Knights of Glory and Beer

Serving the online community since 1997

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Page 37 of 64 1 2 35 36 37 38 39 63 64
#113028 - 01/17/13 04:41 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Sethan, in a hypothetical situation where National Guard is going door to door rounding up people to put them into concentration camps, do you think you'd be able to fight them off with your superb marksmanship and easy access to rifles (as opposed to just handguns and shotguns) ?


#113029 - 01/17/13 05:09 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 703
Sethan Offline
KGB Knight
Sethan  Offline
KGB Knight
***

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 703
Texas
Originally Posted By: sini
Sethan, in a hypothetical situation where National Guard is going door to door rounding up people to put them into concentration camps, do you think you'd be able to fight them off with your superb marksmanship and easy access to rifles (as opposed to just handguns and shotguns) ?


I expect I am walking into a trap by answering this but I will entertain you with a fake scenario. It is kind of troubling to even write about harming our military personal and I have not given it much thought but this is how I imagine it will go down.

I would not be able to fight them off by myself anymore than a single National Guard soldier would fight a large group of me off. Hypothetically though this will not be a small scale situation and they will be rounding up thousands of people like me.

Granted I live in Texas and hypothetically if that does happen then I am 100% confident as a state my fellow citizens would fuck the National Guard up and send them packing. Modern warfare has drastically trended in the favor of those on the defense. Going on the offense against loosely organized guerrilla fighters on the defense is a next to impossible task using even the most modern technology.

If our *real* army and all of its infinite resources cannot beat back a mostly illiterate bunch of poor guerilla fighters in over 10 years then the National Guard doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell coming to Texas and trying to round people up.

You give our government's army way too much credit in this fake scenario. It comes down to motivation really. The young National Guards they will be sending in this made up situation will be very unmotivated to go capture their own citizens. The people they are rounding up will quickly become motivated to the degree of a zealot. Also the south makes up of a large percentage of our military forces so they would be rounding up their own parents, friends and relatives.

Hypothetically after rounding up the first batch of Texans the word would spread rapidly and people would organize and go on the defense within days. The first batch would be easy but the second batch would result in heavy casualties.





So to answer your question.... Yes, I believe my right to bear arms gives me a good chance of defending myself in such a scenario.

Last edited by Sethan; 01/17/13 06:16 PM.
#113030 - 01/17/13 05:22 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 703
Sethan Offline
KGB Knight
Sethan  Offline
KGB Knight
***

Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 703
Texas
Granted people like you will probably be snitching on everybody and handing out water bottles to them as they pass by your house.

[yes]

I still think we would make it out alright.

#113031 - 01/17/13 06:15 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sini]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 619
Brutal Offline
KGB Knight
Brutal  Offline
KGB Knight
*****

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 619
Originally Posted By: sini
Brutal, just FYI for anyone of my political leaning you'd come across as completely insane. Keep this in mind if you keep in touch with such people IRL.



Completely false. I know a LOT of extremely liberal people, and only a handful of them are so far gone that they think the government is completely magnanimous as you seem to.

Originally Posted By: sini
If you said that proposed measures are not guaranteed to be effective - I'd agree with you. If you pointed at examples and statistics, proposed alternatives - I'd consider your opinions. When you start invoking Holocaust and suggest we put armed guards in every school is when I start offering to buy you a one-way ticket to a nuthouse.

Problem with current round of gun control is that one side mistakenly believes that do nothing is ideal approach and another side does not understand issue well enough to propose effective measures.



Not guaranteed to be effective?! So now, what you're telling me is that these new gun laws are guaranteed to reduce gun violence? You've gone completely off the reservation with this one. In what reality can you ever say with a straight face that any piece of legislation is guaranteed to be effective at anything other than advancing the agenda of the politician that proposed it?

edit: I got carried away and submitted too fast!

I have proposed an alternative: Leave the 2nd amendment alone. Yes, that is an alternative, and the only one currently that is constitutional. That word still means something.

And there's absolutely no reason for me or anyone else to not 'invoke the holocaust' as you put it. Walking around with blinders on so you can't see anything that has happened before may work out swell for you, but it hasn't ever helped me or anyone else much.

Last edited by Brutal; 01/17/13 06:18 PM.
#113032 - 01/17/13 06:16 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 939
Daye Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
Daye  Offline
KGB Supreme Knight
*****

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 939
League City, TX
"Plus your side keep telling me there is no deadliness difference between
a handgun and a semi-auto rifle, so what can you do with one that you can't
with a handgun?"

Minor differences at SHORT RANGE. At long range, it's a different story.
There is a reason Charles Whitman chose a rifle vs a pistol for his event.


For the younger folks who just said " Charles Who ? ", this link is for you:

A motivated Marine and his rifle


In reality, in close quarters a rifle is actually a poor choice due to its
maneuverability issues in tight spaces, over-penetration hazards and the
difficulty in concealing said weapon.


"in a hypothetical situation where National Guard is going door to door
rounding up people to put them into concentration camps"

Didja know, during a recent high profile hurricane in Louisiana, Law
Enforcement ( local and Federal ) as well as the National Guard were going
from house to house rounding up all firearms ( illegally ) from all the
citizens because someone ( illegally, but in a position of power ) decided
that only Law Enforcement should be armed at that point. :|

To preempt those who want citations, this link is for you:

Scroll down to the Confiscation of Civilian Firearms section


Oh and for everyone who thinks the might of the US Military cannot possibly
be defeated / thwarted by small groups of individuals armed with basic weaponry
and home made devices, I merely need point you to the following conflicts:


Vietnam
Afghanistan
Somalia

Last edited by Daye; 01/17/13 06:33 PM.
#113035 - 01/17/13 07:04 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Brutal]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Originally Posted By: Brutal

Originally Posted By: sini

Problem with current round of gun control is that one side mistakenly believes that do nothing is ideal approach and another side does not understand issue well enough to propose effective measures.


Not guaranteed to be effective?! So now, what you're telling me is that these new gun laws are guaranteed to reduce gun violence?


New gun laws are bad , because they were written badly. Simple enough for you to understand?

Quote:
I have proposed an alternative: Leave the 2nd amendment alone. Yes, that is an alternative, and the only one currently that is constitutional.


So you support gun violence, including madman murdering small children in cold blood?

OK, this is not a fair question to ask. Existing situation is clearly problematic. Gun violence and gun murders is something I want to see reduced. I know that by keeping things as-is it won't happen. Mass shootings will keep happening.


#113036 - 01/17/13 07:15 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sethan]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Sethan, your assumption that people around you raise up is based on faulty perfect information assumption. Are you familiar with fog of war concept?

If I suspected government is rounding up people and they are coming for me I'd grab satellite phone (hide it if I have to) plus my laptop (if possible) and go along with it, not grab a gun and try fight other Americans who likely were told a bunch of BS about me and the situation.

If I was evil government trying to take away your shit I'd follow roughly following course of actions:

1. Declare national emergency, probably biological. Plaster news with pictures of guys in hazmat suits and small town somewhere choke-full of gruesome corpses.
2. Declare fake emergency and start forcible evacuation in your area. Anyone resisting declared sleeper agent and/or infected and forcibly detained.

You have your guns in the house. National Guard is on your doorstep telling you to leave everything behind and get into the evacuation bus on the corner. Now tell me how you going to resolve this situation with a gun. Make a last stand?

Last edited by sini; 01/17/13 07:43 PM.

#113038 - 01/17/13 07:39 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Sethan]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Originally Posted By: Sethan
Granted I live in Texas and hypothetically if that does happen then I am 100% confident as a state my fellow citizens would fuck the National Guard up and send them packing.


In a hypothetical case of all-out welfare, you are probably wrong. Drones, tanks, communication satellites giving tactical real time maps while all you have is a bunch of semi-automatic rifles and dead phones is a no-win situation.

None of this would happen, because as soon as US citizens (who are National Guard) realize they are told to attack and kill fellow US citizens they will tell the chain of command to go pound sand.

Your access or lack of access to a rifle makes ZERO difference in the above scenario. What makes difference is access to information. Instead of worrying about gun restrictions targeted at mitigating social ills you should be much more concerned about access and freedom of communication, government accountability and other things like that.

Guns as a means to resist hostile government is a bogus argument.


#113039 - 01/17/13 07:44 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Tasorin]  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,574
Derid Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
Derid  Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court

****

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,574

Sinij, your opinions - or anyones - on whether armed resistance to tyranny could be effective in this day and age are not relevant to the topic.

Unless you want to say that the First Amendment is also subject to restriction, because sometimes people say irresponsible things that end up badly.

For example, our news media helped spread lies that more or less directly resulted in the deaths of over 100k Iraqis as just one example (though a large one) out of infinite possible examples. I could literally spend a day rattling off examples of irresponsible speech leading to bad things happening just off the top of my head.

Also, in many bad scenarios regarding govt - speaking out does not change anything. You can hold up as many signs as you want, or write as many "letters to the editor" as you want - it really makes no difference if armed thugs bash your skull with a rifle butt, or bomb your house. As has been demonstrated many times the world over (think Tienanmen Square as 1 ex)just exercising "speech" does not necessarily mean squat.

So by your logic, since it might not (even probably wont) help anyway, and is often abused in ways leading to the deaths of many many people, at great cost to society... why not restrict freedom of speech as well? Perhaps if people were restricted in what they said, fewer irresponsible things would be said.. and society would be much better off right?


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
#113040 - 01/17/13 07:50 PM Re: An Armed Society, is a politer Society [Re: Derid]  
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Sini Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
Sini  Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
**

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,217
Originally Posted By: Derid


Unless you want to say that the First Amendment is also subject to restriction, because sometimes people say irresponsible things that end up badly.


There are limitations on 1st Amendment - shouting fire in a crowded theater or lying under oath are couple examples. Personal responsibility, greater good of society and so on are/were considerations when limitations were established. Now why shouldn't there be limitations on 2nd?


Page 37 of 64 1 2 35 36 37 38 39 63 64

Moderated by  Derid 

Page Time: 0.056s Queries: 16 (0.027s) Memory: 3.1534 MB (Peak: 3.2638 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2018-10-21 00:39:40 UTC