as a people after some bloodshed that just didn't work under the Nazi model. Like non resistance to hijacking before 911.
FWIW, although urban American Jews are one of the more liberal forces in the country and often at odds with the 2nd Amendment, one of the most rabid defenders of the 2nd Amendment is Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership. There was just a big discussion among Jewish gun owners on one of the gun sites about the inability of some of their brothers and sisters to learn this particular lesson from history.
As to "camping them up." I don't see the repression of a minority in the US, at least formally, along the lines of what happened to the Japanese. We all know that's bad now :) Perhaps a lot of informal hate and violence should there be a devastating strike, etc. -- 911 with a nuke for example. That makes the ownership of a firearm for self protection important for such minorities just as it was for blacks after the civil war. In fact, much of our current firearm regulation has roots in the attempt of whites to deny blacks firearm ownership.
I also think that an a successful nuclear terrorist attack could easily lead to an interim government focused on security at the expense of rights and that the ability of the American people to roll that back once the hysteria is passed is enhanced by being able to back up our concerns. You may like your martial law powers and suspended elections, but we think it's time to change...
Charon
-
Originally posted by JB88
WOLVERINES!!!!!
(http://meekmok.com/muaddib/images/blog/wolverines.jpg)
:D
seems many here take this movie alittle too seriously.
If there was a real invasion all the lazs in the country would not make a dent. Like Hortlund stated, our enemy would not fight a civilized war that we try to fight these days.
-
eagler... seems that you are the one taking the movie too seriously...
An invasion is an absurd thing to think about.. in that case you would have both the army and the people fighting.
A group of cuban paratroopers is not gonna do it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A group of cuban paratroopers is not gonna do it.
lazs
true
but if the gun owners really think they would contribute any kind of real resistance against a motivated invader, they are kidding themselves.
Yes, you could hold off a rioting group of locals from entering your home for a while but the invader would take out your town from >30,000ft. You'd never know what hit you as you sat there oiling up your arms collection :)
-
who says we would fight "civilized"? Plenty of former military that were trained in sabotage.
-
Charon, - did you ever read Remarque?
That "non-jew" actually left nazi Germany for the USA, BTW.
Anyway, he wrote excellently of the nazi rise, and eventually had to go packing because of it. In his writings, there is not much of the authorities (well they were weak) trying to stop the progress of nazism.
Another book of the subject is called "die welle". Gonna catch that one in Germany next week.
We may disagree a lot, but since I see you are a thinker, I thought it would be a civil gesture to promote something that you might not have looked into.
And Xargos, - ok 1989. Hugo crossed the N-Atlantic and over where I live. Luckily much of the force was out, so it was just an unusual storm at that time of year.
I will never forget, for I lived in a tent 4 months of that year.
Same with 1990, just wasn't sure which year it was.
(My wilder youth...ahhhh)
-
Anyway, he wrote excellently of the nazi rise, and eventually had to go packing because of it. In his writings, there is not much of the authorities (well they were weak) trying to stop the progress of nazism.
Another book of the subject is called "die welle". Gonna catch that one in Germany next week.
Thanks. I'll look into those. [Edit: I assume that would be Erich Maria Remarque of "All Quiet on the Western Front" fame.] No need for civil gestures -- I don't take these discussion personally and I hope you don't either :) This is an area of interest of mine after I moved beyond just the war stories years ago. Another good read on the subject is: The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1930-1935. by William Sheridan Allen. It's focus is a bit narrow but it is noteworthy in that the town in question (named "Thalburg" to provide some anonymity to the people interviewed) showed how the Nazi's managed to win the hearts and minds of a fairly "non Nazi" environment. The discussion on the Nazi use of propaganda at all levels, tailored to each audience is insightful.
I would argue that there are some significant differences between the US and Germany post WW1 (at least for now). The Germans were coming from an authoritarian society where individual rights were superseded by order and security, having moved from the Kaiser to the messiness of the Wiemar Republic in only a few short years. The appeal of a strong dictator was fairly straight forward. The US has had a strong nationalist but at the same time individualist streak. However, we seem to be moving away from that spirit of individuality in both mainstream conservative and liberal platforms. Here it tends to be an Urban rural thing, with a mix of both in the suburbs.
I would have no intention of taking part in some dead end revolution if my countrymen decided to freely give up their rights, as they well can. We can vote into power a Hitler, much as the Germans did, and amend the Constitution to make it a quite different document. In that scenario I would just leave to a free country if I could. However, should a tyrant decide to take that power, feeling perhaps that he or she had just enough support among the population and military to do so -- then we do have a recourse.
Charon
-
some of us have gone through that precise scenario charon. I come from cuba and when the populace voted in a dictator my family along with the many other like minded families did precisely that. I was three years old at the time and i know what it means to come from abundance at home to poverty in a foreign land. this is very different in the case of a population of five million and when only one hundred thousand of the most educated and best prepared within that society decided to vacate to the welcoming arms of the american people. if one percent of the population of the united states decided to seek political asylum where would we go? where is this last bastion of freedom to be found?
I agree that taking up armed resistance against your own government is folly and yet even with the sobering consequences of such an action to ponder perhaps those that may one day be forced to make that choice will recall the everyday heros of a bygone era and find strength in the words and actions of men such as those that pledged life and fortune when they penned their names onto a document to be submitted to their sovereign.
many of those brave founders lost both life and fortune in order that their progeny might enjoy what we have today.
I already know what I would chose in such a matter and fleeing twice in my lifetime just doesn't sit well with me.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Why Texans?:(
'cause we're bad and we're nationwide :)
-
Originally posted by culero
'cause we're bad and we're nationwide :)
with your new york brim and your gold tooth displayed?
-
Originally posted by storch
with your new york brim and your gold tooth displayed?
Yeap, and my first hot rod was a V8 Ford ;)
-
I already know what I would chose in such a matter and fleeing twice in my lifetime just doesn't sit well with me.
I don't know if there would necessarily be anything to flee vs. just leave. Not that we are close to the point just yet, but there are a lot of people both self proclaimed conservatives and liberals who would freely support a government structure close to either fascism or communism. If, say, 90 percent of the country thinks your quaint small government, BOR focused views are just too "outdated" in the modern world, what would be the point? Again, I don't think we are close to having that be acceptable today.
There was plenty of support for remaining a colony before/during the revolution, but there was more than plenty of support (though a lot of it passive) for independence. We were able to raise a significant resistance that included fielded forces and not just partisans. And partisans especially would need at least the passive support of the people. Without some support base a revolution is pointless.
Charon
-
Erich Maria Remarque yes.
You have 2 books of the same character as in "All quiet on the Western front", - Ludwig Bodmeier.
The first one I haven't caught yet, but it happens right after WW1. The title is something like "We went home". Then comes "Falling currency" where he enters the rise of Nazism.
Another book in a similar tone, but more of the bohemian style is called "The Friends" (other characters) then the Darker "Arc of Triump" and "Night in Lissabon" Excellent read.
"The wave", - can't remember the author, but it's about how a small movement like the Nazis were in the beginning starts to form a wave of people, - or so I understood it. Wife read it, I not yet.
Then on the more political side, once the Nazis were in power, I have a little German book called "Der Teufelspact"m - the devil's deal, - about the German-USSR pre-war deals. OOOps :D
Anyway, Remarque gave me hours of really good reading.:aok
-
eagler... can you name a situation where me not being armed would be better than me being armed?
Your scenario is pure fantasy. We are not gonna get invaded by anyone. That is the problem the movie had.. they had to contrive paratroop landings. What else could they do? We won't have beach landings here like in WWII.
What navy on the planet can get enough troops here that I can't shoot along with some help from police, military, and bubba?
In WWII we were scared to death of a jap defense of the homeland by armed citizens... and they really had nothing but sharpened broomsticks by then.
The most probable scenario I see is civil war... probly not a particularly bloody one outside of the big cities tho.
In any case... rural and armed will beat taxi riding unarmed blue voting sissy every time.
lazs
-
You have anti-tank stuff?
Rural = playground for armour. Urban = not so.
-
angus... if I need anti tank stuff I would get it. I sure as hell would have a lot harder time getting it tho without a firearm.
Anything I need will be laying around sooner or latter... so long as we stay armed and willing to fight.
The RPG.. is a very old and primitive weapon as is TNT... those things seem to be doing just fine in destroying some of the most sophisticated weaponry we have in iraq.
Tanks? Hell... if I had to I would just set the damn thing on fire or break the bridge under it or drop a big rock or bulldozer on it. sure as hell... I can go places it can't. The insurgents would have all just turned themselves in by your logic by now.
It just keeps coming back to the same thing... a government can't fight it's own armed and determined populace and there is no one out there who could invade the US... it is just not possible.
Soooo... it behooves us to keep up with the constitution that made us the most powerful country in the history of the world.
You are only as powerless as you allow yourself to be... many here revel in their powerlessness.
lazs
-
Lazs vs an army.
"angus... if I need anti tank stuff I would get it."
Would you be able to go shopping with a tank at yer door?
(looking at you through IR anyway)
-
Lazs vs an army.
"angus... if I need anti tank stuff I would get it."
Would you be able to go shopping with a tank at yer door?
(looking at you through IR anyway) [/QUOTE]
Angus,
By this point you are simply baiting Laz.
Neither one of us (3) have any idea what will or would happen if an American president made an executive decree for the in-country military to disarm the American population. We are a country of 300+M you are from an island of aprox. 300k.
I have to think even the citizens of Iceland would put up a fight if your next leader issued an order for the police and military to place the country under military law indefinately. In the same spirit I have to ask you:
"Do you hate the United States so much that in jest you would wish us defeat and slavery in a fantasy circemsatnce that you yourself in your own country would resist to the death? Or would you personaly help your government inslave your country men to keep your own freedom?"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
it is absolutely true
lazs
I do not think that means what you think it means..
(http://www.agileproductdesign.com/blog/images/inigo.jpg)
-
You know. You actually can own an anti tank gun :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s6_vufc1ns
Now, it's more of a privilege than a right, as a Class III destructive device. And I have argued that while a select fire rifle is covered under the 2nd Amendment ordnance is not judging by the language used by the founders (arms in hand, drilling, etc.), dictionary definitions of the period (a stand of arms, for example, as a musket and personal gear) and a distinction drawn between arms and cannon/artillery in the military logistics documents of the day. There are those who disagree and feel a tactical nuke is covered under the Second but they have more emotion than fact and seem to have an ultra libertarian/anarcist view of the founders that does not ring true.
But then, for reasons I have outlined (as stated by Madison) you don't really need artillery.
Still, that 90 mm is a neat toy. There are others that rebuild and fire recoilless rifles for fun. Typically solid shot since any explosive shot would be considered a separate DD with all the registration that entails.
Charon
-
Originally posted by bustr
Lazs vs an army.
"angus... if I need anti tank stuff I would get it."
Would you be able to go shopping with a tank at yer door?
(looking at you through IR anyway)
Angus,
By this point you are simply baiting Laz.
Neither one of us (3) have any idea what will or would happen if an American president made an executive decree for the in-country military to disarm the American population. We are a country of 300+M you are from an island of aprox. 300k.
I have to think even the citizens of Iceland would put up a fight if your next leader issued an order for the police and military to place the country under military law indefinately. In the same spirit I have to ask you:
"Do you hate the United States so much that in jest you would wish us defeat and slavery in a fantasy circemsatnce that you yourself in your own country would resist to the death? Or would you personaly help your government inslave your country men to keep your own freedom?" [/B][/QUOTE]
Quick answer:
I think the USA is not so unique that it can claim that bad things cannot happen in the country, - in the flavour of military law. And I don't think like Lazs seems to do, that the solution to all problems it to lock yourself up with with your arsenal.
With that, I leave for Germany. I am looking into some historical things, maybe meeting an old LW ace, maybe visiting castle Colditz.....
P.S. I don't hate the USA. But that doesn't mean that USA is above critizism.
-
no angus.. you are wrong on all counts... they US is indeed unique for one. the other is that you have not or no one else has explained to me a situation where me being unarmed would be better than me being armed.
I think a civil war is the most likely scenario... from full blown to halfassed... In that case.. you would indeed be better off "sitting home with your arsenal" if you home happened to be somewhere not in the large cities.
The biggest worry to me would be roving bands of criminals and rioters. The weapons most Americans have would be more than sufficient for that.
making an anti tank round is pretty easy... a bottle...some soap and some gasoline... or... just pick up something more sophisticated that some scared or dead guy dropped... or... buy it from some underfed soldier.
name the exact situation and I can give an answer but... for the most part... simply being armed is the minimum first step. You need to be flexible from there.
Like I said.. it will be the criminal and the rioter that would be the main problem in any case.
Like charon said... if the government fought it's people like they fight everyone else.... no problem... If they fight like some eurobarbarians... then they will just get a larger portion of the population against em with each atrocity.
you got nothing.
lazs
-
Ugh
-
So Storch is a bloody Cuban eh? Who would have guessed that?
(http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp30041+say-hello-to-my-little-friend-al-pacino-scarface-poster.jpg)
;)
-
I am back.
So Lazs...where to begin...? I am wrong on all accounts... Okay, try me:
"The biggest worry to me would be roving bands of criminals and rioters. The weapons most Americans have would be more than sufficient for that."
Your bands of rovers tend to be armed. In crisis such as just a power out, the USA of all western nations has a tendency to go "bad" very quickly. Rovers, yes, and armed.
"making an anti tank round is pretty easy... a bottle...some soap and some gasoline... or... just pick up something more sophisticated that some scared or dead guy dropped... or... buy it from some underfed soldier"
Tried my first one when I was 14. However, the US tanks tend to survive in .....Iraq. I still think they know more than I did, or even you.....
Now, if you have noticed through all these gun-control threads, something as my point, I will clarify it.
I think gun control is necessary for limiting guns in the wrong hands. Seems to work in many countries. So, the person having the easiest time of aquiring a gun is the ordinary Joe. And in a civil war, an honest Joe can be expected to have a gun....
Then to the Crystal night. And the USA. And the Freedom. And the Constitution.....
The Nazi climb to power was very much about a target group that increasingly got blamed and harassed, restricted, watched, interrogated, jailed, limited, then stripped, dumped to a certain number, then murdered.
How many steps of those did the USA take during the communist hunts? You know, no W-European state has come that far into the regime of totalitarianism after WW2.....
-
angus.. now you are getting it.. no matter what the situation... it is better to be armed than not.
Bands of criminals will not have the cohesion to take the kind of loses me and mine will hand out.. and sill persist...they will go look for people you have convinced do not need to be armed.
I think we agree that guns should not be in the wrong hands... the insane and the child and people serving time in prison are the wrong hands... other than that... I can't think of any one else who fits the "wrong hands" idea you have..
The democrats say the same thing as you... they tell America that they just want to keep guns out of "the wrong hands" what I tell everyone here is...
Guess what.... yours are "the wrong hands".
you also prove my point with your little history lesson.... if the rise of communism in the US in the 40's (real or perceived) were a good excuse to ban guns then we would end up like england with their fear in the 20's It is indeed good that our rights are protected by the constitution.
I sure wouldn't want you choosing who could have what guns. end up that only you and a few friends of yours would have em. and of course.. the government and criminals.
lazs
-
Lazs....you confuse me with a paradoxic text.
Here:
"I think we agree that guns should not be in the wrong hands... the insane and the child and people serving time in prison are the wrong hands... other than that... I can't think of any one else who fits the "wrong hands" idea you have.."
Okay, we agree that guns should not be in the wrong hands. That means some kind of a gun control. Then you say:
"I sure wouldn't want you choosing who could have what guns. end up that only you and a few friends of yours would have em. and of course.. the government and criminals."
You have read my point on this several times.
Again.
1: clear criminal record
2: 2 clear guarantors
3: a course that you pass
4: an interview with the head of the local police, - that you pass
And if you pass 3 guns, you need to have a locker for storage.
So, gun control is ALL ABOUT keeping guns off the market, and stuck to the right hands. I happen to pass, so I have guns, and am looking into more guns! However, the Polish tennant in the basement can't have one because he is a foreigner. And many a ruffian I know cannot either, for they have forfeited their right for a gun by getting a sentence and thereby being listed in the criminal record.
IMHO not bad.
Then on to the broken glass..
"you also prove my point with your little history lesson.... if the rise of communism in the US in the 40's (real or perceived) were a good excuse to ban guns then we would end up like england with their fear in the 20's It is indeed good that our rights are protected by the constitution."
Was there a rise of communism?
My point was that your constitution allowed the percecution (including interrogations, jailing, editing etc) of a group of folks. The "red scare" allowed the government in the land of free to act in a Nazy-way. And by the way, that was in the fifties, not the forties. (History lesson :D).
So, there was a target group, and the target group got persecuted. Almost 100 years after slavery (which demanded an amendment to the constitution?), and yet way before there was full rights to coloured people.
But of course the right of the gun will always prevent such....unjustice....
-
angus.. no.. we do not agree... my version of gun control was that children and the insane could not purchase them nor could criminals in prison have them.
you went off on a whole set of rules beyond that... who is a police chief to decide if I have a gun or not? he doesn't even know me and he is no better judge of insanity or age than anyone else in the world.
as for criminal record.... who cares... serve your time and get your gun back.
I don't know what "2 clear guarantors" means
A course that you pass? no need... good idea but... we used to have the NRA come to schools to teach gun safety but the liberals banned em.
as for communism... yes, after the russian revolution in 1917 communism was at it's peak... it was very popular in the 20's in england and a scare here in the 40's and 50's ... governments were worried.
lazs
-
The chief of police will ask you some easy questions, - at least it was that way when I got my licence.
It's about you realizing the responsibility and possible dangers in using firearms, such as ranges, barrel traverse in a crowd of peope, safety etc. You have to be an idiot to flush that one, which is absolutely what it is all about.
Crime record will get you properly banned AFAIK. That is however serious crime with a sentence, not a tax issue or something like that. Bottom line, if you get sentenced for say robbery or murder you have forfeited your right to own a gun.
2 clear guarantors means you have to get 2 people with a clear crime record to sign for you as a person responsible enough to have a gun. Again, if you won't find any, you probably shouldn't have a gun...
And the course will teach you useful things and make it very easy for you to answer some basic questions which the police will ask you :D
Foreigners will not be able to own guns AFAIK. There are some exclusions in the tourism regarding hunting, - I think that is just a matter of paperwork.
Do you have cop-fobia BTW?
Then the commies. It was also very popular in france in the 30's and 40's. You had commies all over the world for that sake, and I know loads of old commies. And Boroda is on the forum too!
Anyway, communism is a political idea, so we as well as many nations had those running for election just like other parties. Then they changed names, - socialists, left-something, labour this-or-that etc. etc. But the botom line is though, that being a group of their own in the USA led to persecutions unique in the western world. It was possible to apply that much authority by the government within the frame of the constitution as it seems. So basically you should not try to mock the Yu-O-Peeans with their strict rules and lack of freedom.....
-
angus... we have instant background checks right now... your quaint methods of having some bloated idiot of a police chief and two other idiots sign for you is pretty outdated and unfair.
Everyone gets asked the same questions... same form... for background checks.
Some of the questions should be ignored tho. I don't care if you were a convict before for instance.
At that point you should be able to own any "arms"... that would include machine guns but not explosive devices that did more than send a projectile.
There would be storage laws for neighborhoods that would be only for fire hazard... nothing else... gross negligence would still be such... like leaving a running chain saw on the front lawn should be illegal but having someone break in to steal it would not be a crime for the victim.
There would be no firearms on any "banned" list including 20 mm cannon without explosive rounds.
lazs
-
Chief of local police asks routine questions. To become one, it is rather recommended not to be a bloating idiot. It is also recommended NOT to hand out guns to bloated idiots.
Handguns and automatic rifles are banned, so are very big calibers I belive. However there are exceptions.
1. gunclub membership allows handgun training. You just can't bring it home...
2. licensed exterminators and gunsmiths have licence for more. Not sure how it works. I have seen .45's etc, and even a gun from 1847 in the hands of those.
BTW, A friend of mine who lives in the USA (studying) bought himself a .45 on a gunfair without showing any paper at all.
Well. all different environment. Be happy with your law, I'll be happy with mine, as well as the statistics.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Chief of local police asks routine questions. To become one, it is rather recommended not to be a bloating idiot. It is also recommended NOT to hand out guns to bloated idiots.
Handguns and automatic rifles are banned, so are very big calibers I belive. However there are exceptions.
1. gunclub membership allows handgun training. You just can't bring it home...
2. licensed exterminators and gunsmiths have licence for more. Not sure how it works. I have seen .45's etc, and even a gun from 1847 in the hands of those.
BTW, A friend of mine who lives in the USA (studying) bought himself a .45 on a gunfair without showing any paper at all.
Well. all different environment. Be happy with your law, I'll be happy with mine, as well as the statistics.
Ther statistics have nothing to do with the laws.
-
angus... your friend had to have passed a background check. this is infinetely more fair and efficient than some idiot police chief asking some oral questions and looking squinty eyed at you to see if you are telling the truth or not.
as for the statistics... hasn't it been established that you have a higher crime rate than one of our states where guns laws are more constitutional?
lazs
-
What about a smart chief of police? And the checked out friend is actually 2, and then your own background gets checked as well. 3 checkouts.
As for the crime rates, I have no idea what state that would be, but total murder rate in rural areas of the USA still top the average in the UK.
When you compare Europe to the USA though, it is tricky, for you will have to know what to count within it. Just old W-Europe or also adding the Balcans and states of old commie regime along with Russia all the way to the Urals? If you take that Europe, you have 2-3 times the population of the USA on the same space. If you skip Russia, you go down to 1/2 the area with some cut in the population. Anyway, bottom line is that Europe is more densely populated than the USA by far.
Something I never mentioned, but will do so now, - you'll be surprized!
I am very much against high increase in the number of firearms, as well as an intruduction of conceilable arms in my country as you know. And why?
Well, to tell you the truth, my countryfolks have waaayyy too many ruffians. Icelanders are not particularly civil compared to many nations on the continent of Europe IMHO. The new generations in particular.
The country is also more urbanized than you'd think. Only 2% live in truly rural areas. Although the population is not enough to support a big city, the city area alone holds the majority of the population.
As for foreigners, although not a high % of the population yet, their increase is very steady and has come like a flood in just a few years. Most are okay, but also some very rotten apples. We get normally the lower working classes and petty criminals flushing with them in bundles. Then there are bigger fish, and then also some people with expert knowledge, affection for the country/culture etc etc. All mixing up, good, bad, smart, stupid, etc etc. But they can't buy guns before they are citizens.
So, I'm happy with the set of rules as they are. Most are. And the stats are close to the European ones, which are very much lower than yours....
-
Come on guys.......The enmy would not Invade us to take us over.....they would 1st try to ruin our economy.....also...they will come in a just keep buying our land then just kick us out.....Geez....I think thats happening now!!
If we were Invaded, 20 million plus Mexicans would run back to their mother land.....another 10 million or so cubans would run back to their country...and the muslems will join the Invading forces and kill us:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
These groups could care less about the American way....they are comming into our country and bringing their way of life in our country.
-
Why go shooting when you can just go shopping :D
-
angus.. even if there were one smart police chief... surely you can see that it is an uneven and thus.... unfair... system? A friendless person does not mean an evil one. your system may work from time to time and for a few but only lacking anything better like a computerized background check system and fairness for everyone.
lazs
-
Someone that cannot find 2 persons of sanity and clean criminal record that will sign him in for being responsible enough to have firearms, as well as the arms bearer being clean from violent crime sentences, - well, that sound's quite just to me.
As for the police while asking you like "is there anything to consider when you choose your weapon for a flying bird near populated areas" or "If you have a loaded weapon within a group of people and you have to traverse 180 degrees, what do you do, and where do you point the barrel
?", - well, if you flush a load of those easily, you IMHO should forget the idea of firearms and buy yourself kid-style bow's and arrows. The sillier the Police officer, the more stupid you have to be to flush :D
-
angus.. I don't know if it is the language or the media or culture or what but we don't seem to be understanding each other in even the most basic of ways..
the point is that 2 people saying you are sane does not make you sane.. nor does not being able to find two make you insane.
having some idiot of a police chief decide your fate based on questions... no.. answers to questions that could just as easily be on a form and checked instantly seems not just quaint but... again.. outdated and idiotic.
The point should not be escaping you that criminals will lie... that many are the best liars the planet has produced... certainly better at it than the average man.
you system sucks... if you have success in keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them then it is not the fault of your flawed system.
lazs
-
Our system sucks? Well, excuse me, but the whole systems on the continents of the total Yu-rope seem to leava a lot less crime victims than your system, as well as much fewer people in jail.
Our system seems to leave us on the beter end of Europe. So, I'm happy with it. And BTW, if you flush the simple questions at the police, you really have to be so darned stupid, that you should not have a gun :D
-
well... it didn't quite pan out that way for southern man and segregation.
-
angus..yep.. either we are not understanding each other or you are agreeing with me and don't know it... you said that if the guy flubs simple questions at the police station then he shouldn't have a gun... you are saying that in your country...you are happy with a system that rewards the best liar?
Our system has standardized questions that are instantly checked for truthfulness... no personality involved at all. Everyone gets the same form.
your-up would not make me happy.. I won't put up with even one "smash and grab" or riot where I can't shoot back if I have to... I would never be happy with 50% of the burglaries happening when the people were home. with the kind of rise in crime they have...
What about their gun laws has been good for anyone but the burglar? the homicide rate stays the same no matter what the gun laws... more gun laws... no less homicides. They were never anything worth getting upset about in any case. It was laws that were made for no good reason.
lazs
-
torque... ahh... now the canadian will be lecturing us on the southern man and segregation and gun control..
Before you get too wound up tho... are you aware of "jim crow laws"?
They were passed in order to segregate.. in order to keep blacks from having firearms... sooo...
I guess you are right in that the gun laws were ineffective at helping segregation. In fact...not only were the laws made to keep negros from having guns not effective... they backfired on the people who wanted them... as is the case with most laws that restrict freedom.
Most people are more than willing to restrict everyone elses freedom (angus for example) but are outraged when the same law gets applied to them.
lazs
-
wound up?... i leave that to the bitter old men and i guess that is why you missed the point.
the point was... the armed citizens capitulated when the govt brought tyranny upon in the form of desegregation.
that would seem to be the best example of govt tyranny forced upon an armed populous for contemporary times.
never mentioned anything about gun control... by all means carry on with your rantings....
-
Lazs: These are standardized questions asked verbally.
"you are happy with a system that rewards the best liar"
yeah, like being able to lie a correct answer to a tecnical question :D
-
(http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/6493/inbeforethelock3zd.jpg)
:rofl
Mac
-
torque... the few people who believed in segregation were in the wrong according to the constitution.
They had the weight of almost an entire nation against them and not just the federal government. They were breaking just laws.
Many of these southerners were disarmed by their own jim crow laws that they had used in the past to keep down the negro.
Angus... if the only questions being asked are technical.. why have a police chief administer em? would it not make more sense to simply have the person wanting to buy the firearm first pass a standard basic firearms safety test and get a certificate (I have one in my wallet) and then just show it to the person selling the firearm?
Would it then make more sense for the person selling the firearm have the prospective buyer fill out a form with personal info on it (are you crazy etc.) and then submit it for an instant background check?
lazs
-
Actually you will have to be a holder of the licence before you can get the firearm. So, find your firearm, get a pro-forma invoice with the reg number, aquire the licence (with the horrific interview) and then go shoot your gun.
BTW, this was the norm when I took my badge, today it's a tad stiffer. I didn't have to do the course (although it was recommended) so the police basically did the test. Since I had been shooting quite a bit I passed.
BTW, for another licence I never actually bothered taking, you would need a mental check-up. I took the course and passed the test, but didn't want to work with it. That was a poisoned chemical usage licence. (pestisides etc)
Would be nice to know your stance on that....