Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
the US Army, Marines, Air force, CIA Drones.....700 billion dollars a year we spend
and somebody really really believes they can "defend against" this kind of force?
Jessie Ventura needs some more material for his show Conspiracy Theory
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
How violent Americans are will not save them in a war against the government.
What do Americans eat? Where does it come from? How do they sustain themselves?
The Afghans have a WAY more intact civilization/culture. They are mostly rural, raising most of their food locally. The reason armies fail miserably in Afghanistan is because it is very easy to disrupt supply routes and there are no real targets. The resistance forces blend in with the rest of the self-sustained citizenry. Short of wiping everyone out, invading armies can't fight effectively.
A civilian war against the US government would result in a few pockets of resistance in more remote rural areas. But many of those areas are dependent on transportation for food, transportation for medical services, and fossil fuels for heat. All that is easily disrupted. While many Afghans appear to be content to go about their rural ways, Uhmerikuhns are not... they are breed to be consumers. Regardless of their violent tendencies, any violent uprising would be easily crushed.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Laws don't protect us. We protect each other through choices we make.
So the law that say some ass clown can't go 120 on HWY 50 doesn't protect anyone? How about the laws that say in order for me to drive I have to take a class, pass a test, and get periodic renewals, that doesn't help protect anyone? Or the laws that prevent boneheads from building bonfire with 30' flames under a tree in August? And the laws that say if you get caught driving while intoxicated you lose your license, you don't think those have protected anyone?
If we protected each other through choices we make, we wouldn't need laws. If you don't think we need laws, you are a fuking moron.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Laws provide a framework for those who CHOOSE to follow them.
If you can't see that, well, keep watching CNN....
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
El Dorado Hills, CA
|
|
the US Army, Marines, Air force, CIA Drones.....700 billion dollars a year we spend
and somebody really really believes they can "defend against" this kind of force?
Norton, you're only half right on this.
A real revolution happens when the generals turn on the leaders. Typical result would be the generals and his soldiers who agree to follow him take military equipment (read STEAL) and band with like minded ARMED citizens and then chaos ensues as a "revolution"
Can also go the other way where the citizens rise up in mass and the generals refuse to use military force on our own people even though the leaders command it = Revolution.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
Laws provide a framework for those who CHOOSE to follow them.
And consequences for those who choose not to follow them. Those consequences influence people's choices. If you don't see that, you are a moron. Are you really dumb enough to have convinced yourself that drunk driving laws don't help protect people? That DUI check points don't help protect people? That traffic laws don't protect people? Or are you just desperately trying to defend you absurd position that, no matter what we do, gun regulation will not help protect lives. A position that is easily shot down by looking at the statistics.
I don't watch CNN.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
MEMEMEME
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin"
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Laws will never affect #1 (Wanton acts of malice/destruction. Terrorism, mass killings, etc.) in a free society.
Of course laws affect violence. Laws that simply make it illegal might even work to some small extent, by promoting cultural pressure, but laws that restrict access to the tools of violence are clearly effective. How often do mass-murderers use artillery or nerve gas?
Laws and freedom are inherently opposed. A totally "free" society would have no laws, i.e. be lawless, and I'd the the first one breaking into my neighbor's house to steal his guns. In between the extremes of lawless countries like Somalia and totalitarian states like North Korea, there are the majority of countries, where limited laws balance freedom and security. For 10,000 Americans each year, that balance has not been met.
I hope that Gaby Giffords will be able to use her influence to promote moderate reforms, and avoid the vested-interest boondoggles that most legislation becomes. If they can avoid over-reaching, this should be something that almost everyone can support.
Unfortunately I'm not that optimistic.
TE
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
He who dies with the most guns still dies.
It still only takes one well placed bullet to put you out of the game no matter how big your arsenal.
Glad I bought my M2A1, my M-1 Abrams and my F-14 before they got expensive and sh#t.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
laws that restrict access to the tools of violence are clearly effective
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
laws that restrict access to the tools of violence are clearly effective
You mean like Connecticut's gun laws? I think a better way to state it would be that laws that have the effect of limiting access to the tools of violence reduce violence. The quoted statement has two problems that I see:
1. It doesn't differentiate between laws intended to reduce access and laws that actually do so; and
2. It doesn't tell me what it means by "effective."
John
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
Me:
"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."
James Monroe (1758-1831), 5th US President
God forbid it happen.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
How about we define "effective" as a reduction in the murder rate.
The UK has a violent crime rate 3.5 times higher than that of the US, which can be expected considering the population density is more than 3.5 times higher. The UK has a murder rate of 1.3 and the US has a murder rate of 5.5 (despite the lower population density).
The difference is in the TOOLS they have access to.
CT gun laws do not restrict magazine capacities.
As far as I can tell, no state requires periodic safety/mental inspections related to guns or gun storage... like they do for cars.
|
|
monolith
climber
albany,ca
|
|
The bushmaster Lanza used was legal in Connecticut and illegal in CA.
Claiming Connecticut had tough gun laws is lame.
Yeah, Ron. That's what I want. Volunteers running around with guns in schools.
|
|
monolith
climber
albany,ca
|
|
And some have criminal records, dumbass.
Arizona’s 3TV reports that Arpaio’s volunteer force is comprised of around 3,000 members, some of which have criminal pasts.
According to CBS5, Arpaio’s office has provided a list of more than 50 schools in unincorporated Maricopa County that will be patrolled by the posses, which are in charge of providing all of their own weapons and equipment. The volunteers will not actually be posted on school campuses, but will instead monitor the areas around the facilities.[...]
And not even on campus. LOL. Sounds extremely effective.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Yeah, Ron. That's what I want. Volunteers running around with guns in schools.
well, they wouldn't be volunteers if we paid them would they?
in fact why not employ lots of Armed Forces veterans, as Ron suggests?
maybe one heavily armed Vet for say, every two classrooms?
Of course, the parents would have to personally pay for this, because we don't want the Federal or State governments paying, as this would explode the national debt
this would add only a half million dollars or so cost for every school
all paid for by raising, sharply, the tuition fees the parents pay
and if the parents are too poor to pay, well then screw it, put their kids in special schools without armed security, or let them be home schooled, or no school required
what you think, this all makes good sense right?
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
If some armed "guard" went near my kid's school I'd call the police and sue the responsible jurisdiction.
My kids' school has done nothing in response to the shootings--as it should be. I'd hate to begin instilling irrational fear at such a young age. Sure, terrible things happen but one needs to be able to make realistic risk assessments.
|
|
GhoulweJ
Trad climber
El Dorado Hills, CA
|
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!