I feel sort of out of place with anyone on my stance on gun control. I think people who want guns should have them, so liberals won't accept me. I think the NRA and the majority of gun enthusiasts are bourgeoisies who want guns to protect their private property with force or to blow the brains out of animals for fun, so I'd feel weird conspiring with them to demand the right to bear arms. Most Anarcho-Communists assume that in a hypothetical Anarchist system, guns wouldn't exist and we'd all shoot flowers at each other. Anarcho-Capitalists, I can't get with either. (Which is nothing new) For the record, I'm of the opinion that a laissez-fair/minarchist/night watchman/Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist/objectivist/whatever-the-fuck-they're-calling-it now state would, in general be a hellhole. Authority and government would be eliminated, but there would be no one to keep tabs of corporations. They'd just annex all of the property they could control with the resources they'd develop, and by hiring forces, they'd just become new states. Really, part of me thinks Anarcho-Capitalism is oxymoronic. What's the difference between a state and a corporation? An Anarcho-Capitalist state with absolutely no control on weapons would just be Wal-Mart with nuclear bombs.
So basically, I'm stuck. Another thing that bothers me about this issue is when right-wing ideologues are like "OMG WE MUST PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT! LIBERALS WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY ONOS!" I hate to break it to you, but your second amendment rights were violated a long time ago.
Quote from: The Second AmendmentA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
In other words, we get all the weapons and militias we want to defend ourselves from the government if it ever becomes un-free. (which it has, and how) If you think a bunch of paranoid Leftist survivalist rednecks can successfully defend themselves from the U.S. government with sawed-off shotguns and military fatigues, you're free to live in that reality. We will never have an uninfringed right to keep and bear Arms and regulate a militia to keep the state in check unless we are legally allowed to build nuclear bombs. That's right. The U.S. government has 10,000 nuclear bombs, and unless they let you build atomic weaponry in your cellar, you don't have a 2nd amendment to speak of.
Now, of course, I'm all for nuclear disarmament.
In theory. But as long as America, Russia, China, France, and Britain get them, I should be able to get some weapons-grade uranium at Wal-Mart with a successful background check and start building in my garage. While I'm at it, I want some saran gas. And komodo dragons to do my bidding.
Pfft. Give me a few shotguns, many more boxes of bullets, and let me at any fuckers in the military that want to invade my private land.
Gun control = Worthless bull shit
Isn't that basically what I said?
I was just being realistic and pointing out that if one had to ward off the U.S. government, one would need a little more than just a moderate to large sized stockpile of guns to last more than a week.
I was agreeing with you actually....
WACO ALL THE WAY!
Except with us it would be...
DISCO ALL THE WAY!
Sounds like reality came up and caught up on theory. I have to say I mostly agree with those stances personally. I always though anarcho-captialism was more likely anarcho-syndacylism or whatever, simply because of their global nature, resources and connections.
As for the 2nd Ammendment, again, I agree to a degree. Yes, no militia stands a chance against a modern army. Even a 3 million strong, well motivated and trained light infantry cannot hope to stand against a military force which inlcudes tanks, helicopters, bombers and a very good SigInt network (which the US has, Human Intelligence is another matter).
However, at least it means you are not totally helpless. Over here, if I am attaked by an armed person, I either have to be extremely trusting in my ability to fuck them up (which I have had to, once or twice) or I have to wait for the police, who have an average arrival time of 20 odd minutes. It still gives you a bit of self-reliability.
Again with nukes, I agree. You can't turn back the clock and I wouldnt trust any other country to keep to a deal to disarm.
But when the policemen get there they can beat him with sticks!
:lol: Or the can cower in the patrol car until someone collapses and arrest them while the others run away, which is more likely.
Stop!
or I'll say "Stop!" again!
8)
Quote from: Scribe
As for the 2nd Ammendment, again, I agree to a degree. Yes, no militia stands a chance against a modern army.
Tell that to the Iraqis. :lol:
Quote from: Ghost In The MachineQuote from: Scribe
As for the 2nd Ammendment, again, I agree to a degree. Yes, no militia stands a chance against a modern army.
Tell that to the Iraqis. :lol:
Yes, but thats Iraq. In the states, they could unleash a bloodbath like nothing in Iraq. They are working from a position of strength and have the support they need from the populace.. In Iraq, the factors are highly different.
Quote from: ScribeQuote from: Ghost In The MachineQuote from: Scribe
As for the 2nd Ammendment, again, I agree to a degree. Yes, no militia stands a chance against a modern army.
Tell that to the Iraqis. :lol:
Yes, but thats Iraq. In the states, they could unleash a bloodbath like nothing in Iraq. They are working from a position of strength and have the support they need from the populace.. In Iraq, the factors are highly different.
Yep. And if the founders thought like you (when they took on the world's most powerful army), Americans would still be crumpet-munching limeys.
Unless the US military is willing to wipe out the entire population, an insurrection has a pretty good shot.
However, all of this is moot, because Americans are too busy watching American Idol to actually DO anything.
We'll see. The War of Revolution only managed to succeed because a huge French professional army saved your asses.
Their resources (manpower, weaponry, intelligence, propaganda, logistics, and the willingness to engage in total war) are far too vast, and their power structures are firmly entrenched. 'They' can take whatever steps are necessary (tanks, helicopter gun ships, ultrasonic, laser blinders, nerve gas, bio weapons, tac-nukes, etc.) to quell a domestic disturbance during a state of emergency (and will be free to either deny, or fail to disclose, the methodology used), and no mere "light infantry" could hope to withstand such an onslaught. The only circumstances by which such a mass uprising could have any small chance of success would be immediately following the apocalyptic devastation of a possible Third World War.
Quote from: ScribeWe'll see. The War of Revolution only managed to succeed because a huge French professional army saved your asses.
Um, no, the French only sent troops when it became apparent that the colonists could win.
They shortened the war, they didn't decide it.
if you wanted to pull off a sucessful insurrection in America, you'd need to join the military (as an officer) and spend a few years cultivating a division-sized force that was loyal to you. If you spent 8 or 10 years getting promoted and cultivating such a following until you had a large enough force to sucessfully take and hold a major city, you might have a shot.
insurrection by hillbillies and angry kids = likely to turn very bloody very quickly
8)
Quote from: Ghost In The MachineQuote from: ScribeWe'll see. The War of Revolution only managed to succeed because a huge French professional army saved your asses.
Um, no, the French only sent troops when it became apparent that the colonists could win.
They shortened the war, they didn't decide it.
Partly true. they did pour in the men and resources after the colonists won at Saratoga, but to be honest you'd never have got near Yorktown if it wasn't for massive French aid. The French army and navy won Yorktown for you. Americans didn't have the materiel or the training to mount a combined operation like that, with naval blockade and land siege. It was the French artillery forces and military engineers who ran the siege, and at sea it was a French admiral, de Grasse, who kicked the shit out of the British navy when they tried to break the siege.
Quote from: T'ai Kungif you wanted to pull off a sucessful insurrection in America, you'd need to join the military (as an officer) and spend a few years cultivating a division-sized force that was loyal to you. If you spent 8 or 10 years getting promoted and cultivating such a following until you had a large enough force to sucessfully take and hold a major city, you might have a shot.
insurrection by hillbillies and angry kids = likely to turn very bloody very quickly
8)
1. Great. Then we could have another Argentina. The WORST possible result would be the military staging a coup.
2. Most revolutions get bloody. Just saying.
Quote from: T'ai Kungif you wanted to pull off a sucessful insurrection in America, you'd need to join the military (as an officer) and spend a few years cultivating a division-sized force that was loyal to you. If you spent 8 or 10 years getting promoted and cultivating such a following until you had a large enough force to sucessfully take and hold a major city, you might have a shot.
insurrection by hillbillies and angry kids = likely to turn very bloody very quickly
8)
And another good point. Its also worth noting most of the Iraqi insurgents are in fact part of the old Iraqi Army, when Bremner sacked them because he is a class A idiot. They have alot of training and loyalty, hence why they are able to cause so much damage.
Quote from: ScribeQuote from: T'ai Kungif you wanted to pull off a sucessful insurrection in America, you'd need to join the military (as an officer) and spend a few years cultivating a division-sized force that was loyal to you. If you spent 8 or 10 years getting promoted and cultivating such a following until you had a large enough force to sucessfully take and hold a major city, you might have a shot.
insurrection by hillbillies and angry kids = likely to turn very bloody very quickly
8)
And another good point. Its also worth noting most of the Iraqi insurgents are in fact part of the old Iraqi Army, when Bremner sacked them because he is a class A idiot. They have alot of training and loyalty, hence why they are able to cause so much damage.
What? Just a few dead-enders? :lol:
Yeah, that descibes Zarqawi, Al Sadr, and the Bagdhad militias???
Sorry, dude, it just isn't so. Most of the militias are amateurs.
Yes, I mean fighting Iran and the various uprisings after the first Iraq war puts them on a par with the Libyans :roll: Zarqawi, al-Sadr an the others are the spokesmen. The real worry is the hundreds of thousands who were relatively well paid and fed under Saddam who now have no job but tons of military training and explosives.
And even if alot are amateurs, they are just the ones who are chosen to be the human bombs.
Edit: Either way, the point is the US are ina point of weaknes in Iraq. They are in a part of the world that is not sympathetic to them and is far away from their geographical bases of power. Plus, other countries are far less uppity about what you do in your own borders compared to others. Including mass slaughter using wmds in the name of "national security".
Quote from: ScribeYes, I mean fighting Iran and the various uprisings after the first Iraq war puts them on a par with the Libyans :roll: Zarqawi, al-Sadr an the others are the spokesmen. The real worry is the hundreds of thousands who were relatively well paid and fed under Saddam who now have no job but tons of military training and explosives.
And even if alot are amateurs, they are just the ones who are chosen to be the human bombs.
Now, explain to me why Ba'athist troops would fight for Shi'ite leaders? :lol: It just doesn't work that way. Ba'athists and Shi'ites hate each other more than they hate us.
Most of the former military rank & file is being employed in the new paramilitary police forces...where they are performing about as well as they did under the old regime. This myth of the "dead-enders" was stale in late 2003. Not even Rumsfeld tries to sell that yarn, anymore.
Quote from: Ghost In The Machine
Now, explain to me why Ba'athist troops would fight for Shi'ite leaders? :lol: It just doesn't work that way. Ba'athists and Shi'ites hate each other more than they hate us.
Most of the former military rank & file is being employed in the new paramilitary police forces...where they are performing about as well as they did under the old regime. This myth of the "dead-enders" was stale in late 2003. Not even Rumsfeld tries to sell that yarn, anymore.
Not al-Sadr, no. They get their training in the Bekaa valley, I believe, although I may be wrong.
The paramilitary forces are mostly Kurdish and Shi'ite. Because most of the army was Sunni, and the Sunni's had most to lose and least to gain with a democratic Iraq. They are outnumbered by the Kurdish and Shi'ite populations, there is no advantage in working with the Americans.
Quote from: Scribe
Not al-Sadr, no. They get their training in the Bekaa valley, I believe, although I may be wrong.
Jebus. No offense, but you are sounding JUST like Sean Hannity, right now. There is precisely ZERO evidence that they are receiving their training, there, and several sound reasons that they aren't.
1. There's no need to go that far. Why should they? They have plenty of local areas to train in. The American forces control the ground they stand on, and not much else.
2. Why would Syria stick their neck out like that? They're risking too much as it is, by supplying weapons and ammunition.
Because last I heard al-Sadr was tight with the Iranians and that means they are tight with the Hezbollah, one of the best guerrilla armies in the world. But like I said, I may be wrong. I havent really had time to look at him much.
However, the insurgents are unmistakably Sunni, as were the army under Saddam.
And my point, getting back to it, is that a militia in the States would not be able to fight against the US military and expect to win. How many of those groups are infiltrated again by the FBI? Exactly what can a machine gun do against a helicoptor gunship? Using the War of Revolution is a false analogy, as weapons differences were much less back then, compared to nowadays. Espescially with the French supplies. Whereas now...Also, the US will go into full mobilisation if necessary. Total war. Full resources of the state vs a bunch of men with guns. No chance.
Quote from: ScribeBecause last I heard al-Sadr was tight with the Iranians and that means they are tight with the Hezbollah, one of the best guerrilla armies in the world. But like I said, I may be wrong. I havent really had time to look at him much.
However, the insurgents are unmistakably Sunni, as were the army under Saddam.
And my point, getting back to it, is that a militia in the States would not be able to fight against the US military and expect to win. How many of those groups are infiltrated again by the FBI? Exactly what can a machine gun do against a helicoptor gunship? Using the War of Revolution is a false analogy, as weapons differences were much less back then, compared to nowadays. Espescially with the French supplies. Whereas now...Also, the US will go into full mobilisation if necessary. Total war. Full resources of the state vs a bunch of men with guns. No chance.
1. Al Sadr is tight with whomever will arm him.
2. Incorrect. Zarqawi is one of the big four, and he's as Sunni as you are. In addition, most of the militias in Bagdhad are Shi'ite.
3. Weapons differences are meaningless in a guerilla war. What matters is intel, and the American government couldn't even stop McViegh. Hell, they only caught the Unabomber because his brother turned him in.
Are you certain about Zaqawi? All I seem to get suggest he is "Sunni", like most of Al-Qaeda (in that if he ever got around to reading the Qu'ran he's be Sunni). He has even launched attacks against several Shi'ite clerics in Iraq. It could be due to power politics, but it doesn't seem so.
Yes, intel is very important. However, McVeigh was low level and so slipped under the radar. To be able to coordinate large attacks requires a large amount of coordination and cooperation, which leads to infiltration. Of course, they could always try 4G theory of warfare, like the Iraqis, but I doubt they would, for the simple reason thats its been around a while and they haven't yet.
Quote from: ScribeAre you certain about Zaqawi? All I seem to get suggest he is "Sunni", like most of Al-Qaeda (in that if he ever got around to reading the Qu'ran he's be Sunni). He has even launched attacks against several Shi'ite clerics in Iraq. It could be due to power politics, but it doesn't seem so.
Yes, intel is very important. However, McVeigh was low level and so slipped under the radar. To be able to coordinate large attacks requires a large amount of coordination and cooperation, which leads to infiltration. Of course, they could always try 4G theory of warfare, like the Iraqis, but I doubt they would, for the simple reason thats its been around a while and they haven't yet.
Zarqawi = Al Qaeda = Wahibbi = Shi'ite.
Who needs large attacks? America had a fucking nervous breakdown after McViegh, and went totally off the hook after 911...and those were small potatos. Both attacks were all flash, no fury.
You could do a lot more, with a hell of a lot less, and not just against civilian targets.
The only reason there haven't been signifigant terrorist actions in America since 911 is because nobody is trying, not because we're good at stopping them.
Bob damn you! This is a cunning plan to stop me revising, isnt it? I just realised I spent the last half hour doing this instead of sentential logic, damn you! :lol:
Quote from: ScribeBob damn you! This is a cunning plan to stop me revising, isnt it? I just realised I spent the last half hour doing this instead of sentential logic, damn you! :lol:
You caught me. :lol:
Fact is, it's not an "us vs them" scenario. There is no single insurgent organization.
It's actually more like us vs them vs them vs them vs them vs them, etc.
An easier analogy for Iraq:
Take twenty rival American streetgangs, and starve them for a week. Toss a few dozen cops into the mix, give everyone a steak knife...
...and then turn out the lights.
Quote from: Ghost In The MachineQuote from: ScribeBob damn you! This is a cunning plan to stop me revising, isnt it? I just realised I spent the last half hour doing this instead of sentential logic, damn you! :lol:
You caught me. :lol:
Fact is, it's not an "us vs them" scenario. There is no single insurgent organization.
It's actually more like us vs them vs them vs them vs them vs them, etc.
An easier analogy for Iraq:
Take twenty rival American streetgangs, and starve them for a week. Toss a few dozen cops into the mix, give everyone a steak knife...
...and then turn out the lights.
True, it is less organized. I meant the individual gruops were more organized in themselves, if you see what I mean...Kinda like the stuff I talked about in the Open Source Chaos stuff.
I knew there was some vile plot to make me fail my exams!
Quote from: ScribeQuote from: Ghost In The MachineQuote from: ScribeBob damn you! This is a cunning plan to stop me revising, isnt it? I just realised I spent the last half hour doing this instead of sentential logic, damn you! :lol:
You caught me. :lol:
Fact is, it's not an "us vs them" scenario. There is no single insurgent organization.
It's actually more like us vs them vs them vs them vs them vs them, etc.
An easier analogy for Iraq:
Take twenty rival American streetgangs, and starve them for a week. Toss a few dozen cops into the mix, give everyone a steak knife...
...and then turn out the lights.
True, it is less organized. I meant the individual gruops were more organized in themselves, if you see what I mean...Kinda like the stuff I talked about in the Open Source Chaos stuff.
I knew there was some vile plot to make me fail my exams!
1. Only if each of the cells hate and loathe ALL of the other cells.
2. Nothing personal. The crew is short handed, and that poop-auger isn't going to fix itself. Welcome aboard.
Scribe's right about France though. What can I say? We suck. France rules.
I thought the second admendment meant we were allowed to keep
military grade arms in our homes. You know, full automatic rifles , RPGs,
Stingers. (What can a Stinger do to a helicopter?)
Anyway, the argument about our "right to bare arms" always struck me
as disengenious. Consider this: No rational person would argue that
individuals have the right to their own personal nuclear weapons. The
result of that would be the end of humanity. (Okay, so I presume that
anyone wanting to end humanity would not be rational.) On the other
hand, I could kill you with a salad fork. No rational person would argue
that we should ban cutlery. All rational people would agree that some
weapons (nuclear weapons) should be banned, and some weapons
(salad forks) should not. Therefore, all we are really arguing about
is where we draw the line.
Quote from: gnimbleyOn the other hand, I could kill you with a salad fork. No rational person would argue that we should ban cutlery.
Are you saying that those bureaucrats who make stupid airline safety rules aren't rational, or that they aren't human?
Just asking. :)
*stabs the Gnome with a salad knife to help prove the point*
I agree with Gnimbly. Draw a line. Then paint the Mona Lisa. Uhh...yeah...
Quote from: The Maligned Hippy*stabs the Gnome with a salad knife to help prove the point*
I agree with Gnimbly. Draw a line. Then paint the Mona Lisa. Uhh...yeah...
*stabbinates the next three posters except for gnimbley who has 5d8 rounds of stabbinatorial immunity*
Quote from: gnimbleyI thought the second admendment meant we were allowed to keep
military grade arms in our homes. You know, full automatic rifles , RPGs,
Stingers. (What can a Stinger do to a helicopter?)
Anyway, the argument about our "right to bare arms" always struck me
as disengenious. Consider this: No rational person would argue that
individuals have the right to their own personal nuclear weapons. The
result of that would be the end of humanity. (Okay, so I presume that
anyone wanting to end humanity would not be rational.) On the other
hand, I could kill you with a salad fork. No rational person would argue
that we should ban cutlery. All rational people would agree that some
weapons (nuclear weapons) should be banned, and some weapons
(salad forks) should not. Therefore, all we are really arguing about
is where we draw the line.
"Special weapons" (nukes, germs, gas) are not considered "arms" by any nation.
Considering that both a gun an a bomb are tools whose purpose is to kill, wouldn't that be considered a "line"?
Quote from: LMNOConsidering that both a gun an a bomb are tools whose purpose is to kill, wouldn't that be considered a "line"?
I'dAnswerThisButMyFuckingSpaceBarBroke.I'llBeRightBack.
'Course we have the right to bare arms. I'm baring my arms right now.
8)
Quote from: Ghost In The Machine
"Special weapons" (nukes, germs, gas) are not considered "arms" by any nation.
Like I give a shit what some nation says. Arms, weapons, things that
kill ya, sharp pointy objects, nasty hobbits... just word games. The point
still stands.
I think the point was that the nations play these word games so they can continue to keep such nastiness out of the hands of the hoi palloi because they want 'em all for themselves, without actually violating anything.
"Yeah, you can bear arms, but nukes aren't arms, so you can't have those."
Quote from: DJRubberduckyI think the point was that the nations play these word games so they can continue to keep such nastiness out of the hands of the hoi palloi because they want 'em all for themselves, without actually violating anything.
"Yeah, you can bear arms, but nukes aren't arms, so you can't have those."
No. No. Sorry for being a Greek nazi, but "hoi polloi" doesn't follow "the".
"Hoi" in this case means "the." It is plural. "Polloi" means " many/masses" and is related to other words like "poly" and shit like that.
Just saying.
Gnimbley. I too don't give a fuck. I just stab them one and all the same.
The Irreverend Hugh; equal opportunity stabbinatorialist.