Unfortunate Death Of Navy SEAL Makes A Point

[Liberty_One]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Ummm, no fuck-wit. You claimed that disarming the people paves the way for tyranny. I asked you which countries sank into anarchy and tyranny after losing it's right to gun ownership. Dumbass came back with a few countries that suffered civil unrest.

Sure. If you call the Holocaust "civil unrest," I guess. Let's not forget the Soviet Union or Cuba, for that matter. The first things Castro did was to disarm the people, claiming that they had no need for guns because the "people's government" would now protect them. In the Soviet Union they were killing people by the thousands daily, people who could not fight back. Very sad, indeed.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I'm asking for the evidence that [tyranny] was caused because the people were disarmed...as per your claim that countries suffer tyranny when the the people are disarmed. Neither your or dumbass has provided it.

It was provided, you rejected it out of hand. It was evidence by example.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

You make the claim, you take on the burden of proof to show that your claim is true. Don't make a claim and then demand that I prove you wrong.

Sigh. After evidence has been given the burden shifts to the person denying the evidence. Examples were given and you have failed to state why they are not sufficient.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

An obvious flaw in your 'guns-prevent-tyranny' concept is

That's an obvious flaw in your straw-man simplification. Guns by themselves do nothing of the sort, and of course armed citizens do not prevent tyranny, they act as a check upon tyranny. Just like how a fire extinguisher helps to prevent fires from getting out of control if used properly and timely, it's not going to work all the time and on every fire.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

you are assuming that the people with the guns will be fighting against the tyrants, and not for them. Unless you presume that gun ownership has some sort of link with morality or a dedication to freedom that assumption makes little sense; gun ownership by citizens can just as easily mean that the local government death squads don't need to be armed by the government.

This is just silly. If everyone is fighting for the tyrant, then who are they fighting against?

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Another obvious flaw in your 'guns-prevent-tyranny' concept is that there is no realistic way that a modern military force is going to be defeated by an untrained mob of citizens waving guns. Got it now?

This is another obvious flaw in your straw-man, but it has nothing to do with my actual argument. Of course no resistance group is going to succeed fighting a mechanized army in open warfare. Also of course, no one ever s***ested any such thing. Guerrilla warfare is conducted by hit and run and hide fighting. The thing is, those who are resisting can hide among the general population. There's no guarantees of success, but that's not the point. The point is the potential, the threat of armed resistance. Such revolutions start small and they either get hunted down or they gain support among the public. Again, the point is to act as a check upon the State. Most likely such a need would never arise. But we'd be foolish to trust an institution that has committed terrible mass murders in other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan).

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Quite!

...as indeed any army following the orders of a 'tyrannical' government would be and that includes the US army.

You are deluded. It would have made no difference. All that would have happened is that the Germans would have thrown in more fire-power and more troops which would have achieved the result they wanted.

You are deluded beyond belief if you think that the citizens of a developed country are going to defeat the highly trained, well armed, well equipped modern army of that country. Put 50 of your armed citizens up against just one laser guided missile. How long do you think it will be before your 'protectors of freedom and democracy' are waving a white flag.

Wake up pal...it doesn't work like you see it in the movies.

I support private citizens having laser guided missiles!

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

What? You think an atheist like Plad doesn't have a sense of humor?

All atheists have a sense of humor or else they wouldn't get the joke the life's creation was really a big accidental joke!

Sure I do but evileye was right, it's statements like the one that was made that give the view to the rest of the world that Americans are arrogant arseholes intent of inflicting their idea of democracy on the rest of the world...whether they want it or not.

Originally Posted by Liberty_One

Sure. If you call the Holocaust "civil unrest," I guess. Let's not forget the Soviet Union or Cuba, for that matter. The first things Castro did was to disarm the people, claiming that they had no need for guns because the "people's government" would now protect them. In the Soviet Union they were killing people by the thousands daily, people who could not fight back. Very sad, indeed.

I was referring to Bosnia and Kosovo...as you well know.

It was provided, you rejected it out of hand. It was evidence by example.

No it wasn't. It would have been evidence if he could prove that the problems occurred due to the population being disarmed and if they had the been armed the problem would not have occurred. He didn't do that.

Sigh.

Aww! The poor dab is off on one of his sighs again.

After evidence has been given the burden shifts to the person denying the evidence. Examples were given and you have failed to state why they are not sufficient.

That's right...but he has not given any evidence. It was similar to him saying that cars don't cause pollution and then saying ..'.Ford, Jaguar, BMW'. What the fuck is that supposed to mean. What he has to do is show the evidence that these cars do not cause pollution.

That's an obvious flaw in your straw-man simplification. Guns by themselves do nothing of the sort, and of course armed citizens do not prevent tyranny, they act as a check upon tyranny. Just like how a fire extinguisher helps to prevent fires from getting out of control if used properly and timely, it's not going to work all the time and on every fire.

You do not address the important factors. You are claiming that disarming people paves the way for tyranny. You are ignoring the fact that even if 100% of the population had guns, they wouldn't all be on your side against the government. Take out the percentage of those who would fight on the government's side. Take out the percentage of those that are not prepared to 'die for your cause'. Take out the percentage that run like rabbits once the bullets start to fly. What do you have left? Very few. That's why an armed citizenry never has and never will stop a government doing what it wants if it is determined to do it.

This is just silly. If everyone is fighting for the tyrant, then who are they fighting against?

It doesn't take much intelligence to work out that what I'm saying is that ALL the population isn't going to be on your side.

This is another obvious flaw in your straw-man, but it has nothing to do with my actual argument. Of course no resistance group is going to succeed fighting a mechanized army in open warfare.

Glad you agree. Then the population being armed is pointless isn't it?

[Liberty_One]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

No it wasn't. It would have been evidence if he could prove that the problems occurred due to the population being disarmed and if they had the been armed the problem would not have occurred. He didn't do that.

The evidence is the fact that such disarmament of the people and a subsequent growing tyranny has actually happened. You keep failing to get this point. I don't have to explain how an internal-combustion engine works to prove that if you don't put gas in the tank your car won't run. You simply cannot rebut the evidence. You cannot provide a single counter-example.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

You do not address the important factors. You are claiming that disarming people paves the way for tyranny. You are ignoring the fact that even if 100% of the population had guns, they wouldn't all be on your side against the government.

Oh, I very much doubt they would even be 1% of the population against the government. You haven't thought this through at all. Rebellions do not start when the ENTIRE population simultaneously rises up and refuses to obey the government. They start off as small, isolated groups that begin a resistance movement. Sometimes that government hunts them down and squishes the resistance. Sometimes the resistance spreads and gains support of the larger population. The more oppressive the government, the more likely people will sympathize with the resistance.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

That's why an armed citizenry never has and never will stop a government doing what it wants if it is determined to do it.

It doesn't take much intelligence to work out that what I'm saying is that ALL the population isn't going to be on your side.

It doesn't take much intelligence to work out that it doesn't matter if ALL the population is on your side at the beginning. If your cause is just and the government you are fighting is oppressive and tyrannical, the population might start to support you. Look at the Revolutionary War. At the beginning, many of those elected to the Continental Congress were opposed to any armed resistance, but when they saw how the British were reacting they changed their minds and sided with open rebellion against the crown.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Glad you agree. Then the population being armed is pointless isn't it?

If you think so, then why do tyrannical government disarm their people?

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

I support private citizens having laser guided missiles!

I support one being fired up Liberty's arse. Bet that would make him sigh.

[evileye]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

I support private citizens having laser guided missiles!

I support any person who can build it for themselves having the right to own one. Same thing for any weapon, if you can build it yourself you can have it. Then there would be a lot less weapons all around.

As in you can only own a weapon you can build/forge.

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Quite!

...as indeed any army following the orders of a 'tyrannical' government would be and that includes the US army.

You are deluded. It would have made no difference. All that would have happened is that the Germans would have thrown in more fire-power and more troops which would have achieved the result they wanted.

You are deluded beyond belief if you think that the citizens of a developed country are going to defeat the highly trained, well armed, well equipped modern army of that country. Put 50 of your armed citizens up against just one laser guided missile. How long do you think it will be before your 'protectors of freedom and democracy' are waving a white flag.

Wake up pal...it doesn't work like you see it in the movies.

It just makes sense that the Poles would have created more German casualties had they been better armed. History will tell you that their armed opposition gave many the opportunity to escape the slums and ultimately imprisonment by the Nazis.

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume that everyone in the military is content with violating the Constitution.......to the contrary they have taken an oath to uphold it. Don't assume that there would not be a sizeable number of defectors. You also assume that very few citizens here are trained in military tactics and are capable of mounting a substantial military force with aircraft and other materiel. Assuming that the US military is the best there is how has that not translated into a clear victory Afghanistan after so many years of occupation?

Some said that bands of armed settlers didn't have a chance in hell against the all powerful Britts.......we know how that played out in the 18th century

I live in reality here in the United States.......perhaps it's a different reality in Europe.

[GradStdnt]

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

It just makes sense that the Poles would have created more German casualties had they been better armed. History will tell you that their armed opposition gave many the opportunity to escape the slums and ultimately imprisonment by the Nazis.

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume that everyone in the military is content with violating the Constitution.......to the contrary they have taken an oath to uphold it. Don't assume that there would not be a sizeable number of defectors. You also assume that very few citizens here are trained in military tactics and are capable of mounting a substantial military force with aircraft and other materiel. Assuming that the US military is the best there is how has that not translated into a clear victory Afghanistan after so many years of occupation?

Some said that bands of armed settlers didn't have a chance in hell against the all powerful Britts.......we know how that played out in the 18th century

I live in reality here in the United States.......perhaps it's a different reality in Europe.

You have a good point Steve...I agree. This is what makes a popular argument against gun control lame....If the government were to storm into our homes and take our weapons...our military would refuse to do that just based on patriotism. I would think we would have to be a country of animals to warrant that type of occupation and seizure.

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by GradStdnt

You have a good point Steve...I agree. This is what makes a popular argument against gun control lame....If the government were to storm into our homes and take our weapons...our military would refuse to do that just based on patriotism. I would think we would have to be a country of animals to warrant that type of occupation and seizure.

I wouldn't consider the German people post WWI animals nor do I believe that the Russian people were so horrible as to warrant the terror that Stalin inflicted upon them. Unfortunately power is quite often corrupting. Our founding fathers set up a government model that was suppose to keep the government in check, unfortunately the power brokers have hijacked the country away from the people.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Stevomeo

It just makes sense that the Poles would have created more German casualties had they been better armed.

Maybe...but would they have stopped them, that is the point.

History will tell you that their armed opposition gave many the opportunity to escape the slums and ultimately imprisonment by the Nazis.

History will tell you that the well armed French Resistance could not stop the might of the German army and in the same way, American Rambo wanabes are not going to stop the American army if it is supporting the government. If the army does not support the government then the government will not win and an armed citizenry will not be required. The army can manage the job on it's own.

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume that everyone in the military is content with violating the Constitution.......

I made no such assumption but by the law of averages there will be many that will....jut as there will be a huge number of your citizens that have guns who will turn them against YOU in support of the government. Just as there will be a huge number that won't have the stomach for a fight. Just as there will be a huge number that will start to fight and who then think 'sod this' after a few bullets have given them a new parting in their hair.

...to the contrary they have taken an oath to uphold it.

Listen pal. When people think they are going to 'get something out of it' your 'constitution' won't even be worth as much as the paper that you wipe your arse with.

Don't assume that there would not be a sizeable number of defectors.

OK, I won't...as long as you don't assume that there won't.

You also assume that very few citizens here are trained in military tactics and are capable of mounting a substantial military force with aircraft and other materiel.

LMFAO!! Yeah! I can see them all now, throwing the covers off their F22 Raptors that they have stashed away in the back of their garages Oy vey!!! Do I really want to lower my intelligence to this!

Some said that bands of armed settlers didn't have a chance in hell against the all powerful Britts.......we know how that played out in the 18th century

Wake up pal. We are living in the 21st century not the 18th.

I live in reality here in the United States.......perhaps it's a different reality in Europe.

Yes it is..absolutely it is! It's a reality where people have realised that personal gun ownership is not necessary and where we can sit in a pavement cafe enjoying the warmth of the sun without the fear that we and or children are going to be gunned down. Here in Spain we have very strict gun laws. Are we at a disadvantage or less free than you guys in the U.S.? Let's see. Our rate per 100,000 for people murdered by guns is 0.15. If we compare that with your rate of 3.6, I think we can see where the 'reality' is..

But this is re-hashing old arguments. You have already been shown the figures, the scholarly articles and the verifiable evidence from around the world proving that countries that do not allow gun ownership have SIGNIFICANTLY lower death rates from guns than those who do allow guns. You have ignored that evidence so why should you take any notice of what I've just said??

Originally Posted by GradStdnt

You have a good point Steve...I agree. This is what makes a popular argument against gun control lame....If the government were to storm into our homes and take our weapons...our military would refuse to do that just based on patriotism.

YOU HOPE! How then, in countries where government coups have taken place, do the army support the government. Do you think that those soldiers have not taken vows of patriotism to their country? Most if not all armies do. There is a military camp near me with the motto 'My country first'...but it didn't stop them supporting the Franco dictatorship against the people.