The end game of gun control
- Thread starter fhl
- Start date
I'm from SoCal and there are a surprising number of gun owners here. Even a rabidly anti-Bush/Pro-Obama neighbor who lives across the street has a couple of guns.
Whenever possible, I take my SoCal gun-hating liberal friends to the range and they always have to admit they had a good time.
I've been a competitive shooter for 20+ years and have had the chance to shoot with, and talk to, many military and law enforcement personnel at various competitions. Occasionally, the topic comes up about what the police or military would do if here was a wide-scale armed insurection against the government. The typical answer I get is that they're not going shoot at their own families. As one put it, "Not even a distant cousin."
Whenever possible, I take my SoCal gun-hating liberal friends to the range and they always have to admit they had a good time.
I've been a competitive shooter for 20+ years and have had the chance to shoot with, and talk to, many military and law enforcement personnel at various competitions. Occasionally, the topic comes up about what the police or military would do if here was a wide-scale armed insurection against the government. The typical answer I get is that they're not going shoot at their own families. As one put it, "Not even a distant cousin."
I am not sure how you define "a small number"... It was a wholesale purge of the higher echelons of the Red Army. The estimate I have seen in literature, in terms of actual numbers, is arnd 35,000 arrested and executed.
Fine, pspr, let's have a discussion. I am perfectly willing to admit that I was wrong if I hear a worthwhile argument.
I don't have a lot of firsthand knowledge of the other examples offered by the author. However, I know from the accounts of my elders', as well as from historical records (luckily not from personal experience), that in the Soviet Union ca 1937 it surely didn't matter whether you were armed or not. Armed Red Army officers were dispatched with as much ease as egghead intellectuals who have never seen a gun.
Since you (and the author quoted in the OP) are both making a categorical statement that there's a causal relationship, the onus is on you to demonstrate the truth of this statement. Can you pls do that for me? Can you provide a modern-day example where the population would have fought the tyrant/aggressor/etc but couldn't because they didn't have access to weapons?
Oh wow, a large armed force was able to capture and kill a much smaller armed force. The large armed force controlled the supplies to the smaller armed force too...
I'm not sure how a person gets to be stupid... Idealogy will do it quite often, people go down idealogical paths and go into blind alleys and stumble around in the dark forever sometimes... the food supply is critically short in brain nutritients, especially if one is a strict vegan... are you a vegan perhaps? Then there is a hugely powerful force of monied people whose chief idealogists are Luciferians.. perhaps you represent them and want us to disarm so you can become the BSD in charge?
Erm, I am not entirely sure what you might be ranting about here... Before you decide to discuss this (personally) painful period of Russian history with me I'd recommend you actually spend a little time with this wondrous invention called Internet. I hear there's also another, equally marvellous, gizmo out there called Google. I am not suggesting books, 'cause you gotta learn to walk before attempting to run and you, my friend, aren't even capable of crawling yet.
Just so you know, there was no confrontation between "armed forces" during Stalin's army purges.
Martin, I think a corrilation appears obvious and I haven't seen any data or links from you supporting your argument that there isn't. Surely taking down a small group is not akin to taking down tens of thousands of armed people dispursed into the general population. Just ask the U.S. military.
It doesn't really matter what any of you thinks about the argument. The Founding Fathers obviously felt strongly that an armed citizenry was essential to liberty. We have a Supreme Court that somewhat timidly has reiterated that vision, and thankfully, we have large numbers of voters ready to defeat any politican who disagrees.
As to the argument that weapons are useless against the police,e tc, why are large areas of many of our inner cities considered no-go zones, even for police? Because the resident thugs will use harsh language?
As far as threats to our liberties go, Hugo Chavez-style leftist mobs/militias, armed and supported by the government but nominally independent, are a far more likely threat than a military crackdown. As noted above, many members of the military and police would not obey such orders. Who doubts that a charismatic leftist pol here could round up hundreds of thousands who would gleefully go on rampages against "enemies of the state" and seek to "spread the wealth around?"
As to the argument that weapons are useless against the police,e tc, why are large areas of many of our inner cities considered no-go zones, even for police? Because the resident thugs will use harsh language?
As far as threats to our liberties go, Hugo Chavez-style leftist mobs/militias, armed and supported by the government but nominally independent, are a far more likely threat than a military crackdown. As noted above, many members of the military and police would not obey such orders. Who doubts that a charismatic leftist pol here could round up hundreds of thousands who would gleefully go on rampages against "enemies of the state" and seek to "spread the wealth around?"
Firstly, we're talking about causation, rather than correlation. Secondly, as I mentioned already, you/author quoted in the OP are the ones making a categorical statement that there is causation. This implies that, in order to disprove the statement, I don't have to prove that it's always false, I just have to provide a counterexample (which I have done). So, to reiterate, the onus of providing proof for the original statement remains on you, as a matter of simple propositional logic.
And, thing is, I am not even asking for proof. Pls give me an example where a population (or a group) that was intent to fight a tyrant/aggressor couldn't do so because they were previously disarmed and couldn't get hold of weapons.
As to the taking down of a small group, I am not entirely sure what you mean here. Maybe you could clarify.
May I ask you a question pls, Lucrum? Would apply equally to tomdavis, if he (I assume) is willing to respond...