Oh. That's boring.
I thought it was a more interesting discussion of what the plebs say vs. what they actually do.
when would YOU shot a cop, solder or pollie?
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
Oh. That's boring.
I thought it was a more interesting discussion of what the plebs say vs. what they actually do.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
The thought had occurred to me, but I'm not the type to jump straight to a conclusion.
Observation. Observe the cops demeanor and his eyes. I wouldn't jump out at that chance. Obviously, we're talking last resort here.
If I was very agitated at the way they were handling affairs then I would resolve to form a band of merry men and women if they want and storm the Congress to bring an end to the skulduggery.
cosmic at what point do you think would have to be reached before your "merry men" who were captured were judged to be not guilty by the courts on consitutional grounds?
At what point would your merry men fall under the 2nd amendment rather than under the patirot act as terriousts?
At what point would your merry men fall under the 2nd amendment rather than under the patirot act as terriousts?
When we control things, that's when.
Bells
Staff member
Why didn't the Germans pick up their arms against the Government of the 30's and 40's in Germany? Why didn't they revolt and resist?
One has checks and balances and one does not. You be the judge.
distantcube
Registered Member
Some German Jews attempted to resist. But it was a little difficult given that the Nazis enacted gun control laws to disarm Jewish citizens of guns and bladed weapons.
http://www.davekopel.org/NRO/2003/Hitler's-Control.htm
Gun control is just one more step towards a facist state.
An armed citzenry *is* a check.
distantcube
Registered Member
If weaponry were freely available, then the victims wouldn't have been forced to remain unarmed, sitting ducks for terrorists and murderers.
I wonder if that is what supporters of the Nazi party said during WWII? What you will do if one day the police are not acting the best interests of the people?
So now you're arguing in favour of gun ownership?
oh yea sure, lets throw thousands of frightened trigger happy morons into the mix with the police and the real badguys
how many people do you honestly want to see die?
rember there were cop cars taken in the atack and people were saying they didnt know if the people were cops or the enermy. Add guns and you have the "terriousts" sneaking away while the cops and the citizanry shoot it out between themselves because they dont know whos friend and whos foe.
What stupidity
how many people do you honestly want to see die?
rember there were cop cars taken in the atack and people were saying they didnt know if the people were cops or the enermy. Add guns and you have the "terriousts" sneaking away while the cops and the citizanry shoot it out between themselves because they dont know whos friend and whos foe.
What stupidity
Roman citizens were satisified by the circuses and the bread for the masses at the end of the Roman empire. Widespread dissatisfaction is more of a hallmark of democracy. It at least means the people are informed. After all in a worst case scenario 49.9% of the population can be pissed as hell, but still out voted.
So you have no taxes? Of any kind?
Actually, if weapons were that freely avaialble the civillians would had them and the terrorists would have been taken out. Superior weaponry or not. 20 terrorists with assault rifles versus hundreds of Hindis with pistols? No match, sorry, many Hindis die but all the terrorists would.
When law abiding civillians are well armed most violent crime disappears. Only the truly predatorial type still try to live by the sowrd/gun. And those suckers you weren;t going to stop even with the most draconian gun laws.
distantcube
Registered Member
Not all citizens are well armed in the U.S.A.
No, not at all.
Per capita is lower than Great Britain, Australia, and several othetr nations with strict gun control rates.
Our violent crime used to be four times the per capita rate of Great britain and Australia, but since they abolished gun ownership, both countries violent crime rates have grown to rival ours.
In all cases i am talking actually reported crimes, not convictions. Though interestingly enough if we go by convictions US is slightly higher, but that could very wel be due to better court systems.
I have been in the real world.
Oh and my comments were for societies with easy access to weaponry. We do not have easy access to weaponry. We have quite a bit of red tape and procedure. Not to mention unconstitutional limitations.
Bells
Staff member
I wasn't talking about the Jewish citizens.
Do you ever see a day where the general population in America (for example) has to take up arms and go up against a Government and armed forces that not only outguns the general population, but could conceivably wipe out every single one of its citizens with a simple push of a button? Yes, I can see how the arms you are allowed to purchase these days would help you bring down a facist Government that is armed with nuclear weapons.:bugeye:
How well does a shotgun fare against a tank by the way?
Maybe the right to bear arms should also include the right to purchase and own nuclear weapons.. you know.. to make sure you're actually able to bring down the Government if the need arises.
Do you think it is the armed citizens of the US who act as a check's and balances against the State? Or are you suggesting that the citizens hold the Government to ransom with its arms as a form of 'check'?
Kind of puts the whole notion of democracy to sleep, don't you think?
Well they don't each time they give out parking tickets or book you for speeding or stop you for a check even when you haven't done anything. Does that mean I should just shoot them with a shotgun if they pull me over for no reason at all and I don't think they are acting in my best interest? I would imagine the majority of people hate being pulled over and would not think it was in their best interest.. does that mean those people would be justified in taking up arms against said police?
distantcube
Registered Member
Bait and switch. You asked why the Germans didn't fight back against the Nazi regime, and when I point out that the Nazi regime introduced and enforced draconian gun control legislation against citizens, especially particular subgroups of Germans, you reply with the argument "Oooh, but I didn't mean *those* Germans."
The fact of the matter is that particular subgroups in Germany (such as Jews, gypsies and Communists), along with Hitler's political opponents, were pretty much powerless to fight back given that they had been disarmed. Some tried though. I'll let you guess how they fared.
Just like the redcoats outgunned the revolutionaries? And the Americans outgunned the Viet Cong (who were essentially a militia)? And the French outgunned the Algerians? And NATO outgunned the Taliban?
And what makes you think that all of the members of the armed forces would happily shoot down their fellow citizens? If the shit hit the fan and common citizens engaged in a violent revolt, I wouldn't find it implausible if many soldiers defected.
'Pushing the button' is a no-win situation for everyone, which is why super-powers such as the USSR did not resort to nuclear tactics when faced with insurrection.
Good.
It fares quite well against those driving the tank. There is such a thing as armour penetrating ammunition, too.
And thanks for putting forward an argument in favour of allowing citizens to own explosives.
Maybe the right to bear arms should also include the right to purchase and own nuclear weapons.. you know.. to make sure you're actually able to bring down the Government if the need arises.
Maybe the State should continue to introduce draconian weapon control so that citizens cannot purchase spatulas and forks... you know... to make sure that those darned drones can't do any undue harm to themselves or others.
Armed citizens are the final check on a tyrannical government, an insurance measure in case everything goes to hell, the political equivalent of gold bullion .
No. When a totalitarian government abuses and subverts the democratic process and oppresses its people, then it is the responsibility of the general citizenry to act to preserve democracy, by violent means if necessary.
"Of the people". Try to avoid distorting my argument and carrying it to ridiculous extremes, you knew exactly what I meant. The police and armed forces have been used in the past, by various totalitarian governments, to abuse, imprison, dispossess and murder their own citizens. I don't think I really need to point out specific instances, history is littered with such examples, from Hitler to Pol Pot. If that day were to ever come, I'd much rather have a gun to resist, than to go to my death like a sheep to slaughter.
Governments going rouge? As in red makeup?
Anyway, I have to disagree with you there. I believe that making sure we are allowed to have guns is just one part of keeping our government in check. And if you don't think the government can get out of control, just look around this country. And if you don't think we have the power, look at Spain.