Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 The concept of the citizen-soldier died for a good reason. Military technology has changed a lot since Ancient Greece and Roman times. It is much more capital-intensive now. Defense of the US requires highly skilled specialists, and high-tech armaments; not some semi-professional self-funded part-time ground infantry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 The concept of the citizen-soldier died for a good reason. Military technology has changed a lot since Ancient Greece and Roman times. It is much more capital-intensive now. Defense of the US requires highly skilled specialists, and high-tech armaments; not some semi-professional self-funded part-time ground infantry. Wait a second! Are you suggesting that the second amendment, in both ideology and its physical existence, is outdated in the context of the modern world and any arguments for the possession of personal firearms that rely strictly upon the wording of the constitution is an absurd notion of radical conservatism? How. Dare. You. Sir. I challenge you to a duel. 3 paces, just like Hamilton and Burr. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) Wait a second! Are you suggesting that the second amendment, in both ideology and its physical existence, is outdated in the context of the modern world and any arguments for the possession of personal firearms that rely strictly upon the wording of the constitution is an absurd notion of radical conservatism? How. Dare. You. Sir. I challenge you to a duel. 3 paces, just like Hamilton and Burr. Hmpf. How uncivilized of you. But what to expect from savages from the colonies? As everyone knows, the Ancient Greeks are the true citizen-soldiers. Thus the duel for honor has to follow their customs. That does not involve those *modern* contraptions you call guns. We will do it properly: Greco-Roman Oil Wrestling Edited September 12, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Geeze, Kemal, do you try to make stuff hard to quote? So what, do you have all amendments memorized, ffs?This is literally undermining your own argument. Currently there are few restrictions on guns, but let's get rid of them too. The shooters will still choose locations where they will face little resistance. That directly implies that arming the populace isn't the solution, because the shooters will not pick random locations, but actually the locations that are not protected. Those locations will always exist:The old grandma who cannot see 5 feet in front of her would do jackshit with a gun.Neither would you when you are returning from work, dead tired, and ambushed from behind.The shooter will always have the initiative as well: With guns, the person who draws first wins. The assailant chooses the time and place of engagement, so the assailant will always win except in cases he cannot factor in the random guy walking by. You just destroyed your own position mate.Do you think that's a large cost for getting rid of all the guns from the US for all time? That's just 5% of the yearly defense budget, and less than 1% of the yearly federal budget. It's tiny.Literally the abstract states: "The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."The abstract says that the results can be one way or the other depending on the methodology you employ. So it admits the no large effects result relies on the particular funky methodology they chose to employ. That means the evidence is inconclusive.Ahahaha, I want to see those gun lunatics try to resist when the Army comes knocking.We already discussed this stupid line of reasoning. Guns are tools that make killing easier. If they aren't, you don't need them either. If they are, making them harder to obtain makes killing harder. Simple as that. I wouldn't mind total ban, but I am good with more restrictions and regulations, or even a huge price increase with very high VAT.If there was the technology where each gun could immediately be traced to its owner and had some sort of built in GPS, and only responding to owners' commands or sth, I would be much more bullish on guns. That would make killing someone with a gun and getting away with it much harder, so their illegal use could be prevented. Yes. And even if I didn't, 10 seconds on Google would show what the 18th is and how bad it failed. Always? The old grandma shouldn't be on her own if she can't see 5 feet in front of her. You should always have some situational awareness when walking home from work. School shootings are a big part of most campaigns against guns, but they have no way of defending the kids there. If the admins, office staff, janitors, etc. had guns, then they would have some sort of resistance before the police arrive. That was at $100/gun. It would be around $700,000,000,000 for all guns, using $2,000 as an average price. I've seen some collectable guns can go higher than $30,000. Even if you were able to get some of the guns, do you really think that some inner city gangs would turn in their guns for how much they are supposedly worth? In the long run, it would be better for them to keep the guns to defend their turf from other gangs. Do you really want to shape our society after a country where in some states you have to be 18 to buy plastic picnicware?http://www.offthereservation.net/2014/01/nanny-state-gone-wild.htmlHow about a country where Nerf guns are banned because they’re “too dangerous� http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/11/australia-wont-get-nerfs-awesome-new-rival-blasters/ John Howard, the Australian prime minister who oversaw Australia’s gun ban, had this to say about enacting a similar ban in the U.S.: “Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms.†(After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.) Beyond what he says about the problems he foresees with implementing Australia-style gun control in the U.S., he thinks it’s good that Australia has no Bill of Rights. From another thread on here. (I had to quote it for it to be somewhat formatted right.) Let's assume that 10% of all armed Americans revolt. Realistically, I think it would be a ton more, but 10% is a nice, even, generous number. That gives us150,000 million military personnel (They could most likely smuggle some stuff off of base. Also, most military personnel tend to not be anti-gun pacifists from California, so this would likely be higher.)13.5 million militia members (including ex-military and combat veterans)About 3.5 million 2A supporting homes that could be used as safe housesAssuming that everyone gave $750 a year (which would be more, since "muh old white male republicans"), then that would be about $11,250,000,000 a year (about the size of Spain's military spending; way more than Saudi Arabia and North Korea)Assuming that 1 in 5 vehicles (of the militia members, obviously) would be used for militia purposes, there would be about 2.4 million vehiclesAt least 15 million guns, but tons of people have collections (could be anywhere up to 90,000,000 and non-militant gun owners could have "tragic boating accidents" and "not give guns to militia members")We would have aircraft (I can't find any FAA numbers. Almost all of their links are 404ing for me. I saw someplace that said there were about 100,000 private A/C in the USA, but it wasn't credible. If it was, then that would be around 10,000 aircraft. )Assuming that there are 250 rounds per weapon, then that could be anywhere from 15 billion to 90 billion rounds of ammo.To add to that, jets can't enforce curfews, anti-protest laws, etc. in urban areas. Jets can't kick doors to take up guns. You need police or troops to do that. Lots of police won't risk their life to pick up weapons on $50,000 a year. In addition, foreign nations could give SAM launchers or MANPADS to shoot down planes. Or we could blow up their fuel tanks on the ground, destroy vital infrastructure that keeps them connected, or kill their pilots. I, along with millions of others, have shot guns and they haven't killed any. Are you suggesting that we should be able to return them because they aren't doing their job (kill)? We don't have poll taxes because of an amendment. Would you like to have poll taxes return? Reliability is a concern. Do I have to keep my gun charged for it to work? How often do you go to use flashlight and you find out the batteries are dead? You’re asking me to replace simple and proven technology with complex and unproven in a high-risk setting. I have a fingerprint reader on my phone (Galaxy S7) and I get locked out for about 30 seconds almost every day because I get the wrong angle too many times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 (edited) 1) Let's assume that 10% of all armed Americans revolt. Realistically, I think it would be a ton more, but 10% is a nice, even, generous number. That gives us 150,000 million military personnel (They could most likely smuggle some stuff off of base. Also, most military personnel tend to not be anti-gun pacifists from California, so this would likely be higher.) 2) 13.5 million militia members (including ex-military and combat veterans) 3) About 3.5 million 2A supporting homes that could be used as safe houses 4) Assuming that everyone gave $750 a year (which would be more, since "muh old white male republicans"), then that would be about $11,250,000,000 a year (about the size of Spain's military spending; way more than Saudi Arabia and North Korea) Assuming that 1 in 5 vehicles (of the militia members, obviously) would be used for militia purposes, there would be about 2.4 million vehicles 5) At least 15 million guns, but tons of people have collections (could be anywhere up to 90,000,000 and non-militant gun owners could have "tragic boating accidents" and "not give guns to militia members") We would have aircraft (I can't find any FAA numbers. Almost all of their links are 404ing for me. I saw someplace that said there were about 100,000 private A/C in the USA, but it wasn't credible. If it was, then that would be around 10,000 aircraft. ) 6) Assuming that there are 250 rounds per weapon, then that could be anywhere from 15 billion to 90 billion rounds of ammo.To add to that, jets can't enforce curfews, anti-protest laws, etc. in urban areas. Jets can't kick doors to take up guns. You need police or troops to do that. Lots of police won't risk their life to pick up weapons on $50,000 a year. 7) In addition, foreign nations could give SAM launchers or MANPADS to shoot down planes. Or we could blow up their fuel tanks on the ground, destroy vital infrastructure that keeps them connected, or kill their pilots. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Edited September 13, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trump Posted September 13, 2016 Author Share Posted September 13, 2016 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) That's an impressive argument you have there good sir! Might I ask that you Shill for Clinton and Gun Control better? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 -snip- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 That's an impressive argument you have there good sir! Might I ask that you Shill for Clinton and Gun Control better? What is there to reply to? Its just a series of impossible assumptions. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 What is there to reply to? Its just a series of impossible assumptions. 350,000,000 guns in America. 1.5 million people violating the document they swore to uphold picking up 10,000 guns a day would take 96 years. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 an argument 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 -snip- Ooh, so funny. What makes you think they cannot knock your door with explosive munitions in case of an armed rebellion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 350,000,000 guns in America. 1.5 million people violating the document they swore to uphold picking up 10,000 guns a day would take 96 years. What am I missing? But you still discount the fact that the government under Hillary Clinton (and she will win, because Donald Trump is a conspiracy created by the left wing) will actively deploy a 1 million man army plus police to go door to door and take away your guns. If your response is "over my dead body," they will also honor that. Which is why only my plan works to prevent the inevitable coup that the government is secretly planning. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 But you still discount the fact that the government under Hillary Clinton (and she will win, because Donald Trump is a conspiracy created by the left wing) will actively deploy a 1 million man army plus police to go door to door and take away your guns. If your response is "over my dead body," they will also honor that. Which is why only my plan works to prevent the inevitable coup that the government is secretly planning. Please, Supreme Leader, show us the way! Guide us with the knowledge that only you out of all the billions of human beings possess! Show us your master plan, your glorious, infallible plan to save us from the evil government! Surely your plan, based on all your personal expertise, will be perfect and flawless and is the only way our liberties and way of life will be conserved! No one else knows how! No one else can do it! Save us all! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Please, Supreme Leader, show us the way! Guide us with the knowledge that only you out of all the billions of human beings possess! Show us your master plan, your glorious, infallible plan to save us from the evil government! Surely your plan, based on all your personal expertise, will be perfect and flawless and is the only way our liberties and way of life will be conserved! No one else knows how! No one else can do it! Save us all! suck on this, you second-rate troll You are all wrong. 11 is too old. What we should do is have a society where male children are taken away from their families at the age of 5 to be raised by the NRA. Public education is a tool of propaganda for the liberals to brainwash our children, so the NRA should take away our children to teach them the true values of Americans. They will teach our children how to shoot guns, physically train them to be ready for fighting against the federal government. Girls should also be physically trained, so that they can birth true patriots and soldiers to fight the government. They should also own guns and be prepared as a last line of defense against the evil shadow government should our brave men fall in battle. One day, we will overthrow the federal government and enslave the liberals and communists to work on farms to feed our righteous Christian army. Hillary Clinton is part of the evil communists. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are both too liberal to lead our great nation, they do not have a vision for true conservatism! You are all wrong. 11 is too old. What we should do is have a society where male children are taken away from their families at the age of 5 to be raised by the NRA. Public education is a tool of propaganda for the liberals to brainwash our children, so the NRA should take away our children to teach them the true values of Americans. They will teach our children how to shoot guns, physically train them to be ready for fighting against the federal government. Girls should also be physically trained, so that they can birth true patriots and soldiers to fight the government. They should also own guns and be prepared as a last line of defense against the evil shadow government should our brave men fall in battle. One day, we will overthrow the federal government and enslave the liberals and communists to work on farms to feed our righteous Christian army. Hillary Clinton is part of the evil communists. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are both too liberal to lead our great nation, they do not have a vision for true conservatism! Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Brother Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 suck on this, you second-rate troll Post ridiculous things, expect ridiculous replies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Ooh, so funny. What makes you think they cannot knock your door with explosive munitions in case of an armed rebellion? What makes you think they know who owns a gun and who doesn't? We don't have a national registry. If they tried to take guns, they would face an insurgency similar to what we sought in North Vietnam and in Afghanistan. Those ended very well, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 If they tried to take guns, they would face an insurgency no they wouldn't Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 no they wouldn't And why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 because RL works that way Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 because RL works that way Such as the Haitian Revolution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) no they wouldn't There are cases in the United States happening now of people standing up and taking up arms for other people who halted police from taking guns due to hazy laws passed. If it were a national seizure the same would apply, except for maybe California and New York, Delaware and possibly Chicago, Illinois. Edited September 16, 2016 by Lo Pan Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Such as the Haitian Revolution? Haiti is not the US. There are cases in the United States happening now of people standing up and taking up arms for other people who halted police from taking guns due to hazy laws passed. If it were a national seizure the same would apply, except for maybe California and New York, Delaware and possibly Chicago, Illinois. Individuals are required for bit do not constitute an armed revolution. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Yes, yes, a rag-tag band of rednecks will prevail against the strongest military power the world has ever witnessed. You revolt, the government asks you to surrender. You refuse? You die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Haiti is not the US. Individuals are required for bit do not constitute an armed revolution. But Nevada is. A well-armed citizenry is deterrent enough in itself. Check out what happened at the Bundy ranch (whether or not you think they were on the right side of the law, the point still holds). The government will think twice before engaging in tyrannical acts if its opponents are well armed, not wishing to further provoke a bloody mass uprising. The threat of rebellion is itself a deterrent. The Second Amendment and 100 million U.S. civilians with 300 million guns ensures that U.S. federal and local governments will not be ones that slaughters civilians by the hundreds, thousands, or millions. “...democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century...†https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide "Democide is a term revived and redefined by the political scientist R. J. Rummel (1932-2014) as "the murder of any person or people by their government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder." Rummel created the term as an extended concept to include forms of government murder that are not covered by the term genocide, and it has become accepted among other scholars. According to Rummel, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death in the 20th century... His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle..." None of those countries had a Second Amendment and an armed populace. Yes, yes, a rag-tag band of rednecks will prevail against the strongest military power the world has ever witnessed. You revolt, the government asks you to surrender. You refuse? You die. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam show that one should not so easily discount the difficulties of winning a protracted, asymmetric ground war fought by zealous insurgents who blend in with the Allow me to give you a few examples that will quickly show you the reality of the situation, which is that the U.S. military stands no chance what-so-ever against even a moderate proportion of the civilian uprising. Iraq and Afghanistan: In over 10 years resistance has never been stamped out, in countries with much smaller populations than ours (both <1/10th), despite our massive technological advantages. This is with significant infighting in both countries. Vietnam: A country of less than 1/10th our population was subjected to more bombing than was used in all of WWII and began the conflict less well armed than the US public is now. Despite this, in the end the North Vietnamese ultimately prevailed. There are countless more examples from all across the globe (From Russia to Nicaragua, From Columbia to Kurdistan, etc.) that unequivocally show armed populations can crush organized militaries, or at the very least resist them effectively for extended periods of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Post ridiculous things, expect ridiculous replies. Well? Where the !@#$ is my golden throne and you kneeling with your butt in the air? I just gave you the ultimate plan to save everyone. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.