|
 |
On 1/30/2011 3:27 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/29/2011 10:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> "What if they where not available to the criminals either
>>>
>>> That's completely unrealistic, tho. It's almost trivial to make a simple
>>> firearm. Even when you're in a country under martial law being invaded
>>> by an attacking country, it's not all that hard to get guns.
>>>
>>> Now, if you *also* disarmed the police and military, maybe that would
>>> happen.
>>>
>>> Or, you can look at countries where *everyone* has guns and knows how to
>>> use them, and see a tremendously low violent crime rate, and consider
>>> that maybe the guns aren't the biggest problem to address, even if
>>> reducing them would help.
>>>
>> Not seeing a lot of those.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
>
>>> Understand that the reason the guns are around in the USA are for when
>>> the shit hits the fan. We haven't had a whole lot of revolutions in this
>>> country, in part because of the second amendment. Before you disarm
>>> everyone, take into account the effect that has on how corrupt the
>>> government can get, before you loudly proclaim the benefits of being
>>> just as disarmed as the general population of, say, China. :-)
>>>
>> Imho, the second amendment doesn't have **jack** to do with it.
>
> Sure it does. Combined with soldiers (for example) taking an oath to the
> constitution instead of the leaders, it helps. But I'm not going to
> argue that with you.
>
The oath has a lot to do with it. The average person having a weapon.. I
am highly skeptical of.
>> Assuming you could get the military to act against the people it
>> protects, the general citizenry would be out gunned,
>
> Yes, because, you know, Afghanistan hasn't had any success in such a
> situation.
>
Oh, yes, because the average Afghani government official has access to
entire arms manufacturing plants, giant armies, dozens of airports, and
whole military bases... Try using an example where there is a tangible
disparity between what the people fighting the government and the people
in the government have to fight with, and there are *no* outside sources
either a) providing them with support, or b) trying to avoid casualties.
If the government had the means, and was willing, or *we* as the outside
help, didn't care about casualties, a few main cities could be kept, and
the rest of the country smashed to pieces, and the result would kind of
leave a) no one willing to keep fighting back in the places left, and b)
no one left outside of those places to fight. Its like the Nam argument.
If you where willing to win by *any means*, you could have just killed
everyone that got in the way, indiscriminately. As a rule, dictators,
fascists, etc., tend to take that tactic *especially* when resistance is
actually possible, since they don't give a damn about the people they
are going to rule, only about their own vision. Places like Afghanistan
they are successful because those that help from outside *want* an
intact country, for one reason or another, and the ones in the
government being fought both want something left *after*, and often,
without outside help, are no better armed than the rebels.
Hardly a useful example... Try every other point in history, where both
sides where armed, but one of them had **no problem** just simply wiping
out everyone that didn't accept their rule. You can't win against a
superior force, if the superior force wants to keep most of the people
fighting them alive. The problem with fascists and the like is, they
generally don't give a shit if anyone they define as, "dangerous to the
new order", survive at all.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
