News:

PD.com: Like a fraternity of drunken clowns, hopped up on goofballs, beating one-another to a bloody pulp with bricks; the maniacal laughter increases exponentially as someone runs off to get a cinder-block.

Main Menu

Interesting thing about the 2nd amendment.

Started by The Good Reverend Roger, January 02, 2013, 04:40:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 05:33:50 PM
But also, there is a fear generated by the amount of guns, at least to a lot of my more liberal friends.  A low-grade tension, a fear of gun-related violence, which prompts an urge to limit freedoms to increase false security; but those limits don't pertain to the thing that's producing the fear.

Humans can adjust to any level of any threat.  One way they do that is to allow police state levels of law in response to the nagging idea that their neighbor could just snap one day and turn their neighborhood into Sarejavo.  They can't SAY that's what bothers them, but it's there, usually cloaked under the idea of gangbangers (read:  Blacks & Hispanics), when they are FAR more likely to be shot by cops or the neighbor with the arsenal.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Cain

As you know, I've agreed with your general point for quite a while.  As something of a student of irregular warfare, I know there is no force on the earth that is going to win against a government that wants to kill you.

Sri Lanka is my favourite example, mostly because people don't realise what happened there (or can find it on a map...).  Outside of Hezbollah and FARC, the Tigers had probably the word's best armed and trained irregular force, which used a mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare against the mostly Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka for decades.  They even had their own naval forces...nothing that could win against a real navy, mind you, but enough to do hit and run amphibious strikes, or intercept civilian shipping.

In 2009, the Tigers were almost entirely wiped out.  Why?  The Sri Lankan government essentially said "we're tired of your bullshit" and went on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and near genocide against the Tamil people.  Entire villages were burnt down because of suspected links to known Tigers (like a family member of said Tiger living there) and much of the remaining population were interred in concentration camps.  Torture and drug-enhanced interrogation were used to find the location of rebel bases and they were bombed from the air and hit by heavy artillery, before a ground campaign of total warfare was used to flush out the survivours.

The Tamil Tigers were broken as a military and political force during this campaign.  And most of the world stayed silent while the Sri Lankan government went about their work.

Rebellions typically only win under two circumstances:

1) Elite defections.  Members of the political elite, along with security and military forces, defect to the side of the rebels.  Essentially changes the rebellion into a Civil War. What happened in Libya and is happening in Syria right now.

2) The rebels have a strong enough group identity (religious/ethnic/linguistic) and are geographically concentrated and are supported by an outside power and the geography is favourable enough that they can effectively secede.  Abkhazia and South Ossetia are your two prime examples here.

There are exceptions to this, and wars I don't know enough about to comment on (the Chinese revolution, for example).  But by and large, that's how you win.

I can't help but notice that most people stockpiling arms for the NWO are not spies or military people (and when they are, they're usually undercover and going to snitch on all their buddies) and are usually white dudes who don't get on well with most people (see Sano's post for more).  Not exactly likely contenders.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 05:44:40 PM
As you know, I've agreed with your general point for quite a while.  As something of a student of irregular warfare, I know there is no force on the earth that is going to win against a government that wants to kill you.

Sri Lanka is my favourite example, mostly because people don't realise what happened there (or can find it on a map...).  Outside of Hezbollah and FARC, the Tigers had probably the word's best armed and trained irregular force, which used a mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare against the mostly Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka for decades.  They even had their own naval forces...nothing that could win against a real navy, mind you, but enough to do hit and run amphibious strikes, or intercept civilian shipping.

In 2009, the Tigers were almost entirely wiped out.  Why?  The Sri Lankan government essentially said "we're tired of your bullshit" and went on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and near genocide against the Tamil people.  Entire villages were burnt down because of suspected links to known Tigers (like a family member of said Tiger living there) and much of the remaining population were interred in concentration camps.  Torture and drug-enhanced interrogation were used to find the location of rebel bases and they were bombed from the air and hit by heavy artillery, before a ground campaign of total warfare was used to flush out the survivours.

If the insurgent is a fish that swims in the lake of the population, then one method of dealing with him is to drain the lake.  It works.  Popular fronts normally can't succeed against a ruthless government, because the insurgents' supporters are by definition cowards (or they themselves would be insurgents).

Quote
I can't help but notice that most people stockpiling arms for the NWO are not spies or military people (and when they are, they're usually undercover and going to snitch on all their buddies) and are usually white dudes who don't get on well with most people (see Sano's post for more).  Not exactly likely contenders.

Yep.  They don't need none of that there hippie-ass "diplomacy" or "social skills", because they have GUNS.  And as long as they have GUNS, they are John Wayne, Dirty Harry, Rambo, etc.  The silent psychopathic hero that kills everything that's bad, and is admired for it.

Well, admired for it by other bitter, alienated freaks, anyway.  And that has to count for something.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mangrove

Hey Roger,

Don't know if you (or anyone else in this thread) have come across this book:


http://www.amazon.com/Living-Guns-Liberals-Second-Amendment/dp/1610391691/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357149647&sr=8-1&
keywords=living+with+guns

I saw the author doing an interview on the history of gun legislation and it was an eye opening experience. He made the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a new idea but merely existed to enshrine existing rights carried over from English law. (Cue the delicious irony that 99.9% of all Brits think Americans are impossibly stupid and irresponsible for loving guns so much.)

He then went on to say that gun legislation and control has always existed even back in ye olde colonial 'founding father' times that Conservatives seem to love so much. People were required to serve in militias as needed and if they didn't have their own weapon, the town would rent them one - all of which was registered and recorded. Interestingly, no one ever mentioned guns for either hunting or self defense.

Other interesting side avenues was the fact that, well established towns in the so called 'wild west' had gun control and it was a legal requirement that visitors turned their fire arms over to the sheriff. If you were not freezing your ass off in a little shack on the frontiers, there was gun control. The 'everyone packing heat in the old West' notion has been greatly over stated by that bastion of accuracy 'Hollywood'. (This also ties in nicely with Nigel's point about puncturing the myth of the 'rugged individualist'.) The rugged individualist also had to hand over his gun and if he didn't, he was in deep shit - which is funny because the author mentioned that the legendary OK Corral incident was, a dispute that owed itself in part, to the unwillingness to comply with gun surrender laws. [He also got into the issues concerning concealed carry and why that is a hangover from the popularity in the Southern states for pistol dueling.]

Perhaps what was most startling was there was a time when the NRA actually was in support of measures following the rash 1960s assassinations (Kennedys & MLK.) Back then, even Charleton Heston was behind it, it was only later that he got entrenched into the 'first step to tyranny' meme.

Seems that the NRA took a new approach in the 80s which took the form of 'the police can't protect you, do it yourself' and have been flogging it ever since. The whole notion that 'Freedom = Own a gun'  as representing American values and history doesn't pan out on closer examination. There has always been laws surrounding fire arms and it began with the English...lol

What the NRA are really doing (IMHO) is playing upon what has really been the issue for much of the 20th century which is 'the freedom to be a consumer'. Tell people absolutely anything and everything to make them want your product and do absolutely anything and everything to make sure that access to said product is entirely unimpeded - no matter how impractical, dangerous or irrelevant that product may be. All the better if you can push the emotional 'patriotism button' and cite authority based on a convenient, revisionist view of history.






 
What makes it so? Making it so is what makes it so.

Cain

QuoteHe made the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a new idea but merely existed to enshrine existing rights carried over from English law. (Cue the delicious irony that 99.9% of all Brits think Americans are impossibly stupid and irresponsible for loving guns so much.)

Well, that's just the British, not knowing their own history (nothing new there).  In Victorian England, you could buy a gun for personal use, no questions asked, no forms to fill in.  A gentleman was practically required to own at least one handgun and one hunting rifle.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Mangrove on January 02, 2013, 06:31:39 PM
Seems that the NRA took a new approach in the 80s which took the form of 'the police can't protect you, do it yourself' and have been flogging it ever since. The whole notion that 'Freedom = Own a gun'  as representing American values and history doesn't pan out on closer examination. There has always been laws surrounding fire arms and it began with the English...lol

Fact:  In Iraq, before we got rid of Saddam, you could own a firearm.

Firearms are never, and have never, been a guarantee or even an indicator of freedom.

I'm still pro-gun, of course...And in a world of inconsistencies, I see no reason to worry about that particular inconsistency.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

The Good Reverend Roger

Thing is, any nation who would make owning firearms a constitutional - rather than a statuatory - right, is by definition a country in which the inmates run the asylum.

I'm not sure I'd have it any other way.  My country is pathologically insane, but somehow it still works.

I feel like I live in a Terry Pratchett novel.

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

LMNO

I wish I lived in one.  Because then, the practical jokes would make sense, instead of the constant banana peel gag.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on January 02, 2013, 07:03:19 PM
I wish I lived in one.  Because then, the practical jokes would make sense, instead of the constant banana peel gag.

You do live in one.  And those aren't practical jokes, it's just business.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 05:50:07 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 05:44:40 PM
As you know, I've agreed with your general point for quite a while.  As something of a student of irregular warfare, I know there is no force on the earth that is going to win against a government that wants to kill you.

Sri Lanka is my favourite example, mostly because people don't realise what happened there (or can find it on a map...).  Outside of Hezbollah and FARC, the Tigers had probably the word's best armed and trained irregular force, which used a mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare against the mostly Sinhalese government of Sri Lanka for decades.  They even had their own naval forces...nothing that could win against a real navy, mind you, but enough to do hit and run amphibious strikes, or intercept civilian shipping.

In 2009, the Tigers were almost entirely wiped out.  Why?  The Sri Lankan government essentially said "we're tired of your bullshit" and went on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and near genocide against the Tamil people.  Entire villages were burnt down because of suspected links to known Tigers (like a family member of said Tiger living there) and much of the remaining population were interred in concentration camps.  Torture and drug-enhanced interrogation were used to find the location of rebel bases and they were bombed from the air and hit by heavy artillery, before a ground campaign of total warfare was used to flush out the survivours.

If the insurgent is a fish that swims in the lake of the population, then one method of dealing with him is to drain the lake.  It works.  Popular fronts normally can't succeed against a ruthless government, because the insurgents' supporters are by definition cowards (or they themselves would be insurgents).

Quote
I can't help but notice that most people stockpiling arms for the NWO are not spies or military people (and when they are, they're usually undercover and going to snitch on all their buddies) and are usually white dudes who don't get on well with most people (see Sano's post for more).  Not exactly likely contenders.

Yep.  They don't need none of that there hippie-ass "diplomacy" or "social skills", because they have GUNS.  And as long as they have GUNS, they are John Wayne, Dirty Harry, Rambo, etc.  The silent psychopathic hero that kills everything that's bad, and is admired for it.

Well, admired for it by other bitter, alienated freaks, anyway.  And that has to count for something.

They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.

Shit, yes.  If John Wayne was ever able to reach across time, he'd have pistol-whipped Jefferson to death for being a liberal hippie.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mangrove

Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 06:48:39 PM
QuoteHe made the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a new idea but merely existed to enshrine existing rights carried over from English law. (Cue the delicious irony that 99.9% of all Brits think Americans are impossibly stupid and irresponsible for loving guns so much.)

Well, that's just the British, not knowing their own history (nothing new there).  In Victorian England, you could buy a gun for personal use, no questions asked, no forms to fill in.  A gentleman was practically required to own at least one handgun and one hunting rifle.

When/how did Britain end up being a largely gun-free nation with some of the strictest laws?
What makes it so? Making it so is what makes it so.

The Good Reverend Roger

Quote from: Mangrove on January 02, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 02, 2013, 06:48:39 PM
QuoteHe made the point that the 2nd Amendment was not a new idea but merely existed to enshrine existing rights carried over from English law. (Cue the delicious irony that 99.9% of all Brits think Americans are impossibly stupid and irresponsible for loving guns so much.)

Well, that's just the British, not knowing their own history (nothing new there).  In Victorian England, you could buy a gun for personal use, no questions asked, no forms to fill in.  A gentleman was practically required to own at least one handgun and one hunting rifle.

When/how did Britain end up being a largely gun-free nation with some of the strictest laws?

Probably because England has had a long-term love affair with paternal-type fascism?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Cain

1920 Firearms Act started it off, really, though there was some pistol legislation in 1903.

Basically, post-WWI fear of social unrest, Communism and crime led to the need for licences to buy firearms, and to provide reasons for wanting them.

Anna Mae Bollocks

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 02, 2013, 07:15:18 PM
Quote from: Anencephaly Zone Correspondent on January 02, 2013, 07:12:43 PM
They tend to destroy what they don't understand. Which could be almost anything.

Shit, yes.  If John Wayne was ever able to reach across time, he'd have pistol-whipped Jefferson to death for being a liberal hippie.

I tried to explain Separation of Church and State and the religious philosophy of the founding fathers to a Texan bagger yesterday.

He countered with LALALALALA NOT LISTENING FOX FOX FOX BILL O'REILLY GABBA GABBA FUCK, of course.  :lol:
Scantily-Clad Inspector of Gigantic and Unnecessary Cashews, Texas Division