Gun Controll question.

[R. Richard]

OK, Pure and Shereads, your position is simple:
1) It can't happen here.
2) R. Richard is paranoid.

I am stilll waiting for your explanation of "The Trail of Tears." [The forced relocation of Amerind tribes under the guns of the US Army 'warlords.' There were several more forced relocations and, if you wish you may also address those.]

As I pointed out, the Seminoles were armed and fought the US Army. The Seminoles are still in Florida and, no it is not really that simple.

 

[cloudy]

OK, Pure and Shereads, your position is simple:
1) It can't happen here.
2) R. Richard is paranoid.

I am stilll waiting for your explanation of "The Trail of Tears." [The forced relocation of Amerind tribes under the guns of the US Army 'warlords.' There were several more forced relocations and, if you wish you may also address those.]

As I pointed out, the Seminoles were armed and fought the US Army. The Seminoles are still in Florida and, no it is not really that simple.

The Trail of Tears has nothing to do with gun control

Just out of curiosity, I went back through the thread, and in this thread alone, you used "scumbags" a total of 46 times.

In one post alone, you used it eight times.

In another very short post, consisting of only three sentences, you used it four times.

Please.

Stop.

 

[yevkassem72]

The Trail of Tears has nothing to do with gun control

Just out of curiosity, I went back through the thread, and in this thread alone, you used "scumbags" a total of 46 times.

In one post alone, you used it eight times.

In another very short post, consisting of only three sentences, you used it four times.

Please.

Stop.

While I agree with Mr. Richard on gun control, I do think that you're right about his use of that word. It seems rather vitriolic, to put it mildly.

It's a bit excessive.

I do think that it's harder to oppress people and drive them off their land if they are well-armed. That was, I think, his point.

 

[R. Richard]

The Trail of Tears has nothing to do with gun control

The Trail of Tears has to do with a government using unjustified force against its own citizens. The government being referenced is not Stalin's Russian government, not Mugabe's Zimbabwean government, it was the US government condeming many, many citizens to death because they were not 'our kind.' Don't tell me that the US government can't force their own citizens off of their own property with no real legal justification, it already happened.

Most of the Amerinds who were forced off their lands had no real choice. The Amerinds did not have the type and number of weapons that the government did.

The Seminoles had weapons and they had the advantage of living in a swamp where the US Army could not use their numerical advantage. The Seminoles used the weapons they had and they still live in Florida.

The Nez Perse were also forced off their land when the US government broke the treaty they had signed with Chief Joseph. The Nez Perse, despite have less guns and inferior guns conducted a fighting retreat that still lives in the annuls of military history as one of the finest examples of guerilla warefare ever. This last despite the fact that the Nez Perse moved as a people, not as a band of warriors. The US cavalry finally used the fact that the Nez Perse had to move their women and children to surround and capture the Nez Perse. The Nez Perse were then moved to a reservation in Oklahoma where they died in great numbers of malaria and starvation. Had the Nez Perse been equipped with 15 shot Henry repeating rifles, we might well speak Nez Perse today.

As to your problem with the way I refer to the law enforcement authorities, would you instead prefer fuzz, heat, hats or some such? I lived, in my early years, in South Central. The law enforcement authorities were my enemies and I saw things done [and not done] by them that caused me to view them with contempt and hate. I use the term to express my contempt and hate. I am sorry if it upsets you.

 

[cloudy]

The Trail of Tears has to do with a government using unjustified force against its own citizens. The government being referenced is not Stalin's Russian government, not Mugabe's Zimbabwean government, it was the US government condeming many, many citizens to death because they were not 'our kind.' Don't tell me that the US government can't force their own citizens off of their own property with no real legal justification, it already happened.

Most of the Amerinds who were forced off their lands had no real choice. The Amerinds did not have the type and number of weapons that the government did.

The Seminoles had weapons and they had the advantage of living in a swamp where the US Army could not use their numerical advantage. The Seminoles used the weapons they had and they still live in Florida.

The Nez Perse were also forced off their land when the US government broke the treaty they had signed with Chief Joseph. The Nez Perse, despite have less guns and inferior guns conducted a fighting retreat that still lives in the annuls of military history as one of the finest examples of guerilla warefare ever. This last despite the fact that the Nez Perse moved as a people, not as a band of warriors. The US cavalry finally used the fact that the Nez Perse had to move their women and children to surround and capture the Nez Perse. The Nez Perse were then moved to a reservation in Oklahoma where they died in great numbers of malaria and starvation. Had the Nez Perse been equipped with 15 shot Henry repeating rifles, we might well speak Nez Perse today.

As to your problem with the way I refer to the law enforcement authorities, would you instead prefer fuzz, heat, hats or some such? I lived, in my early years, in South Central. The law enforcement authorities were my enemies and I saw things done [and not done] by them that caused me to view them with contempt and hate. I use the term to express my contempt and hate. I am sorry if it upsets you.

honestly, do you really think you have to teach me my own history?

The reason I mentioned your use of the term "scumbags" is that it makes you appear irrational. I have no love for the police, either, but if you want to come across as someone foaming at the mouth, then, by all means, have at it.

 

[Pure]

Yev I do think that it's harder to oppress people and drive them off their land if they are well-armed. That was, I think, his point.

P: this whole line, by rr, is a desperate measure to make his excessive views seem plausible; as if the second amendment drafters were thinking of native persons-- and how they should arm themselves-- rather than militias who would kill and drive off unruly native persons.

the whole focus on "oppression", which was rare in the middle class and aristocratic white circles with whom the constituion deals, is far fetched, as the references to Mugabe suggest (I.e, why does he bring in Mugawbe?)

i might say that proposals to arm native persons to further their cause is perhaps a double edged sword; likely, after armed conflict with superior forces there might have been no native persons left for any 'long marches'. Possibly it's simply a 'no win' situation when superior numbers and firepower are held by the vast majority, intent on displacing and decimating a minority group.

similar arguments apply to the REALLY oppressed groups, besides native persons, in the the US. arming Black people was NOT what the founders, all slaveholders, had in mind. armed slave insurrections arguably did NOT further the cause. just as later efforts in the 60s to arm the Black community (by the Panthers) may not really have helped the cause-- in comparison to MLK's methods. it may be a prescription for suicide to suggest that 10% of the pop., the Blacks, arrange for shoot outs with the 90%, e.g., said 'militias' and armies of the white majority.

rr, most recently said,

The Trail of Tears has to do with a government using unjustified force against its own citizens. The government being referenced is not Stalin's Russian government, not Mugabe's Zimbabwean government, it was the US government condeming many, many citizens to death because they were not 'our kind.' Don't tell me that the US government can't force their own citizens off of their own property with no real legal justification, it already happened.

this, of course, is horseshit, for reasons given above, and for this further reason. The Cherokee driven along the 'trail of tears' in 1838 were NOT US citizens. They were non persons. Native persons got citizenship, in general, in 1924. As stated above, the usefulness of arming the Cherokee in this time period is rather debatable.

so this desperate search for vicious oppressions-- to justify RR's arsenal-- has yielded a case to which the second amendment is utterly INapplicable, as envisioned (i.e., that stalwart white citizen farmers repel rapacious forces of tyrrany from abroad [Britain]).

 

[oggbashan]

honestly, do you really think you have to teach me my own history?

...

No, he doesn't. But not all of us are so well informed about the US government's treatment of Native Americans.

(Or the British and French governments' treatment of Native Americans before the US was formed, not to mention what the Spanish did.)

Og

 

[shereads]

I do think that it's harder to oppress people and drive them off their land if they are well-armed. That was, I think, his point.

If the United States ever reaches a point where our government wants to harm us, a houseful of guns won't be much of a hindrance.

Unlike the native Americans who were forced off their land, we are the people who elect the people who have the power to make such decisions.

Edited to add:

This isn't the third world. Whether it's our own or some other military power that wants to kick us out of our homes, there are more modern ways than door-to-door raping and pillaging. R. Richard has already given them the idea: divert our rivers. If it comes to that, there are easier ways to cut off the water supply. Or they could just bomb us. Whatever; the notion that citizen ownership of AK-47s, semiautomatic pistols and cop-killer bullets is for the defense of our homes is absurd.

 

[R. Richard]

honestly, do you really think you have to teach me my own history?

The reason I mentioned your use of the term "scumbags" is that it makes you appear irrational. I have no love for the police, either, but if you want to come across as someone foaming at the mouth, then, by all means, have at it.

No, Cloudy, I don't think I have to teach you the events of your own history. However, I sense that you and disagree on some of the underlying causes of said history.

The US treatment of Amerind is shameful. The US government made treaties with the Amerinds and then broke the treaties after the Amerinds were disarmed and forced into reservations. The heavily armed US Army was the instrument that was used to force the Amerinds into lands that no one wanted. One concern of the early 'white' settlers was that the Amerinds did not obtain guns or at least not modern guns. It is dificult to force armed citizens to do things that are illegal.

I don't share your view that the selection of words by an individual makes that person appear irrational. However, apparently many do share your viewpoint. Would fuzz be better?

 

[Pure]

as the saying goes, one can put a boot in the oven, but it still won't come out smelling like a cake.

 

[yevkassem72]

If the United States ever reaches a point where our government wants to harm us, a houseful of guns won't be much of a hindrance.

Unlike the native Americans who were forced off their land, we are the people who elect the people who have the power to make such decisions.

Edited to add:

This isn't the third world. Whether it's our own or some other military power that wants to kick us out of our homes, there are more modern ways than door-to-door raping and pillaging. R. Richard has already given them the idea: divert our rivers. If it comes to that, there are easier ways to cut off the water supply. Or they could just bomb us. Whatever; the notion that citizen ownership of AK-47s, semiautomatic pistols and cop-killer bullets is for the defense of our homes is absurd.

I've been in the Third World. I've seen it close at hand. And I don't believe that a country has to be Third World to suffer tyranny. Lebanon wasn't Third World, until the Arab-Israeli conflict spilled over into Lebanon and divided the country. There were some social problems, but social reforms could have resolved them. Lebanon was a properous, Western-style liberal democracy, one of a few in the Middle East, before the civil war.

Foreign invasions, army desertions, and the general collapse of the once strong central government created a situation having an AK-47 or an Uzi or a Galil assault rifle just might save one's life and one's family.

Germany wasn't Third World and still isn't. But a poorly armed general populace, with only criminals owning illegal weapons being armed, had to face the tyranny of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.

France wasn't Third World, but the Resistance definitely needed some weapons when the Nazis invaded and occupied her.

The whole point of guerilla warfare is that small, heavily armed groups can defeat numerically and/or technologically superior forces occupying their country. This lesson is driven home again and again, from Vietnam to Iraq to the American Revolution. Not to mention the Spanish, who coined the term "guerilla" during the Peninsular War. Superior willpower is what counts.

The same thing can work in a civil war, which is a scenario in which the American people might need weapons. And there is not a chance of hell that the Federal Government can hold down the population in this country, if it is armed and determined to succeed in a revolution. A point that Hamilton himself made in the Federalist Papers. No Federal Government would use nukes or other WMDs on their own soil, and that's about all that could save them. Between the armed citizens and the probably rebellious states in several cases, who is to suppose that an American dictator could really prevail if he trampled the Bill of Rights and imposed a police state?

 

[Pure]

Germany wasn't Third World and still isn't. But a poorly armed general populace, with only criminals owning illegal weapons being armed, had to face the tyranny of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.

is there any evidence the German citizens were poorly armed? that more armed citizenry would have slowed Hitler's rise? would every Jew owning a gun have prevented a holocaust?

Hitler rose in large part through *electoral means*. His powers were granted by the parliament! A large minority actively supported him, and with the passive followers, that was a large majority. They wanted something done about Jews.

all these desperate analogies--Zimbabwe, Lebanon-- do not detract from Sher's basic point; in the advance of tyrrany (already started) household weapons are largely irrelevant; tyrranies often reflect a majority imposing on a minority, and in most cases, arming the minority does no good.

hey, here's one for ya, rr: WHY DON'T AMERICAN MUSLIMS ARM THEMSELVES? THAT WOULD SURELY PREVENT THEIR BECOMING OPPRESSED!

 

[yevkassem72]

Germany wasn't Third World and still isn't. But a poorly armed general populace, with only criminals owning illegal weapons being armed, had to face the tyranny of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.

is there any evidence the German citizens were poorly armed? that more armed citizenry would have slowed Hitler's rise? would every Jew owning a gun have prevented a holocaust?

Hitler rose in large part through *electoral means*. His powers were granted by the parliament! A large minority actively supported him, and with the passive followers, that was a large majority. They wanted something done about Jews.

all these desperate analogies--Zimbabwe, Lebanon-- do not detract from Sher's basic point; in the advance of tyrrany (already started) household weapons are largely irrelevant; tyrranies often reflect a majority imposing on a minority, and in most cases, arming the minority does no good.

hey, here's one for ya, rr: WHY DON'T AMERICAN MUSLIMS ARM THEMSELVES? THAT WOULD SURELY PREVENT THEIR BECOMING OPPRESSED!

I believe that to be mistaken view, but you're entitled to it.

As far as I can tell, armed minorities often defeat powerful regimes, with enough will, determination, and Fabian tactics. Morale declines and the government is eventually defeated. Vietnam is a case in point.

Why should it be any different in the USA? After all, had Sherman not taken Atlanta, despite being outnumbered and fighting a losing conventional war, the Confederacy could have still won, had Lincoln not been re-elected.

There's no guarantee that superior firepower would be in the government's hand, in terms of numbers. In terms of tech, yes. But numbers count, as well. The idea that guns are irrelevant in a revolution or civil war is simplistic and pessimistic, to say the least. Also quite deterministic.

 

[shereads]

I've been in the Third World. I've seen it close at hand. And I don't believe that a country has to be Third World to suffer tyranny. Lebanon wasn't Third World, until the Arab-Israeli conflict spilled over into Lebanon and divided the country. There were some social problems, but social reforms could have resolved them. Lebanon was a properous, Western-style liberal democracy, one of a few in the Middle East, before the civil war.

Foreign invasions, army desertions, and the general collapse of the once strong central government created a situation having an AK-47 or an Uzi or a Galil assault rifle just might save one's life and one's family.

Germany wasn't Third World and still isn't. But a poorly armed general populace, with only criminals owning illegal weapons being armed, had to face the tyranny of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party.

France wasn't Third World, but the Resistance definitely needed some weapons when the Nazis invaded and occupied her.

The whole point of guerilla warfare is that small, heavily armed groups can defeat numerically and/or technologically superior forces occupying their country. This lesson is driven home again and again, from Vietnam to Iraq to the American Revolution. Not to mention the Spanish, who coined the term "guerilla" during the Peninsular War. Superior willpower is what counts.

The same thing can work in a civil war, which is a scenario in which the American people might need weapons. And there is not a chance of hell that the Federal Government can hold down the population in this country, if it is armed and determined to succeed in a revolution. A point that Hamilton himself made in the Federalist Papers. No Federal Government would use nukes or other WMDs on their own soil, and that's about all that could save them. Between the armed citizens and the probably rebellious states in several cases, who is to suppose that an American dictator could really prevail if he trampled the Bill of Rights and imposed a police state?

Pure's point stands: Even if every household has firearms, the majority will have more firearms. If you're fighting King George's redcoats, flintlock rifles will give you a fighting chance. But if you're hoping to fend off a military power in the 21st century - particularly your own - your entire gun collection might as well be BB guns. You're screwed. Unless you're assembling bombs or manufacturing bio-weapons in your basement, in which case, you are the bad guys.

So I'm back to my initial point:

Have a gun or two for personal protection or hunting; out of respect for the 2nd amendment, I live with the fact that too many gun owners let their guns fall into the hands of children and bad guys, and that we all pay a price for that. But stop trying to rationalize your desire to be a one-man paramilitary force. Your arguments don't hold. You don't need them, anyway. You have the NRA to scare the bejeezus out of anyone who tries to reason with the gun lobby.

Edited to add: A president has been trampling the bill of rights and imposing the first test-hints of a police state, and I haven't heard a peep out of the right. Seriously, don't tyrants typically pander to the majority until they've estatblish their power base, and reveal themselves to be dangerous after it's too late for a grassroots rebellion to succeed?

 

[yevkassem72]

Pure's point stands: Even if every household has firearms, the majority will have more firearms. If you're fighting King George's redcoats, flintlock rifles will give you a fighting chance. But if you're hoping to fend off a military power in the 21st century - particularly your own - your entire gun collection might as well be BB guns. You're screwed. Unless you're assembling bombs or manufacturing bio-weapons in your basement, in which case, you are the bad guys.

So I'm back to my initial point:

Have a gun or two for personal protection or hunting; out of respect for the 2nd amendment, I live with the fact that too many gun owners let their guns fall into the hands of children and bad guys, and that we all pay a price for that. But stop trying to rationalize your desire to be a one-man paramilitary force. Your arguments don't hold. You don't need them, anyway. You have the NRA to scare the bejeezus out of anyone who tries to reason with the gun lobby.

Edited to add: A president has been trampling the bill of rights and imposing the first test-hints of a police state, and I haven't heard a peep out of the right. Seriously, don't tyrants typically pander to the majority until they've estatblish their power base, and reveal themselves to be dangerous after it's too late for a grassroots rebellion to succeed?

If the majority has only disaffected government troops and is mostly unarmed itself, it's simply going to be composed of bystanders, watching the guerillas/partisans and the government duke it out. The way that the bulk of Italian and French civilians did during the Nazi occupation. In a civil war, tactics and morale are as important, if not more, than technology. Civil wars are about ideology. I'm just hoping that my theory and yours are never tested. No matter who is right, it's not a good thing. No matter who wins, a civil war rips the heart out of a nation and destroys non-violent opposition to a large degree.

I think that the reason that Bush's tyranny hasn't been more opposed is that he is cleverly stepping down when his term ends and leaving the next phase to his successor. To be honest, though, the majority has done much to stop him- it voted his party out of control of Congress. Which is a first resort. Revolution is always a last resort, since it leads frequently to civil war.

If the right ever gets enough of the rest of their agenda through, then they will come for the guns. Which makes them stealthier than most tyrants. But I doubt that will be an issue in the near future. The GOP is discredited to such an extent that it won't be the Right that will be the threat to liberty in the future, but the Left. It will hold all of the cards again. The next President, even if a Republican, will not be a neo-con, I think. Certainly not a fundo-fascist like Bush.

 

[R. Richard]

Pure's point stands: Even if every household has firearms, the majority will have more firearms. If you're fighting King George's redcoats, flintlock rifles will give you a fighting chance. But if you're hoping to fend off a military power in the 21st century - particularly your own - your entire gun collection might as well be BB guns. You're screwed. Unless you're assembling bombs or manufacturing bio-weapons in your basement, in which case, you are the bad guys.

It is not possible for a civilian population to fend off a military power in the 21st century UNLESS the resources necessary to enslave the civilian population would leave the dictatorship vulnerable to outside conquest.

You and Pure assume that the might of the US armed forces could fall on the civilian population. That has not generally been the case in the past. In the South circa 1960s, local officials tried to force Negros to abandon their Constuitutional rights. The Negros, by and large, were disarmed. It took the US Army to quash the opression. During WW II, largely disarmed Japanese citizens were forced into concentration camps by the US Army. And, as I have told you before, the Amerinds were forced into a type of concentration camp called a reservation by the US Army. The Amerinds never had the same type and kind of light weapons (rifles and pistols) as the US Army. Where the Amerinds were armed, the Amerinds did much better.

What you overlook with your cavalier presentation, is that the flintlock rifles the US colonists had back in the Revolutionary War were, at that time, state of the art. In fact, the US colonists were BETTER armed than the redcoats. The fact that the US colonists were better armed is why we are independent to this day.

You won't address the situations I present. You merely beg the question. Time after time, in our own country, liberty has been preserved or denied by force of arms. In the US, those arms are legally in the hands of both the military and civilians. The fact that the US civilians have arms and the extent to which they have them is almost unique in the civilized world.

 

[shereads]

You won't address the situations I present.

Your situations, like your solutions, rely on events so unlikely in modern-day America that addressing them poinst-by-point would be like participating in one of those Spiderman vs. Batman debates that so fascinate adolescent boys.

Your arguments make sense only if you're expecting to have to take up arms against the United States. Judging by what you've revealed of yourself in this and other threads, you have nothing to worry about.

When a tyrannical regime imposes a police state, you'll be first in line for the job of weeding out the intellectual elite, shutting down the universities, executing the scumbags, and poisoning the water supply of recalcitrant fellow citizens.

In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to live with the tragic consequences of today's reality: too much firepower in the hands of too many irresponsible people.

If I'm wrong, and you end up leading the armed revolt of your fantasies, I hope America's army of intransigent gun nuts will do a better job of that than they have with finding realistic solutions to gun related tragedies.

 

[cloudy]

Your situations, like your solutions, rely on events so unlikely in modern-day America that addressing them poinst-by-point would be like participating in one of those Spiderman vs. Batman debates that so fascinate adolescent boys.

Your arguments make sense only if you're expecting to have to take up arms against the United States. Judging by what you've revealed of yourself in this and other threads, you have nothing to worry about. When a tyrannical regime imposes a police state, you'll be first in line for the job of weeding out the intellectual elite, shutting down the universities and executing the scumbags. In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to live with the tragic consequences of today's reality: too much firepower in the hands of too many irresponsible people.

If I'm wrong, and you end up leading the armed revolt of your fantasies, I hope America's army of intransigent gun nuts will do a better job of that than they have with finding realistic solutions to today's reality: too much firepower in too many irresponsible hands.

I'm going to start a drinking game. Would you like to join me?

Everytime someone uses the word "scumbags," you have to drink a shot.

It'll be like playing "hi, Bob" except only not as funny.

 

[shereads]

I'm going to start a drinking game. Would you like to join me?

Everytime someone uses the word "scumbags," you have to drink a shot.

It'll be like playing "hi, Bob" except only not as funny.

Doesn't drinking firewater make you Amerinds crazy? It makes me throw up.

 

[shereads]

The next President, even if a Republican, will not be a neo-con, I think. Certainly not a fundo-fascist like Bush.

The set-up for failure that faces the next president is sufficient to assure that he or she will almost certainly serve a single term. By the 2010 midterm elections, a frustrated electorate will make the usual knee-jerk move to express its disapproval and Demand Change. Any change. We vote like nation of two-year-olds.

If not for the desperate need to protect the Supreme Court from another right-wing nominee for the next vacancy, I'd be hoping for a Republican to win in '08. Bush has dug a deep, dark pit for his successors. The first one to take up a shovel after he's gone will barely make a dent - and will be blamed for not having repaired the irreparable. I'd rather it be someone from the party that made him.

 

[R. Richard]

Your situations, like your solutions, rely on events so unlikely in modern-day America that addressing them poinst-by-point would be like participating in one of those Spiderman vs. Batman debates that so fascinate adolescent boys.

Your arguments make sense only if you're expecting to have to take up arms against the United States. Judging by what you've revealed of yourself in this and other threads, you have nothing to worry about.

When a tyrannical regime imposes a police state, you'll be first in line for the job of weeding out the intellectual elite, shutting down the universities, executing the scumbags, and poisoning the water supply of recalcitrant fellow citizens.

In the meantime, the rest of us will continue to live with the tragic consequences of today's reality: too much firepower in the hands of too many irresponsible people.

If I'm wrong, and you end up leading the armed revolt of your fantasies, I hope America's army of intransigent gun nuts will do a better job of that than they have with finding realistic solutions to gun related tragedies.

You should thank your lucky stars that you were not Japanese during WW II [not so awfully long ago.]

When a tyrannical regime imposes a police state, I will be be first in line for the job of raising a cry of outrage that my fellow citizens are being put into concentration camps without cause.

I don't need to weed out the intellectual elite and/or shut down the universities, you have a guy named Cho alerady doing that, despite the total banning of guns [yeah, right] at Virginia Tech.

I also don't need to poison the water supply of recalcitrant fellow citizens. In Houston, TX some years back they were having a heated debate as to whether they should floridate Houston's municipal water supply. Said debate had got to the point that the citizens were about to start a shooting war over whetehr they should put 'rat poison' in their water supply, when a water engineer for the City of Houston finally got to the microphone. He pointed out that the existing City of Houston water supply already naturally contained some six times the amount of flouride that the federal government would allow in a public water supply.

I give you reasoned arguments, you return insults that merely beg the question. I win, you lose.

By the way, you use a pejoritive for fuzz that has been severely criicized already in this thread.

 

[shereads]

You should thank your lucky stars that you were not Japanese during WW II [not so awfully long ago.]

When a tyrannical regime imposes a police state, I will be be first in line for the job of raising a cry of outrage that my fellow citizens are being put into concentration camps without cause.

I don't need to weed out the intellectual elite and/or shut down the universities, you have a guy named Cho alerady doing that, despite the total banning of guns [yeah, right] at Virginia Tech.

I also don't need to poison the water supply of recalcitrant fellow citizens. In Houston, TX some years back they were having a heated debate as to whether they should floridate Houston's municipal water supply. Said debate had got to the point that the citizens were about to start a shooting war over whetehr they should put 'rat poison' in their water supply, when a water engineer for the City of Houston finally got to the microphone. He pointed out that the existing City of Houston water supply already naturally contained some six times the amount of flouride that the federal government would allow in a public water supply.

I give you reasoned arguments, you return insults that merely beg the question. I win, you lose.

By the way, you use a pejoritive for fuzz that has been severely criicized already in this thread.

Are you sure you're old enough to be in this forum? You have a debating age of 12.

It's significant that you modified your planned heroics to add "without cause." Tyrants come into power by assuring that there is a cause. A common enemy, for example, can make a small betrayal of freedom such as the Patriot Act seem like an excellent idea to the wary and angry. The dramatic stuff doesn't happen all at once. First, the populace has to get used to the idea that the changes are for a good caause.

Japanese Americans during WWII were the Muslims of their day. You would no more have raised arms against your government in war time to protect the rights of an unpopular ethnic minority than you would dance the tarantella with the Queen. Who are you kidding?

If Japanese Americans had used armed resistance when they were ordered to report to the camps, they'd have been massacred. By you, among others.

 

[yevkassem72]

The set-up for failure that faces the next president is sufficient to assure that he or she will almost certainly serve a single term. By the 2010 midterm elections, a frustrated electorate will make the usual knee-jerk move to express its disapproval and Demand Change. Any change. We vote like nation of two-year-olds.

If not for the desperate need to protect the Supreme Court from another right-wing nominee for the next vacancy, I'd be hoping for a Republican to win in '08. Bush has dug a deep, dark pit for his successors. The first one to take up a shovel after he's gone will barely make a dent - and will be blamed for not having repaired the irreparable. I'd rather it be someone from the party that made him.

Even in a nation of two militantly and mutually hostile parties, the Congress and President should try to do something. If the Democrats control both branches of the Federal Government from 2009 to 2011, and can't make some progress in reversing things like the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and the budget deficit, they deserve to lose control of Congress.

This is why the country needs a 3 party system. No one represents the political center. No party, that is. The Reform Party could have, but Pat Buchanan destroyed it by moving it to the right of Bush.

In a 3 party system, the parties will have no choice but to co-operate, right? It's not an issue in a country with separation of powers, since there won't be shaky, coalition governments running the Executive Branch in the interim. Whoever gets the requisite Electoral College majority will be President, simple as that.

This would reduce the threat of anyone imposing a police state, too. With 3 parties, no one could have the kind of mandate that would tempt one to tyrannize the people. It's not like Germany, where the leader of the majority coalition gets control of the Executive. It wouldn't work that way. Compromise would be forced by the voters.

Regarding insurrections, there are basically a few different kinds.

1. A small-scale revolt like the Whisky Rebellion. It has no real justification and no real popular support. Virtually any strong central government would quash it in weeks, tops.
2. A separatist revolt, by a state or region. This is much harder to defeat, as it has the support of state militias, the part of the national militia (not that I distinguish between the two) that supports the secessionists, the lawful state governments, and probably the populace. This was the U.S. Civil War in a nutshell. The insurgents didn't want to take over the whole country. They just wanted independence. It was an unsuccessful war of national liberation. The South very nearly won, too.

In such a scenario, those in the war zone are the ones who need guns most, and I would hate to be in such a war zone. But if I were, I'd want guns of my own, to back whichever side I deemed right.

3. A full-scale war to achieve the violent overthrow of the central government. In this scenario, the odds favor the rulers, but only initially. If the government has a just cause (and, yes, I admit that might be possible in some cases), it will end eventually. Even if it is in the wrong, as with the Russian Reds, it might still win. But it has to win over the people and keep the morale of the troops high enough to avoid defections in the ranks. If not, it goes the way of the Kuomintang in China, out the window. The Bolsheviks in Russia are a rare case where the initial advantage lay with the rebels. They had most of the regular army against them. Only the divided ranks of the Whites allowed the Reds to survive long enough to win.

The Contras were successful revolutionaries and mostly armed peasants with former National Guard officers. The Lebanese Arab Army was an unsuccessful insurgent force, also in the wrong. Franco's forces won, but were in the wrong. They were just better-led and better equipped (with help from the Axis Powers). The record is mixed.

The Spanish guerillas are a case in point of what I am talking about. They fought against the puppet regime of Joseph Bonaparte. The Italian Partisans are similar. They both had foreign aid, but that is often possible and quite likely.

I wrote one scenario in my story "The Donation" that had a clerical Fascist regime in the USA being deposed by force. I have read one by David Aikman where a far-left regime is opposed (probably successfully), despite Russian aid to the People's Movement, as it is called. It was called When The Almond Tree Blossoms.

I took my story scenario (at the risk of promoting my work) further and had a falling-out between the revolution's factions, leading to a brief uprising by one faction which is crushed. This, in turn, causes the new leaders to turn a bit tyrannical themselves. Such things can happen. They seem far-fetched, but no one can predict what kind of course a country could take.

We can't be sure. Guerillas can break out and form full-scale rebel armies, which can seize control. Or they can get pinned down to region, like FARC in Colombia. In either case, would anyone say that being armed in such a case is useless? I think not.

 

[cantdog]

Are you still listening to RR?

How much does it take? Just ignore it already.

 

[R. Richard]

Are you sure you're old enough to be in this forum? You have a debating age of 12.

I use facts. You use insults. Shame!

It's significant that you modified your planned heroics to add "without cause." Tyrants come into power by assuring that there is a cause. A common enemy, for example, can make a small betrayal of freedom such as the Patriot Act seem like an excellent idea to the wary and angry. The dramatic stuff doesn't happen all at once. First, the populace has to get used to the idea that the changes are for a good caause.

By Patriot Act, I assume that you are referring to Public Law 107-56. The Congress passed said law and it was then signed by GWB. If you have problems with the US system of law, then you should take legal steps to change said system. Whining about the systenm will change nothing.

Japanese Americans during WWII were the Muslims of their day. You would no more have raised arms against your government in war time to protect the rights of an unpopular ethnic minority than you would dance the tarantella with the Queen. Who are you kidding?

Shereads, I play kung-fu. I also play Karate and Aikdo. I know a lot of Japanese, Chinese, Okiniwans, Indians etc. I don't regard them as "unpopular ethnic minorities." I regard them, as I try to do with all people I deal with as people. There are some good people, some people who are neither good nor bad and some bad people. However, I judge them as people, not as a faceless group. You might just try that line of thinking.

If Japanese Americans had used armed resistance when they were ordered to report to the camps, they'd have been massacred. By you, among others.

Shereads, your statement is perhaps the dumbest thing I have read in some time. OK, where was R. Richard in 1942? The internment of Japanese was pretty much limited to the West coast. Were you in the West coast area in 1942? Do you know the situation on the ground in the West coast in 1942?