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.
I see. So then armed resistance is not violence according to you. Is it the right to own paintball guns you are defending here?
I'll draw a parallel from the civil rights struggle of the past 75 years. Physical violence seldom broke out, but the potential for it (on either side) demonstrated the degree of resolve; in the process, cooler heads and the "rule of reason" prevailed.
But as demonstrated over the past century, it was the minorities within "civilized" Europe -- the Jews, to cite only the ugliest example -- who submitted to authority and were systematically persecuted and exterminated.
Quote:
So, if you don't approve of the way things are going, you are going to start shooting at people.
Not likely, since I'm not a good shot; but I don't want Big Brother / Sister to know whether my neighbors and I have the means to do so.
Quote:
But you do not advocate violence.
Can you see that you are presenting us with a credibility problem?
I don't advocate violence, but I don't trust those who seek power in the name of "collective security" (which is only "secure" for those on the empowered side -- an oxymoron if ever there was one).
At any rate, after reading Jung Chang's Wild Swan's, "life" under Mao, I'm holding tight to my gun, just in case the "Red Guards" come to my door one day, I may be able to shoot one or two of them before I put a bullet to my head, as I may not get the chance to race down a freeway at 100MPH and do a suicide by car!
If I knew they were merely going to shoot me, fine, but I don't want to slowly, painfully die like some of those people died under Mao, along with his sadistic wife!
I think it only fair to let you know, 2nd trick op, that I am forwarding your above posts to Big Brother/ Sister. They are having a special this month, for each potentially hostile dissident you turn in, you get a $25.00 tax break.
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?
It would be a numbers game. If everyone in the US was armed, the population would outnumber any military. Sure, citizens would die, but eventually the military would be overwhelmed.
A well armed citizenry was a concept which had viability in an age before there were regular police forces and national guards. Frontier life sometimes required frontier justice because there was no alternative available. That is no longer the case and some people never seem to have made the adjustment. The do it yourself justice days are over.
The police and military didn't do much to help the Jews in Germany back in the mid twentieth century.
if you want a example of what a few armed people can do, look at the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. A handful of Jews decided that they were NOT going to go to their deaths without a fight, they took on and held off a much larger force using not much more than a few handguns and rifles.
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?
The communists and nationalists started out as the armed citizenry. Eventually some regular army troops defected to their cause. But even when the Japanese invaded, there were bands of partisan behind enemy lines fighting back. Same with Europe during WW2. Again, there were some defeated regular army troops mixed in fighting back. The Vietcong can be considered an armed citizenry too.
The thing is though, by the time a dictator comes along and stirs up so much unrest, any armed citizen would join up with the resistance. In time, their ultimate goal is to become a well organized force because that is how you fight back effectively. Is this still considered an armed citizenry?
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.
If the USA goes down the chances that China will invade are very high. They'd love the raw materials and territory.
Invade, no.
Make deals with whichever warlords arise, yes.
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.