peacemaker45
Member
Typical. I write a masters thesis reply to a discussion that's over. Maybe I should read the whole thing before replying. What do you think?
~~~Mat
~~~Mat
It's the Devil's Advocate Thread
- Thread starter yesit'sloaded
- Start date
- Status
peacemaker45
Member
What I found interesting about the discussion was the "No 2A," groundrule. As nice as the 2A is, it's not worth the paper it's printed on, if the anti's decide they don't want to honor it, and have the political power to do so.
If the 2A were holy writ that can't be violated, we'd have had visits from Saint Micheal the Avenging Angel of the Second Amendment paid to Capitol Hill at least four times. '34, '68, '86, '94.
As it is, St. Mike would have his work cut out for him, slashing away all kinds of goofy stuff that's gotten legislated, and is contrary to either the constitution or the bill or rights.
As such, the more philosophical arguments have to be made, as "Because the Constitution says so!!!!" is an argument only as strong as the Constitution itself, which isn't very, sometimes.
~~~Mat
If the 2A were holy writ that can't be violated, we'd have had visits from Saint Micheal the Avenging Angel of the Second Amendment paid to Capitol Hill at least four times. '34, '68, '86, '94.
As it is, St. Mike would have his work cut out for him, slashing away all kinds of goofy stuff that's gotten legislated, and is contrary to either the constitution or the bill or rights.
As such, the more philosophical arguments have to be made, as "Because the Constitution says so!!!!" is an argument only as strong as the Constitution itself, which isn't very, sometimes.
~~~Mat
seeker_two
Member
To address:
1. The British said that once.....so did Lincoln....
2. Maybe....but the pink, fleshy stuff inside is remarkably sensitive to high-velocity lead poisoning....
3. Ask the residents of Poland, Darfur, and various African and Central American nations just how silly that concept is.....
Just my sillyness...
I feel that the government can not protect me at all times, therefor I need to protect myself and my family. Although I will more than likely NEVER use my CCW, I also will probably NEVER need to use my seatbelt... I hope there is never a natural disaster where I live...
Also, the author of this thread states that guns are only here to kill people?
That seems a horribly ridiculous argument as there are hundreds of thousands of guns in America alone, yet nowhere near that many people die??? Where is the logic in that? Why?? because many use guns for hunting, hobbies, SPORTS, collectibles and im certain quite a few "uses" that im missing.
One final statement which relates to the first paragraph. In countries (Like England?) that do not allow guns. Who owns the guns over there? Just the military? Just the criminals? Do you want to live in a society where everyone BUT YOU can own a gun?????? I am one happy SOB to be born in America and to have this right, and I am already teaching my children at young ages to use both rifles and handguns and about certain "leaders" through history that have disallowed weapons. Good luck with your "anti-propoganda".
I feel that the government can not protect me at all times, therefor I need to protect myself and my family. Although I will more than likely NEVER use my CCW, I also will probably NEVER need to use my seatbelt... I hope there is never a natural disaster where I live...
Also, the author of this thread states that guns are only here to kill people?
That seems a horribly ridiculous argument as there are hundreds of thousands of guns in America alone, yet nowhere near that many people die??? Where is the logic in that? Why?? because many use guns for hunting, hobbies, SPORTS, collectibles and im certain quite a few "uses" that im missing.
One final statement which relates to the first paragraph. In countries (Like England?) that do not allow guns. Who owns the guns over there? Just the military? Just the criminals? Do you want to live in a society where everyone BUT YOU can own a gun?????? I am one happy SOB to be born in America and to have this right, and I am already teaching my children at young ages to use both rifles and handguns and about certain "leaders" through history that have disallowed weapons. Good luck with your "anti-propoganda".
Easily demolished by even the stupidest anti:
1. What do Lincoln and the British have to do with anything today? The experience of the Civil War ended the "violent revolution" option in the US.
2. So tanks are not effective against handgun and rifles. Quick, call the Pentagon, and tell them they've been screwing up! Tell them to sell every Abrams Tank they got and buy deer rifles!
3. We don't live in Poland, Darfur, or any African or Central American nation.
If that's the best you can do to defeat this point, I am going invest in Hillary bumper sticker stocks!
Mike
You demolish nothing. That’s merely your opinion. We are not obligated to accept your opinion as fact.
The Pentagon already knows. That’s why every military authority agrees we need more men with rifles on the ground in Iraq; tanks and jets just don’t get the job done against a wide-spread insurgency.
Nobody said we did, you cretin. But guns in the hands of rebels scare the powers-that-be, no matter where one lives.
They lasted a long time until the government decided to act. Once they decided to act, the outcome was very quick - and tragic.
In the case where a government is concerned about repressing a revolution, the will act more quickly. If the tanks had simply moved in on David Koresh, instead of trying to convince him to surrender, it would have been over in a matter of hours (mostly the time to get the tanks to Waco).
Private arms are useful against government tyranny when they are more or less the same arms as the government had - as was the case in the time of the revolution. I submit that unless we are able to buy battle tanks, fighters, surface to air missiles, etc., the weapons we can buy are useless.
Mike
you cretin/QUOTE]
I guess that proves your point?
Tanks + Rifles are more powerful than Tanks alone. That's not a surprise.
The primary weapon of the insurgents in Irag is not deer rifles - it's IEDs. And those are proving far more effective against other Iraqis than against troops - as horrible as the carnage against out troops have been.
I don't see Americans willing to use IEDs against other Amercians. Thank G-d for that.
I still don't see much to back your claim that deer rifles are militarily effective against tanks.
Mike
Maybe the first time.
After that, anyone looking to revolt would not do so by sitting in one place and waiting for the government to come.
Remember, neither Weaver, nor Koresh, were actually trying to ATTACK anyone. They were passively waiting to BE attacked.
That is not the way any revolution would be fought.
Think Washington Beltway Sniper, and Unabomber, greatly magnified. Tanks and jets are of no use for countering that sort of threat. For that matter, they don't help much against IEDs either.
It IS my point. Your alleged ‘easy demolition’ statement was, in fact, cretinous. (I realize it was not yours in the sense of your believing it – but it WAS a simple, childish, nonsense, retort.)
Cultural difference. They aren’t deer hunters. If the insurgents were decent shots, we’d have lot more dead GIs.
Can you point to one place in the world where tanks and jets succeeded in suppressing a wide spread armed revolt? It’s a military given that putting down an insurgency requires boots on the ground, and 10-to-1 numerical superiority. Why are those numbers so high, if small arms are so ineffective against modern armies?
peacemaker45
Member
A bunch of insurgents or guerilla fighters, or whatever you want to call them can make things downright miserable for any army. What they cannot do is hold territory against overwhelming attack. Holding territory sort of means that the overwhelming force knows where the guerillas are. Both Ruby Ridge and Waco were fixed positions. Bad juju against tanks and the like. Agressive people roaming the countryside in secret, attacking where the tanks, jets, and other stuff are not pointed, can wreak utter havoc. History is fillled with examples. Look at how unpleasant the Spanish partisans made life for Napoleons armies during the peninsular war. Or the french resistance during WWII. Or the Viet Cong. Or look at what the afghan tribes did to the red army.
The problem arises in that one cannot win a war soley by guerilla tactics. There has to come a transition to conventional warfare, eventually. That's always been the sticking point. It's not easy to do, without outside help, like the french gave us in the revolution. But, how many countries despise the US? How long would the line be, waiting to step up to the plate to help an insurgency, and help us tear ourselves apart? Especially when one considers the weakened state of our professional army.
The problem arises in that one cannot win a war soley by guerilla tactics. There has to come a transition to conventional warfare, eventually. That's always been the sticking point. It's not easy to do, without outside help, like the french gave us in the revolution. But, how many countries despise the US? How long would the line be, waiting to step up to the plate to help an insurgency, and help us tear ourselves apart? Especially when one considers the weakened state of our professional army.
I say take a good look at what the Afghan tribes did to the Red Army.
Now consider how well armed many Americans are, in comparison. The Red Army with virtually unlimited, state of the art weaponry held most of the major cities. The Afghani "rebels" held the rest of the country.
And lets not even start on Viet Nam. (yes I know about the erosion of support on the home front, but I think there might be a little erosion of support on the home front in a similar domestic dispute.)
- Status
