Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Pseudonymous]

...

So you agree that they could, in fact, topple a modern government? It seems that your issue four accepts the possibility of it.

No I do not. Issue four covers the logical conclusion, and requires imagining that a poorly equipped, poorly trained, and poorly organized militia could indeed topple a massive, redundant, well defended government. Seeing as how it is more undesirable than anything the US government would ever decide to pull, and is the reasonable conclusion to reach, it means that you'd have an even harder time finding a meaningful number of people willing to try to depose the government, since it would, were it to be realized, create a worse situation.

All I'm saying is don't discount the militias, especially when they can get their own tanks
Of course it's hard to get exactly what you want unless you deal in bulk orders, but you can also manufacture your own. All the parts are perfectly orderable online, as is the blueprints. They also are not illegal to have, or arm if they are registered properly (in most states. I won't say there isn't one out there with some kind of ban that wouldn't survive a constitutional challenge)

Anyone who's wealthy enough to purchase, arm, maintain, and field so much as one modern tank (an antique would be worthless against anything more than police cruisers) would be advantaged enough that their only possible motivation would be personal gain (and insanity, since there are much easier and safer ways to advance oneself than "drive a tank through downtown"), which would, again, be worse than a democratically elected government, and hence an undesirable end.



Remember, a rifle against the government is as useful as a spork against aliens!

[Kogan Loloklam]

Kogan Loloklan : Ok, you are pretending that American are violent and that it's all right . Well if it suit you, all right.
Well every American here don't come crying if you or your relative are shot in the streets, American are violent and if you pretend otherwise  (for instance that it's the lack of social care that is crippling your nation), he'll come and kick you in the waffle.
It's the will of god, and of the founding father, who want you to be armed and ready to fight.

No. I believe God doesn't want people to be ready to fight. I think he wants the world easily conquered for his zombie horde to take over. That doesn't make America any less violent. No pretending needed, statistics back me up. What was your nation's violent crime rate compared to ours?
Yea, shutup hippie.

Stupid republican.

Nope. Stupid Libertarian, though I'm registered green.

Oh yes I forgot, the major ass kicking you're getting in Iraq and Afghanistan tell me that row of angry poeple can be effective against a modern army after all. And what will happen there when you are gone tell me that it's still not a good idea.

It's not a good idea to tell you?
I'll tell you anyway. The people who live there will be responsible for their own fates, just as it was before we arrived. Likely we will have instituted a tradition of non-violence and peaceful transfer enough that their governments might last a year or two. If the people there like what they have they may try to keep it longer.

I don't think that Phmcw is quite coherent enough to be serious.

He's Belgian. How could he be coherent?

...stuff...

I never claimed it was smart or desirable, just possible.

[Phmcw]

That doesn't make America any less violent. No pretending needed, statistics back me up. What was your nation's violent crime rate compared to ours?

And all this is because of you, and of those such as you. Yes, social care can handle a lot of the crime problem. And a ban on firearm, could help too. But hey you seems so proud of yourself.

I'll tell you anyway. The people who live there will be responsible for their own fates, just as it was before we arrived. Likely we will have instituted a tradition of non-violence and peaceful transfer enough that their governments might last a year or two. If the people there like what they have they may try to keep it longer.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The funniest thing I heard in ages. I must show that to someone 

a tradition of non-violence and peaceful transfer

This is comedy gold. A frigging civil war will break out,that is what will happen, and anyone associated with us will be executed. What do you think? But hey, totally not our fault, it's not as if we had started the war.

[Earthquake Damage]

'sup America bashing?  And that mocking tone?  Love it!  You're well on your way to making friends and influencing people.

[Urist McOverlord]

Various arguments for your perusal:

Terrorist groups are less "a bunch of angry people" and more "a non-government military organization." They do have organisation. They do have training, they can be effective for the same reason that the Viet Cong were effective. But that doesn't mean that a bunch of untrained citizens could do the same thing. Training, organisation, and foresight are characteristics necessary for any military to be effective. And giving the right to own guns does not mean that people are suddenly going to organize into paramilitary groups to strike the government down, just in case.

The 2nd amendment was created a long time ago. Military technology has advanced to the point where having firearms is not a threat to the government, but is a threat to the citizenry. This is a problem. I believe that the people should be, on an individual level, allowed to have firearms for self-defense, hunting, and (with restrictions) collecting. However, the new reality of the military situation means that we need a reevaluation of the second amendment. Not a removal, but changes need to be made.

I'd make some response to Phmcw, but I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say beyond "AMERICA SUKS," as Earthquake Damage already said.

[ChairmanPoo]

Actually, I believe he is saying that the Middle East wars are a frigging disaster, and not  "Liberation wars".

[Urist McOverlord]

I was referring to this post.

Astramanser : it's easy to get the death by gunshot rate for any country.

Kogan Loloklan : Ok, you are pretending that American are violent and that it's all right . Well if it suit you, all right.
Well every American here don't come crying if you or your relative are shot in the streets, American are violent and if you pretend otherwise  (for instance that it's the lack of social care that is crippling your nation), he'll come and kick you in the waffle.
It's the will of god, and of the founding father, who want you to be armed and ready to fight.

Stupid republican.

Oh yes I forgot, the major ass kicking you're getting in Iraq and Afghanistan tell me that row of angry poeple can be effective against a modern army after all. And what will happen there when you are gone tell me that it's still not a good idea.

Specifically here (emphasis mine), where he basically says "You're wrong, American's aren't violent... but they are"

...Ok, you are pretending that American are violent and that it's all right... ...American are violent...

Of course the blatant denial that any good will come from the (admittedly not-a-good-idea) Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't help much. But that's a debate for another thread. And the sarcastically mocking tone came off as rather immature, but it's the internet, what do I expect?

[Kogan Loloklam]

And all this is because of you, and of those such as you. Yes, social care can handle a lot of the crime problem. And a ban on firearm, could help too. But hey you seems so proud of yourself.

Yep. Providing people free housing and free meals eliminates violence all the time. Certainly the free time that having a job take up won't be used for crime if we apply a little social care!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
The funniest thing I heard in ages. I must show that to someone 

a tradition of non-violence and peaceful transfer

This is comedy gold. A frigging civil war will break out,that is what will happen, and anyone associated with us will be executed. What do you think? But hey, totally not our fault, it's not as if we had started the war.

Better watch that talk. I haven't forgotten that Belgium had terrorist groups that claimed to do stuff in Lebanon. We can always elect Jeb.

Terrorist groups are less "a bunch of angry people" and more "a non-government military organization."

And an American with a gun is just a untrained individual with a gun that probably knows how to shoot it. It isn't that great a leap to go from untrained individual with a gun that probably knows how to shoot it to trained individual with a gun that probably knows how to shoot it. When the training is in insurgency and improvised explosives you might have a problem. America's chemistry program in it's public schools tends to be a little better than the free chemistry program that Arab farmers learn in their schools. It helps that a greater percentage of our population is literate, of course.

The 2nd amendment was created a long time ago. Military technology has advanced to the point where having firearms is not a threat to the government, but is a threat to the citizenry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bccKotFwzoY

I'd make some response to Phmcw, but I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say beyond "AMERICA SUKS," as Earthquake Damage already said.

It's fun to try anyway.

[Nikov]

Having read the book on European guerilla warfare and partisan activity, I can tell you right now; current levels of gun ownership would do just fine against whatever loyalist forces would exist in the US Army or Marines, particularly when you consider something like 192 million privately owned firearms, seventy two million military aged males, and only three million active and reserved troops. If the two groups went completely polar against eachother, the civilian population could win by attrition. If the civilian and military populations split down party lines, its worth noting the ground branches of the military are known for their general conservatism, and almost all of them used firearms before joining the military. The civilian population splits based on party as well, and guess what? The conservatives have the majority of the private firearms!

So yes, good luck on a leftist rebellion succeeding. However, a right-wing rebellion is almost a sure bet.

[Leafsnail]

A sure bet for throwing the country into total chaos, certainly...

Seriously, you'd just join any rebellion that supports your party?

[Kogan Loloklam]

So yes, good luck on a leftist rebellion succeeding. However, a right-wing rebellion is almost a sure bet.

Ahh, but sir, you forget the Left's advantage...
They can convince Texas to leave.
Then where are all those military individuals and Gun-owners?

A sure bet for throwing the country into total chaos, certainly...

Seriously, you'd just join any rebellion that supports your party?

With some people, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Urist McOverlord]

Terrorist groups are less "a bunch of angry people" and more "a non-government military organization."

And an American with a gun is just a untrained individual with a gun that probably knows how to shoot it. It isn't that great a leap to go from untrained individual with a gun that probably knows how to shoot it to trained individual with a gun that probably knows how to shoot it. When the training is in insurgency and improvised explosives you might have a problem. America's chemistry program in it's public schools tends to be a little better than the free chemistry program that Arab farmers learn in their schools. It helps that a greater percentage of our population is literate, of course.

There's a fairly distinct jump from "people with guns and high school chemistry" to "trained and capable guerrila/insurgent force. These aren't arab farmers who randomly decide to fight, they're trained. You know those terrorist camps that we hear about people going to and being trained at? What do you think those are for? They need to be trained in bombmaking. They need to be trained in things like how to set up an ambush. These aren't "untrained individuals with guns who know how to shoot them." And then theres the issue of establishing a chain of command. Even the terrorists have to have leaders and planners. Viet Cong are another example. Guns alone does not a fighting force make.

The 2nd amendment was created a long time ago. Military technology has advanced to the point where having firearms is not a threat to the government, but is a threat to the citizenry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bccKotFwzoY

Does this have anything to do with anything?

Having read the book on European guerilla warfare and partisan activity, I can tell you right now; current levels of gun ownership would do just fine against whatever loyalist forces would exist in the US Army or Marines, particularly when you consider something like 192 million privately owned firearms, seventy two million military aged males, and only three million active and reserved troops. If the two groups went completely polar against eachother, the civilian population could win by attrition. If the civilian and military populations split down party lines, its worth noting the ground branches of the military are known for their general conservatism, and almost all of them used firearms before joining the military. The civilian population splits based on party as well, and guess what? The conservatives have the majority of the private firearms!

So yes, good luck on a leftist rebellion succeeding. However, a right-wing rebellion is almost a sure bet.

Once again, however, making an effective fighting force -even an asynchronous guerrilla force takes far more than just guns. And then there's the issue of the "loyalists" as you call them, having tanks, airplanes, intelligence forces, existing infrastructure, and so on and so forth. Even if some elements of the military did join, and bring their equipment with them, there still generally outclassed. Unless hunting rifles can suddenly penetrate heavy armor, or track sufficiently to hit an F-16 or predator, the "rebels" would still be screwed.

To recap:

Redneck + gun != soldier
Redneck + gun < Tank < Plane

[Aqizzar]

Having read the book on European guerilla warfare and partisan activity, I can tell you right now; current levels of gun ownership would do just fine against whatever loyalist forces would exist in the US Army or Marines, particularly when you consider something like 192 million privately owned firearms, seventy two million military aged males, and only three million active and reserved troops. If the two groups went completely polar against eachother, the civilian population could win by attrition. If the civilian and military populations split down party lines, its worth noting the ground branches of the military are known for their general conservatism, and almost all of them used firearms before joining the military. The civilian population splits based on party as well, and guess what? The conservatives have the majority of the private firearms!

This is another one of those things that, when asked to stand by it later, you'll insist is all just a big joke c'mon guys don't be retarded, right?  Because that's about the dumbest assessment of the American populace I've heard in a long time.

[Kogan Loloklam]

The 2nd amendment was created a long time ago. Military technology has advanced to the point where having firearms is not a threat to the government, but is a threat to the citizenry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bccKotFwzoY

Does this have anything to do with anything?

Yes.

Also, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm

[ThreeToe]

I'm afraid this thread got out of control.  Going to have to lock it.