It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[NeOmega]

Power flows from the barrel of a gun.

But this is not the only source of power.

You are being delusional.

I find it so odd leftists, out of solidarity, or perhaps embedded misandry, revile guns, oblivious to the facts that every election, America has only slipped closer to the bonds of fascism.

All I've done is explain what the 2nd Amendment's purpose was, what the assault weapon ban did, etc. We also have to recognize, however, that the 2nd amendment has failed, and thus is an anachronism. In this context, it's not unreasonable to favor restrictions on certain arms which serve no useful function in civil society.

Failed how?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Still is, America is having a hard time taking that country over.

Because we are trying to minimize civilian casualties. In the event of a dictatorship in the U.S., we shouldn't hope for such soft treatment.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

The one with the upper hand is the one who shoots first.
Not the one who is defending, and not the one who is right. It can be both of those thought, but only if you shoot first.

The one with the upper hand is the one who understands the situation better. A defender has the advantage in a house.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because we are trying to minimize civilian casualties. In the event of a dictatorship in the U.S., we shouldn't hope for such soft treatment.

Where would the dictatorship draw it's power from?

In an America struggle for power, bombing in general would not be an option, just like Iraq. The struggle for power and politics require you do not kill those you are attempting to recruit.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega

Power flows from the barrel of a gun.

But this is not the only source of power.

You are being delusional.

Plenty of people without guns have power. Ghandi had power. Martin Luther King had power. People with money have power. People with charisma have power. People with guns, also have power. It all depends on the situation.

Failed how?

We not only have a standing miltary, we have the strongest military in the world. The only thing preventing a military coup is their respect for the law.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Where would the dictatorship draw it's power from?

People who agree with them. That would be a large segment of this country, sadly.

In an America struggle for power, bombing in general would not be an option, just like Iraq. The struggle for power and politics require you do not kill those you are attempting to recruit.

So why did Hussein have no problems keeping control of the territory he wasn't prevented from entering by the U.S.? Do you think for a second Hussein would have respected the Mosque in Najaf? You don't have to win people to your point of view. You just have to scare them into submission.

[Sava]

You want assault weapons? Join the military. We have them. -- General Wesley Clark

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by NeOmega


The one with the upper hand is the one who understands the situation better. A defender has the advantage in a house.

But you didn't disagree with my point. Shoot first if you want to live.
You know, if the robber is so incredibly stupid he will let you have the upper hand by alerting you to his presence you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

[GePap]

Originally posted by NeOmega

Really? Do you have any statistics to back that up? Never mind the fact the average Iraqi doesn't have the disposable income an American does....

they are far cheaper in Iraq, and sold at more locations.

Rwanda.

Fallujah.

Look 'em up, come back to me.

What the **** is that supposed to mean? Maybe you mean the Hutu genocidaires should get a prize for doing most of their killing sans guns?

BY Africa (yes, a rather loose an incorrect term for this) I mean the endless brush wars and rebel groups and a land awash with cheap ak-47s.

[GePap]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Where would the dictatorship draw it's power from?

An apathetic voting populace more worried about security? Yup.

In an America struggle for power, bombing in general would not be an option, just like Iraq. The struggle for power and politics require you do not kill those you are attempting to recruit.

This assumes the revolt not being regional-or that it had widespread support to begin with-otherwise they would be labelled terrorists.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Ned
I personally see no use for one to own military style weapons for hunting and the like.

Who says I want to go hunting with it? I want one so I can annex by neighborhood and become a local warlord if the government collapses.

[NeOmega]

Power flows from the barrel of a gun.

But this is not the only source of power.

You are being delusional.

Plenty of people without guns have power. Ghandi had power. Martin Luther King had power. People with money have power. People with charisma have power. People with guns, also have power. It all depends on the situation.

They had power because they were allowed power by the people with the guns. People with money are allowed to have power by people with guns. There are plenty of incident throughout history, where people who had money, or charisma thought they had power, and were fatally incorrect.

Failed how?

[q]
We not only have a standing miltary, we have the strongest military in the world. The only thing preventing a military coup is their respect for the law. [/QUOTE]

The only thing preventing a coup is the linability to pull it off, since the soldiers are not sworn to uphold their generals.

People who agree with them. That would be a large segment of this country, sadly.

Yes, there would be nothing you leftists could do either, except get rounded up and sent to re-education camps by your fellow right wing Americans in arms. Maybe even liquidated if you were mouthy, or had treasonous messages linked to you from internet forums.
Maybe Rosie O'Donnel can organize another hundred mom march in your defense.

But you didn't disagree with my point. Shoot first if you want to live.
You know, if the robber is so incredibly stupid he will let you have the upper hand by alerting you to his presence you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

I was more thinking about martial law.... not crime. Allthough I'll admit you are correct. It does come down to who shoots first. Many times a robber, or other invader is not intent on killing someone. But coming into my house, I am intent on killing you.

So why did Hussein have no problems keeping control of the territory he wasn't prevented from entering by the U.S.? Do you think for a second Hussein would have respected the Mosque in Najaf? You don't have to win people to your point of view. You just have to scare them into submission.

Mosque... Saddam would and did respect it. He wasn't a fool.

Fallujah. read it's history.

Try scaring people into submission with money, or "charisma"

[NeOmega]

they are far cheaper in Iraq, and sold at more locations.

right...... I am sure they are.

What the **** is that supposed to mean? Maybe you mean the Hutu genocidaires should get a prize for doing most of their killing sans guns?

Yup. Why do you find that funny. Guns or no guns, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. So blaming guns for wars etc is simplistic at best.

Oh, and Fallujah.... look it up.

BY Africa (yes, a rather loose an incorrect term for this) I mean the endless brush wars and rebel groups and a land awash with cheap ak-47s.

Right, those durned rebels, why can't they just accept their dictatorships?

[Ecthy]

and what would they need handguns for provost? the crime rate? that's actually supported by their liberal gun laws.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by NeOmega

Plenty of people without guns have power. Ghandi had power. Martin Luther King had power. People with money have power. People with charisma have power. People with guns, also have power. It all depends on the situation.

They had power because they were allowed power by the people with the guns.

For various reasons, both Great Britain and the United States felt they could not deal with Ghandi and MLK by killing them, at least not right away. Remember the velvet revolutions. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're willing to use it, in which case, you do not have power. How could one man stop a column of tanks with no weapons?

We not only have a standing miltary, we have the strongest military in the world. The only thing preventing a military coup is their respect for the law.

The only thing preventing a coup is the linability to pull it off, since the soldiers are not sworn to uphold their generals.

So respect for the law, not control of the guns, is what has power.

Yes, there would be nothing you leftists could do either, except get rounded up and sent to re-education camps by your fellow right wing Americans in arms. Maybe even liquidated if you were mouthy, or had treasonous messages linked to you from internet forums.

And if I had a gun this would somehow change things? Oh, maybe I could kill one cop before I became a puff of red mist under a hail of police bullets. Having guns didn't stop people from being disappeared by Hussein. Having guns doesn't stop cops from catching criminals.

So why did Hussein have no problems keeping control of the territory he wasn't prevented from entering by the U.S.? Do you think for a second Hussein would have respected the Mosque in Najaf? You don't have to win people to your point of view. You just have to scare them into submission.

Saddam would and did respect it.

Rebels weren't foolish enough to try and fight Hussein from the mosque. Had they done so, I'm sure Hussein would not have hesitated, like we did. The point being, Hussein faced a massive revolt, and crushed it within a couple weeks. We face a minor revolt, and won't take the brutal measures necessary to crush it. I'm glad we don't too.

[NeOmega]

Fallujah.... look it up.

[NeOmega]

For various reasons, both Great Britain and the United States felt they could not deal with Ghandi and MLK by killing them, at least not right away. Remember the velvet revolutions. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're willing to use it, in which case, you do not have power. How could one man stop a column of tanks with no weapons?

You sidestepped the issue... note power was granted by the people with the guns. It did not have to be that way. And in tianemen, nothing was granted.

So respect for the law, not control of the guns, is what has power.

Who is controlling those guns again? The soldier or the general?

Yes, there would be nothing you leftists could do either, except get rounded up and sent to re-education camps by your fellow right wing Americans in arms. Maybe even liquidated if you were mouthy, or had treasonous messages linked to you from internet forums.

And if I had a gun this would somehow change things? Oh, maybe I could kill one cop before I became a puff of red mist under a hail of police bullets. Having guns didn't stop people from being disappeared by Hussein. Having guns doesn't stop cops from catching criminals.

A communist who has no idea what solidarity means.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by NeOmega
The second amendment is pro-revolution.

It is there to keep the power in the hands of the people.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun.

Power flows much better from a high-tech bomb or nuclear weapon. If the 2nd Amendment was designed to ensure the ability of the populace to revolt, well, it's failed utterly now.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ned
As to the Second Amendment -- it protects only the right to bear "military" style weapons. There are Supreme Court cases that actually say this. The Second Amendment is not there to protect "hunters" or people trying to defend their homes. It exists solely so that the people may form military units in defense of the nation.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" bears NO possible interpretion other than you can't frigging ban guns! It doesn't say "except when blah blah", or anything. It is a definate statement that has exactly one possible meaning.

And wrt SCOTUS, it may be argued that it has usurped its power in "interpreting" the Constitution to have a meaning almost diametrically opposed to what it literally says.

[GePap]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Yup. Why do you find that funny. Guns or no guns, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. So blaming guns for wars etc is simplistic at best.

given that no one ever blamed Rwanda on guns....

Oh, and Fallujah.... look it up.

Sorry, I won't. So either make the point, or give it up.

Right, those durned rebels, why can't they just accept their dictatorships?

Yup, Sabimvi, Taylor, Kabila- what a collection of democracy champions we are talking about

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by NeOmega
The second amendment is pro-revolution.

It is there to keep the power in the hands of the people.

Power flows from the barrel of a gun.

Power flows much better from a high-tech bomb or nuclear weapon. If the 2nd Amendment was designed to ensure the ability of the populace to revolt, well, it's failed utterly now.

The pilots gotta live somewhere. The generals gotta take a dump sometime.

[NeOmega]

given that no one ever blamed Rwanda on guns....

Given that you tried to peg hostilities in Africa to guns....

Oh, and Fallujah.... look it up.

Saddam's army rarely dared to step foot in fallujah. The hotbed of resistance is a lot older than the american occupation.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by NeOmega
The pilots gotta live somewhere. The generals gotta take a dump sometime.

On base, maybe?

Do you really think a bunch of untrained civilians, even with assault rifles, could take out a military base?

They'd be cut to pieces before they got within twenty miles.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


On base, maybe?

Do you really think a bunch of untrained civilians, even with assault rifles, could take out a military base?

They'd be cut to pieces before they got within twenty miles.

Do you really think they couldn't?

The history of revolution always pits "impossible" odds against a much more powerful establishment.... yet many times these odds are overcome.

You are imagining a revolution against the US army, not the US government.... and it would depend greatly on the parameters of the revolution.

But I can name dozens of ways to penetrate and destroy an army base.... most of them require a level of compliance from with in.

There really shouldn't be any resistance in Iraq right now... but there is. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of people.

[GePap]

At best a guerrila campaign could be waged in forest and mountain regions, were terrain is difficult, roads few and narrow. But the problem with such a campaign is that it would be isolated and easy for any central government to fight it while painting the enemy as terrorists out there wanting to hurt the general populace.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by NeOmega
Do you really think they couldn't?

Hell yes. Trained troops armed with high-tech weapons using heavily armored tanks supported by aircraft with laser-guided bombs and "daisy cutters" and nuclear weapons beat an untrained mob with assualt rifles any day, if they want to.

The history of revolution always pits "impossible" odds against a much more powerful establishment.... yet many times these odds are overcome.

Many. And never this much more impossible.

You are imagining a revolution against the US army, not the US government.... and it would depend greatly on the parameters of the revolution.

But I can name dozens of ways to penetrate and destroy an army base.... most of them require a level of compliance from with in.

Exactly. You're assuming you'll have part of the military on your side. You concede my point.

[GePap]

Originally posted by NeOmega
There really shouldn't be any resistance in Iraq right now... but there is. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of people.

There is a significant difference to the political underpinnings of a revolt against a weak regime backed by outside occupying forces and an internal regime backed even by weaker forces (hence the failure of a Shiite revolt vs Saddam)

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by GePap


There is a significant difference to the political underpinnings of a revolt against a weak regime backed by outside occupying forces and an internal regime backed even by weaker forces (hence the failure of a Shiite revolt vs Saddam)

Do guns play any part in these complexities?

[NeOmega]

Exactly. You're assuming you'll have part of the military on your side. You concede my point.

The discussion is not the politics, the discussion is the weapons. So I was not discussing compliance of military materiel, I was pointing to the fact that having people "on the inside" can allow for ak-47's to take out f-16s. It doesn't require having an armored divison defect, it just takes pulling political strings.

[GePap]

No, but the realities mean that at this point, having the civilian populace armed with assault or even automatic weapons would not make a difference in case #2 (revolt ves internal dictatorship). Without outright and vocal support from a large section of the masses AND dissention amongs the military any armed revolt vs your local dictator will fail, period.

And I don;t see how people having assualt rifles or beyond would quicken dissention in the military or make the masses like the rebels.