Now I know what it feels like to be a Microsoft Employee
-
Thank you for proving *my* point - that if people desire to harm me, they will have more likelyhood of success in a country that enshrines their right to have a gun with which to do it. I guess if you have lots more stabbing deaths than us as well, it probably goes deeper, and points, as you have suggested, to cultural differences. All I can say is that if this is the case, I'm glad I live in a country where people are less disposed to harming one another, regardless of the weapon of choice. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
You misunderstand the reason many americans are so protective of their right to bear arms. The US is only a little over 200 years old, and we won our independance from England through the use of average citizens with guns. One of our founding fathers (I think it was Thomas Jefferson) said something to the effect of "The best reason to insure the right to bear arms is to keep the government honest". Any government that fears that their citizens can rise up and overthrow them tends to do what's best for its people rather than what's best for its politicians. Now, I agree that despite the fact that we can bear arms, the government has begun to no longer fear its constituents, and are therefore doing things which are not in their best interests. I'm not advocating revolution, but this is precisely why it was so important to us in the first place. When a populace becomes placid and allows their government to take away their right to defend themselves, the government can do whatever it wishes, as we've seen so many times in other countries. Look at what England has done to Ireland, or South Africa.
-
You are missing the point. To kill someone with a screwdriver, blunt waepon, etc, you need to be next to them. To kill someone with a gun, you can be quite some distance away. "The bravery of being out of range", as Roger Waters puts it. Its also trivially easy to pull a trigger, it isn't the same as driving a dagger into someone. I agree with Christian. I nearly laughed when I read what Eric had written. I have a lot of colleagues in Concord, Mass. They tell me its illegal for them to carry firearms, and that if they did so, they'd be arrested for it. Stephen Kellett
It's not illegal to carry firearms unless you are a convicted felon. What is illegal is to carry a concealed firearm. You are also not allowed to carry any kind of firearm into a place that serves alcohol. Tell me, if it were illegal to carry a firearm, how could you transport one? You "laughed" at statistics from the CDC and the state of MA? Why? Because they don't agree with your beliefs? The fact of the matter is, there are 3x as many violent stabbings as there are violent gunshot wounds (fatal or otherwise), and your 'theory' that guns make people more brave than knives is simply false. If that were the case, gunshot wounds would far outnumber stabbings, and stabbings would be so rare as to be nearly non-existant. Don't fall prey to propoganda from your government which is trying to keep you a cowed sheep, willing to put up with any violation of your personal freedoms.
-
I have already commented that it seems your society has a culture of violence that goes way deeper than the fact that you're allowed to carry guns around with you. I can only agree with the other poster that the idea of civilised people defending their *right* to carry a GUN is totally abhorent to me. Here in Australia, our response to the Port Arthur massacre ( and a couple of other incidents ) was to tighten what guns were legal to own. Basically we disallowed guns that plainly had the sole purpose of allowing someone to kill a lot of people quickly. A lot of rednecks got up in arms, and even recently they suggested that the government killed some people at Port Arthur and then blamed Martin Bryant as a patsy. Why ? To disarm the public. I am DAMN glad that people this stupid no longer have automatic weapons, or if they do, they can be arrested for it. The possibility of misunderstanding in my eyes negates any percieved benefit of vigilante justice, of a bunch of middle aged men in mid life crisis imagining they are Dirty Harry. But, as has been said, there is a cultural difference at work here, and Americans are raised to think that owning a gun is part of their freedom ( it's actually not even a right in your contitution, not in the way it is claimed ), so what hope would someone with a different world view have of putting it across ? As much as you'd have of convincing me that an armed population is a good idea. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
In a utopian world then I would totally agree with you. The problem is many fold, there is not one solution. Do you at least understand that a criminal is a person who breaks laws? So how is the legislature going to write a law to stop criminals. :confused: Wayne
-
There must be more reasonable arguments in favour of owning a gun than not liking speeding tickets .;) Go on , give me a convincing argument . You simply are not going to use force to overthrow the Government , if all you have is personal weapons. I hate to point this out but you are up against the only military superpower in the world. So if you are to win , you will have to get the military on your side , in which case , why bother with a few piffling little sidearms when the big boys have a few thousand tanks to use ?The argument about a militia comes from a different age , an age when force was a more reasonable way to settle differences . You needed the militia in the early days because it was far from certain if there would be an attempt to retake the colonies , then you had a justifiable threat to gaurd against , but this threatening the government is not really a starter when you think it through. You have an excellent written constitution , something we do not have , but it was designed to be flexible , as is ours . To hang onto the arms bit seems illogical from that point of view. But I accept , I am not American , I therefore cannot understand all the nuances of American culture , so please , tell me why you should want to carry a gun if you are , lets say , going out for a drink?
You may find the idea of overthrowing a government to be impractical, but tell that to people fighting for their rights. First off, a military is going to be loathe to fire on their own people. Second, it's been proven that low-tech can defeat hi-tech. No, we can't outrun a nuclear bomb, but it's highly unlikely that the government would use nuclear arms against itself. You take away the right to own guns, and you take away all hope. And hope is what wins revolutions, not the guns themselves. The people could overturn the government with sticks and stones if they believed in it strongly enough, but when faced with an opponent with guns and you don't have any, you lose your will to fight.
-
There must be more reasonable arguments in favour of owning a gun than not liking speeding tickets .;) Go on , give me a convincing argument . You simply are not going to use force to overthrow the Government , if all you have is personal weapons. I hate to point this out but you are up against the only military superpower in the world. So if you are to win , you will have to get the military on your side , in which case , why bother with a few piffling little sidearms when the big boys have a few thousand tanks to use ?The argument about a militia comes from a different age , an age when force was a more reasonable way to settle differences . You needed the militia in the early days because it was far from certain if there would be an attempt to retake the colonies , then you had a justifiable threat to gaurd against , but this threatening the government is not really a starter when you think it through. You have an excellent written constitution , something we do not have , but it was designed to be flexible , as is ours . To hang onto the arms bit seems illogical from that point of view. But I accept , I am not American , I therefore cannot understand all the nuances of American culture , so please , tell me why you should want to carry a gun if you are , lets say , going out for a drink?
You simply are not going to use force to overthrow the Government , if all you have is personal weapons. You keep looking at a gun as an offensive weapon. In war times, you are right. I, as many Americans, look at a gun as a defensive weapon. I don't know if you took American history or not, but during the American Revolution they used guns to protect themselves from the British government. They did not just run in and try to overthrow the government. Wayne
-
You misunderstand the reason many americans are so protective of their right to bear arms. The US is only a little over 200 years old, and we won our independance from England through the use of average citizens with guns. One of our founding fathers (I think it was Thomas Jefferson) said something to the effect of "The best reason to insure the right to bear arms is to keep the government honest". Any government that fears that their citizens can rise up and overthrow them tends to do what's best for its people rather than what's best for its politicians. Now, I agree that despite the fact that we can bear arms, the government has begun to no longer fear its constituents, and are therefore doing things which are not in their best interests. I'm not advocating revolution, but this is precisely why it was so important to us in the first place. When a populace becomes placid and allows their government to take away their right to defend themselves, the government can do whatever it wishes, as we've seen so many times in other countries. Look at what England has done to Ireland, or South Africa.
So we agree the *reason* so often stated for bearing arms is largely moot ? In this context it should mean you have the right to *own* a gun, not carry it. What happened with England was a very different time, it would not occur today, simply because of globalisation. Such things cannot be done in secret anymore, and the global economy makes upsetting the rest of the world a *bad* thing. England gave back most of it's territories peacefully, they gave *us* independance a hundred years ago, which only serves to prove my point. Either way, the idea is a throwback to a different time, and it is for most gun toting Americans simply an excuse to defend their right to pack heat. If it were not, you'd have overthrown any number of corrupt governments, and conversely the gun lobby appears to play the corruption game as well as anyone. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
You misunderstand the reason many americans are so protective of their right to bear arms. The US is only a little over 200 years old, and we won our independance from England through the use of average citizens with guns. One of our founding fathers (I think it was Thomas Jefferson) said something to the effect of "The best reason to insure the right to bear arms is to keep the government honest". Any government that fears that their citizens can rise up and overthrow them tends to do what's best for its people rather than what's best for its politicians. Now, I agree that despite the fact that we can bear arms, the government has begun to no longer fear its constituents, and are therefore doing things which are not in their best interests. I'm not advocating revolution, but this is precisely why it was so important to us in the first place. When a populace becomes placid and allows their government to take away their right to defend themselves, the government can do whatever it wishes, as we've seen so many times in other countries. Look at what England has done to Ireland, or South Africa.
So we agree the *reason* so often stated for bearing arms is largely moot ? In this context it should mean you have the right to *own* a gun, not carry it. What happened with England was a very different time, it would not occur today, simply because of globalisation. Such things cannot be done in secret anymore, and the global economy makes upsetting the rest of the world a *bad* thing. England gave back most of it's territories peacefully, they gave *us* independance a hundred years ago, which only serves to prove my point. Either way, the idea is a throwback to a different time, and it is for most gun toting Americans simply an excuse to defend their right to pack heat. If it were not, you'd have overthrown any number of corrupt governments, and conversely the gun lobby appears to play the corruption game as well as anyone. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
In a utopian world then I would totally agree with you. The problem is many fold, there is not one solution. Do you at least understand that a criminal is a person who breaks laws? So how is the legislature going to write a law to stop criminals. :confused: Wayne
That's easy. 1/ If automatic rifles, etc. are illegal, then there is no legal means for people to aquire them, making it harder to get one or find a chain of supply. 2/ If such weapons are illegal, the police can take them from you, just because you have one. 3/ As a result there will be less guns in the community. I *know* this works, because in Australia we have had three mass shootings in my lifetime ( that I am aware of, all occured where I lived at the time, so I'm open for correction on the exact number, but it's a pimple on the backside of the high score the US racks up ). The solution is not just get rid of the guns, but the math is simple. Less guns = less people armed. Someone who is not armed cannot shoot at me. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
You are missing the point. To kill someone with a screwdriver, blunt waepon, etc, you need to be next to them. To kill someone with a gun, you can be quite some distance away. "The bravery of being out of range", as Roger Waters puts it. Its also trivially easy to pull a trigger, it isn't the same as driving a dagger into someone. I agree with Christian. I nearly laughed when I read what Eric had written. I have a lot of colleagues in Concord, Mass. They tell me its illegal for them to carry firearms, and that if they did so, they'd be arrested for it. Stephen Kellett
>> They tell me its illegal for them to carry firearms, and that if they did so, they'd be arrested for it. << These types of laws, commonly called "Carry and Conceal" laws, vary from state to state in the US. Here in Georgia you must apply for a Carry/Conceal permit, take a test, and prove you know how to handle a gun. Then you may carry certain types of loaded handguns concealed on your person in certain areas. You still can't carry them in certain places (I'm not sure which ones, but its usually in high-density crowd situations like ballgames or government buildings). Other states don't allow you, at all, under any circumstances, to carry a loaded and/or concealed weapon. Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer
-
That's easy. 1/ If automatic rifles, etc. are illegal, then there is no legal means for people to aquire them, making it harder to get one or find a chain of supply. 2/ If such weapons are illegal, the police can take them from you, just because you have one. 3/ As a result there will be less guns in the community. I *know* this works, because in Australia we have had three mass shootings in my lifetime ( that I am aware of, all occured where I lived at the time, so I'm open for correction on the exact number, but it's a pimple on the backside of the high score the US racks up ). The solution is not just get rid of the guns, but the math is simple. Less guns = less people armed. Someone who is not armed cannot shoot at me. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
>> 1/ If automatic rifles, etc. are illegal, then there is no legal means for people to aquire them, making it harder to get one or find a chain of supply. << They're about as close to illegal as you can get. The US hasn't made or imported fully automatic weapons for civilian consumption for quite some time (at least a decade). There is an absurb amount of red-tape you have to jump through to get one (a friend of mine just did). You've got to pay a $400 federal tax, apply to get one (from federal authorities), have your local sheriff OK the deal personally in writing after doing lots of background checks, etc.. etc... . After all is said and done, the govt (federal and state) knows more about you than your parents do. And it ends up costing at least 2000 USD, minimum (automatic weapons are quite expensive, because the only ones left are the ones that existed before the ban on automatic weapons I mentioned earlier). >> 3/ As a result there will be less guns in the community. << Criminals can find ways to get them. Period. Maybe its a particularly American occurrence, but if you want something bad enough, there's a way to get it. Guns, Pot, Heroine, Cocaine, whatever. Removing all guns from gun-owners who are legal simply means that for quite awhile the only people with guns will be criminals. Would you wear a T-Shirt, or maybe put a sign out in your yard that says "UNARMED - PLEASE DO NOT ASSAULT ME" ? I think that's the way many Americans think about calls for complete illegalization of gun ownership. It'll be the people who follow the laws - the ones who own guns for defensive purposes - who have their guns taken away. Criminals will be unaffected for a long time. Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer
-
>> 1/ If automatic rifles, etc. are illegal, then there is no legal means for people to aquire them, making it harder to get one or find a chain of supply. << They're about as close to illegal as you can get. The US hasn't made or imported fully automatic weapons for civilian consumption for quite some time (at least a decade). There is an absurb amount of red-tape you have to jump through to get one (a friend of mine just did). You've got to pay a $400 federal tax, apply to get one (from federal authorities), have your local sheriff OK the deal personally in writing after doing lots of background checks, etc.. etc... . After all is said and done, the govt (federal and state) knows more about you than your parents do. And it ends up costing at least 2000 USD, minimum (automatic weapons are quite expensive, because the only ones left are the ones that existed before the ban on automatic weapons I mentioned earlier). >> 3/ As a result there will be less guns in the community. << Criminals can find ways to get them. Period. Maybe its a particularly American occurrence, but if you want something bad enough, there's a way to get it. Guns, Pot, Heroine, Cocaine, whatever. Removing all guns from gun-owners who are legal simply means that for quite awhile the only people with guns will be criminals. Would you wear a T-Shirt, or maybe put a sign out in your yard that says "UNARMED - PLEASE DO NOT ASSAULT ME" ? I think that's the way many Americans think about calls for complete illegalization of gun ownership. It'll be the people who follow the laws - the ones who own guns for defensive purposes - who have their guns taken away. Criminals will be unaffected for a long time. Russ -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Lisa, just because I don't care doesn't mean I'm not listening..." - Homer
>> 1/ If automatic rifles, etc. are illegal, then there is no legal means for people to aquire them, making it harder to get one or find a chain of supply. << >They're about as close to illegal as you can get. The US hasn't made or imported fully automatic weapons for civilian >consumption for quite some time (at least a decade). There is an absurb amount of red-tape you have to jump through to >get one (a friend of mine just did). You've got to pay a $400 federal tax, apply to get one (from federal authorities), >have your local sheriff OK the deal personally in writing after doing lots of background checks, etc.. etc... . After >all is said and done, the govt (federal and state) knows more about you than your parents do. And it ends up costing at >least 2000 USD, minimum (automatic weapons are quite expensive, because the only ones left are the ones that existed >before the ban on automatic weapons I mentioned earlier). Well, good. Is this the same for *semi* automatic ( I seem to recall this was the problem here, and the weapon of choice among our few mass murderers ) ? If so, then the whole 'guns in the hands of the people' argument seems to fall apart regardless of the other issues it raises, as have been mentioned by others on this thread. Can I ask *why* your friend needs a weapon designed solely to kill lots of people quickly ? >> 3/ As a result there will be less guns in the community. << >Criminals can find ways to get them. Period. Maybe its a particularly American occurrence, but if you want something >bad enough, there's a way to get it. Guns, Pot, Heroine, Cocaine, whatever. Removing all guns from gun-owners who are >legal simply means that for quite awhile the only people with guns will be criminals. Oh, no - don't be fooled. Criminals everywhere will find a way. But it will be made a lot harder if there are no gun shops to roll, houses with guns to rob, etc. It also makes it easier for law enforcement to do something about a gun toting people *before* they kill someone. >Would you wear a T-Shirt, or maybe put a sign out in your yard that says "UNARMED - PLEASE DO NOT ASSAULT ME" ? I think >that's the way many Americans think about calls for complete illegalization of gun ownership. It'll be the people who >follow the laws - the ones who own guns for defensive purposes - who have their guns taken away. Criminals will be >unaffected for a long time. In fact, I essentially do that every day. Where I live, people being unarmed is a given. Funny thing is, I am yet to be assa
-
You may find the idea of overthrowing a government to be impractical, but tell that to people fighting for their rights. First off, a military is going to be loathe to fire on their own people. Second, it's been proven that low-tech can defeat hi-tech. No, we can't outrun a nuclear bomb, but it's highly unlikely that the government would use nuclear arms against itself. You take away the right to own guns, and you take away all hope. And hope is what wins revolutions, not the guns themselves. The people could overturn the government with sticks and stones if they believed in it strongly enough, but when faced with an opponent with guns and you don't have any, you lose your will to fight.
You're wrong. Look at the students in Tienimen (sp?) Square, look at the Indians peacefully resisting the British, if Mississippi Burning was historically accurate, you have examples in your own history of people with guns trying to stop people without. These people fought on because they were right, and the injustice itself gave them the will to fight. And history upholds not only their right, but their moral stand in opposing injustice without resorting to it. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
So we agree the *reason* so often stated for bearing arms is largely moot ? In this context it should mean you have the right to *own* a gun, not carry it. What happened with England was a very different time, it would not occur today, simply because of globalisation. Such things cannot be done in secret anymore, and the global economy makes upsetting the rest of the world a *bad* thing. England gave back most of it's territories peacefully, they gave *us* independance a hundred years ago, which only serves to prove my point. Either way, the idea is a throwback to a different time, and it is for most gun toting Americans simply an excuse to defend their right to pack heat. If it were not, you'd have overthrown any number of corrupt governments, and conversely the gun lobby appears to play the corruption game as well as anyone. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
Not at all. I don't think it's a moot point at all. Despite the fact that the common people don't generally have missle launchers or tanks, they are still many viable ways to defend against such attacks. Look at vietnam. When people are fighting in their own backyards they have many advantages over people unfamiliar with the area. Further, one of the reasons the US has never been invaded is that any country would be insane to do so. When the population can defend themselves nearly as well as the military, plus the advantage of known ground, there is no way they could win. We haven't overthrown our government because, until recently, it's worked very well. Again, I'm not advocating revolution here, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a major uprising within 25 years.
-
Not at all. I don't think it's a moot point at all. Despite the fact that the common people don't generally have missle launchers or tanks, they are still many viable ways to defend against such attacks. Look at vietnam. When people are fighting in their own backyards they have many advantages over people unfamiliar with the area. Further, one of the reasons the US has never been invaded is that any country would be insane to do so. When the population can defend themselves nearly as well as the military, plus the advantage of known ground, there is no way they could win. We haven't overthrown our government because, until recently, it's worked very well. Again, I'm not advocating revolution here, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a major uprising within 25 years.
Actually, Britain and Australia have never been invaded either. I'd suggest that if I was Saddam and I was contemplating an invasion, I'd be more worried about your Army, Navy and Air Force, than the thought that if I got through them, they'd also be some hicks with rifles to contend with. This has become silly, and it's only made me realise that just because people are obviously intelligent does not mean they will not be irrational about things they have strong feelings over. I'd suggest this discussion became silly a while ago and certainly is unlikely to result in any agreement. Which makes it a bit pointless to continue, doncha think ? Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
Not at all. I don't think it's a moot point at all. Despite the fact that the common people don't generally have missle launchers or tanks, they are still many viable ways to defend against such attacks. Look at vietnam. When people are fighting in their own backyards they have many advantages over people unfamiliar with the area. Further, one of the reasons the US has never been invaded is that any country would be insane to do so. When the population can defend themselves nearly as well as the military, plus the advantage of known ground, there is no way they could win. We haven't overthrown our government because, until recently, it's worked very well. Again, I'm not advocating revolution here, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a major uprising within 25 years.
Self protection should *ALWAYS* be at the forefront of everyones mind. When you offload your own self-preservation to your government, you are making yourself dependant upon them. What happens when someone comes into power that destroys the trust you've put in their hands? Governments change their minds. They change their policies. They go back on what they've promised. You can't trust people in power to put the peoples needs ahead of their own. You can only trust yourself in this world, sad but true. History is littered with examples of countries where the people gave their government absolute control over their lives, and more often than not, it has lead to ruin for the people eventually. Sure, life may be nice initially, but things change, and if you can no longer take control of your own destiny because you've allowed your government to take away that right, you have nothing left.
-
Actually, Britain and Australia have never been invaded either. I'd suggest that if I was Saddam and I was contemplating an invasion, I'd be more worried about your Army, Navy and Air Force, than the thought that if I got through them, they'd also be some hicks with rifles to contend with. This has become silly, and it's only made me realise that just because people are obviously intelligent does not mean they will not be irrational about things they have strong feelings over. I'd suggest this discussion became silly a while ago and certainly is unlikely to result in any agreement. Which makes it a bit pointless to continue, doncha think ? Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
What history do you live in? Britian has been invaded *HUNDREDS* of times, as recently as WWII. Australian territory has been occupied by Japanese, but even so, it's generally safe because it has so little strategic or economic value to invaders during the major wars. It's not a silly argument at all. It seems your so closed minded about warfare that you think just because someone has tanks and guns, they win. That's not true at all. I did make a mistake though, we were invaded once. Pearl Harber. And while that was a very bloody affair, I think it was chosen specifically because it was mainly a military target with very little in the way of population at the time. Do discussions like this Ever result in agreement? Does that make them pointless to discuss? Are you going to tell me you didn't learn anything from it?
-
You're wrong. Look at the students in Tienimen (sp?) Square, look at the Indians peacefully resisting the British, if Mississippi Burning was historically accurate, you have examples in your own history of people with guns trying to stop people without. These people fought on because they were right, and the injustice itself gave them the will to fight. And history upholds not only their right, but their moral stand in opposing injustice without resorting to it. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
As the old saying goes, the winner writes the history books. History may uphold the morality of a peacful people that get slaughtered, but they don't live on to reproduce. Instead, the winners do and those are the people that take over the world. I may respect the Tibetan peoples choices to not resort to violence, but in so doing, they've chosen to die, and therefore allow their oppressors to wipe them out of existance. This is all irrelevant. We have reasons for the way we believe. You may not agree with them, that's fine. But to sit there and tell me that I'm wrong to believe such is just as arrogant as you claim we are.
-
But Mr. President has rejected world pleas to do something about it. What did the prior president do about it? President Bush is a member of the Republican party, while the environmentalists are almost always in the opposite party, the Democrats. No matter what he does he is not going to make this group happy. Throwing money around to other countries, like the prior president did, is not a solution. Are you sure he has stopped taking drugs? Coz in last 2 months he has taken decisions that only irked the world! Maybe, just maybe, it is irking the world because there is finally a president that means what he says, and does exactly what he says he will do. And it scares the hell out of the countries that are receiving the funds. Wayne
"President Bush is a member of the Republican party, while the environmentalists are almost always in the opposite party, the Democrats. No matter what he does he is not going to make this group happy." Who the hell is talking about US political parties!!! I am talking about world environment! Not the US'. What you do in your (if you are a US citizen, that is) country is your problem. But when you pollute, you dont only pollute your country's environment but world's as well. Being one of the biggest pollution producer, US has the responsibility to help others in solving the problem. "there is finally a president that means what he says, and does exactly what he says he will do. And it scares the hell out of the countries that are receiving the funds." Nobody is scared of US or US President. They are scared because due to US policies their life is also being affected. And its their right, being a citizen of the world, to protest!
-
What history do you live in? Britian has been invaded *HUNDREDS* of times, as recently as WWII. Australian territory has been occupied by Japanese, but even so, it's generally safe because it has so little strategic or economic value to invaders during the major wars. It's not a silly argument at all. It seems your so closed minded about warfare that you think just because someone has tanks and guns, they win. That's not true at all. I did make a mistake though, we were invaded once. Pearl Harber. And while that was a very bloody affair, I think it was chosen specifically because it was mainly a military target with very little in the way of population at the time. Do discussions like this Ever result in agreement? Does that make them pointless to discuss? Are you going to tell me you didn't learn anything from it?
Britain was *NOT* invaded during WWII, unless you count the Battle of Britain to be invasion, and crashing planes do not an invasion force make. The Japs came to our coast in subs in WWII, but did not land. They also bombed Darwin. An invasion means people LAND, not fly over and drop bombs. Actually, I'd suggest the days of the winners writing history are over. Too many observers for that now. I guess I've learned not to bother speaking logically to Yanks about guns. :) Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
You may find the idea of overthrowing a government to be impractical, but tell that to people fighting for their rights. First off, a military is going to be loathe to fire on their own people. Second, it's been proven that low-tech can defeat hi-tech. No, we can't outrun a nuclear bomb, but it's highly unlikely that the government would use nuclear arms against itself. You take away the right to own guns, and you take away all hope. And hope is what wins revolutions, not the guns themselves. The people could overturn the government with sticks and stones if they believed in it strongly enough, but when faced with an opponent with guns and you don't have any, you lose your will to fight.
"You take away the right to own guns, and you take away all hope. And hope is what wins revolutions, not the guns themselves. The people could overturn the government with sticks and stones if they believed in it strongly enough, but when faced with an opponent with guns and you don't have any, you lose your will to fight" That's complete and utter rubbish. Look what happened in Belgrade in October. The only "weapon" used by the opposition there was a bulldozer. They managed to get a few flash bangs off the anti-terrorist police, but they DID NOT NEED GUNS. And they won. Cheers, Peter Pearson