Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having just finished reading of the atrocities/horrors under Mao, the Japanese, as well as Pol Pot, and others, how many of these sadistic historical leaders might never have made history books had the citizenry been better armed?
As I try to wade through the horrors of these readings, I stop myself a number of times, thinking this question.
It's hard to imagine some sadistic leader arising in Switzerland or even the U.S., with a better armed citizenry.
Would any of these leaders have still seized power, even with guns pointed at them?
What do you think?
Probably not much. A well-armed citizenry is never really a match for a well-armed state. Besides, some of the most best-armed citizens in the world live in places like Somalia, the Congo, Liberia, the former Yugoslavia, etc. I wouldn't hold up any of those places as shining examples of peace and personal liberty.
I know you're trying to make a point about gun rights. However, how would a well armed citizenry in this country do against Abrams tanks or Apache attack helicopters?
That point is moot, since the United States currently has no foes capable of launching a mechanized attack; and if we ever were occupied by a hostile power (or for that matter, our rural areas were put under martial rule by Big Brother / Sister), I have no doubt that local resistance would develop that would make the European Resistance of World War II look tame.
But my point remains that the high-placed High-minded few who would impose their version of Political Correctness on all of us continue to harangue against the rights of gun owners for precisely that reason.
I have no desire to live among a society of sheep.
And once that "citizenry" (actually, just a bunch of covetous, power-hungry thugs) consolidated their own power, they worked very hard and very ruthlessly to make certain no one with abetter idea could turn them out.
Yes they did but was does that have to do with the topic?
That point is moot, since the United States currently has no foes capable of launching a mechanized attack; and if we ever were occupied by a hostile power (or for that matter, our rural areas were put under martial rule by Big Brother / Sister), I have no doubt that local resistance would develop that would make the European Resistance of World War II look tame.
But my point remains that the high-placed High-minded few who would impose their version of Political Correctness on all of us continue to harangue against the rights of gun owners for precisely that reason.
I have no desire to live among a society of sheep.
That point is moot, since the United States currently has no foes capable of launching a mechanized attack; and if we ever were occupied by a hostile power (or for that matter, our rural areas were put under martial rule by Big Brother / Sister), I have no doubt that local resistance would develop that would make the European Resistance of World War II look tame.
But my point remains that the high-placed High-minded few who would impose their version of Political Correctness on all of us continue to harangue against the rights of gun owners for precisely that reason.
I have no desire to live among a society of sheep.
Why would a foreign nation want to occupy the economical and social sinking ship known as USA?
Local resistance? I give Americans 2 weeks without gas stations and fast food.
But my point remains that the high-placed High-minded few who would impose their version of Political Correctness on all of us continue to harangue against the rights of gun owners for precisely that reason.
.
And here you are announcing your version of what should be politically correct, apparently willing to impose it at gunpoint if needed.
I do see your reasoning. You think that all the murders and crime associated with widespread gun ownership is a small price to pay because it sustains your ability to be prepared for events there is no indication will ever happen.
I approve of that to the same degree that you would approve of society deciding that your hostile attitude and enthusiasm for violent solutions makes you so strong a potential threat, that you need to be incarcerated to protect the rest of us from your possible mayhem.
And here you are announcing your version of what should be politically correct, apparently willing to impose it at gunpoint if needed.
I do see your reasoning. You think that all the murders and crime associated with widespread gun ownership is a small price to pay because it sustains your ability to be prepared for events there is no indication will ever happen.
I approve of that to the same degree that you would approve of society deciding that your hostile attitude and enthusiasm for violent solutions makes you so strong a potential threat, that you need to be incarcerated to protect the rest of us from your possible mayhem.
I haven't advocated violence -- that's the specialty of a handful of loonies who usually don't know whether they're in left or right field. What I have pointed out is that the present dispersal of the means of personal defense would likely allow for a network of armed resistance to develop if the abuses became too great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodbye_hello
Why would a foreign nation want to occupy the economical and social sinking ship known as USA?
Agreed! The remaining collection of losers who seek to identify themselves as our enemies have no means to launch a concentrated tactical action; we're facing gangs of thugs rather than armies. and a much smaller military (probably with a limited system of projecting what capability we still need). would seem sufficient As with the more simplistic environmental excesses, it's the same old bureaucratic need for a bigger staff and budget that drives this malignancy
Quote:
Local resistance? I give Americans 2 weeks without gas stations and fast food.
That's probably the case in "blue" America; but those of us who live closer to the basic sources of the means of daily existence are better-equipped to "fill in the gaps" in the event (which I consider highly unlikely) of a societal breakdown -- whether total or temporary. Even martial law is likely not fully enforceable when the mechanism is National Guardsmen under state control -- the violence at Kent State was an example of such incompetence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Certain foreign nations have a lot of their people in the USA and own a lot of the USA. Same nations also have a lot of the USA's debt.
And the US dollar remains the primary measure for the measurement of the world's financial activity; the Euro and the yuan are gaining ,but that's not entirely a negative, since the new winners can now assume more responsibility for maintaining order and a uniform set of rules
Quote:
If the USA goes down the chances that China will invade are very high. They'd love the raw materials and territory.
If the USA "goes down" under the current system, China loses not only her biggest customer, but the wealth represented by huge holdings of U S dollars which she has voluntarily assumed.
China has never launched won, or lost a foreign war, and even should she develop such capability, Putin's weakened Russia represents a prize of similar value, and in her own backyard.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 05-08-2014 at 07:34 PM..
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
And once that "citizenry" (actually, just a bunch of covetous, power-hungry thugs) consolidated their own power, they worked very hard and very ruthlessly to make certain no one with a better idea could turn them out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Yes they did but was does that have to do with the topic?
Perhaps some of the "share the wealth/power" crowd at this site should examine their own motivation a bit more closely.
I haven't advocated violence -- that's the specialty of a handful of loonies who usually don't know whether they're in left or right field. What I have pointed out is that the present dispersal of the means of personal defense would likely allow for a network of armed resistance to develop if the abuses became too great.
I see. So then armed resistance is not violence according to you. Is it the right to own paintball guns you are defending here?
Quote:
if the abuses became too great
So, if you don't approve of the way things are going, you are going to start shooting at people.
But you do not advocate violence.
Can you see that you are presenting us with a credibility problem?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
