You can fight a weapon but not an idea. Speech wins.
Poll
If you could have only one Which one Would you Choose?
| Freedom of Speech | 73% | 73% - 198 | ||||
| Right to Bear Arms | 26% | 26% - 72 | ||||
| Total: 270 | ||||||
Tell that to China 1932.or Europe in 1939doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
You can fight a weapon but not an idea. Speech wins.
also found here:lowing wrote:
From the Nazis that tried that approach to get out of the fact that they followed UN-moral and UN-ethical orders.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
where did the "I was only following orders." excuse come from then.Dec45 wrote:
No Nicholas, you're forgetting the part where the orders have to be deemed ethical and morally righteous to the soldier following them.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/ … 18114.html
first off a reply with more insults..... yay.lowing wrote:
not sure how pegging you as someone who has never served or still living at home is an insult but hey, the doctor has medications that help you with your complexes.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
hey, someone in the d&st section resorting to insults... thats new!lowing wrote:
Have you ever served?? Actually, have you even left home yet?? I am guessing, no.
to anwser your questions, no i have never served, and yes i am at home while i write this, its where my computer is. also i didnt know i was supposed to be somewhere, let me find out... nope aside from watching borat earlier there was no other plans for tonight.
now if your done with that, i have never heard of soilders being called notoriously free thinkers, their trained to follow orders to the T arent they?
also with this hypothetical government takeover, its not like theyd just say one day, "hey soilders, go imprison the country, take their guns now."
nope, there would probably be some build up to it, you know gradually, not everything happens over night.
and if you havent figured it out yet, yes i have left the home my parents live at... does that make what I said before any more right or wrong?
I said that because after reading your post it was painfully obvious that YOU in fact, had never served and therefore has no idea what the hell you are talking about....turns out I am right.
second, more than one army has held its people down in the past, i dont need to have served to know that.
do you think it wont happen again in the future...
From people that obviously didn't care enough about the situation to keep them from carrying it out.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
where did the "I was only following orders." excuse come from then.Dec45 wrote:
No Nicholas, you're forgetting the part where the orders have to be deemed ethical and morally righteous to the soldier following them.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
hey, someone in the d&st section resorting to insults... thats new!
to anwser your questions, no i have never served, and yes i am at home while i write this, its where my computer is. also i didnt know i was supposed to be somewhere, let me find out... nope aside from watching borat earlier there was no other plans for tonight.
now if your done with that, i have never heard of soilders being called notoriously free thinkers, their trained to follow orders to the T arent they?
also with this hypothetical government takeover, its not like theyd just say one day, "hey soilders, go imprison the country, take their guns now."
nope, there would probably be some build up to it, you know gradually, not everything happens over night.
and if you havent figured it out yet, yes i have left the home my parents live at... does that make what I said before any more right or wrong?
This philosophy stuff is great, but let's keep in mind it's philosophy. Watch, I can kick some knowledge too...doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
You can fight a weapon but not an idea. Speech wins.
You can silence a voice with a gun but you can't silence a gun with a voice.
See... It just takes a little witty remark.
hooray for freespeech!
You changed your speech. Wasn't all this about people having guns not the government?lowing wrote:
Tell that to China 1932.or Europe in 1939doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
You can fight a weapon but not an idea. Speech wins.
NOT in the US.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
first off a reply with more insults..... yay.lowing wrote:
not sure how pegging you as someone who has never served or still living at home is an insult but hey, the doctor has medications that help you with your complexes.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
hey, someone in the d&st section resorting to insults... thats new!
to anwser your questions, no i have never served, and yes i am at home while i write this, its where my computer is. also i didnt know i was supposed to be somewhere, let me find out... nope aside from watching borat earlier there was no other plans for tonight.
now if your done with that, i have never heard of soilders being called notoriously free thinkers, their trained to follow orders to the T arent they?
also with this hypothetical government takeover, its not like theyd just say one day, "hey soilders, go imprison the country, take their guns now."
nope, there would probably be some build up to it, you know gradually, not everything happens over night.
and if you havent figured it out yet, yes i have left the home my parents live at... does that make what I said before any more right or wrong?
I said that because after reading your post it was painfully obvious that YOU in fact, had never served and therefore has no idea what the hell you are talking about....turns out I am right.
second, more than one army has held its people down in the past, i dont need to have served to know that.
do you think it wont happen again in the future...
honestly if you think you have been insulted, you might really wanna talk to someone.
Like I siad earlier, first, if the people WERE armed, they could resist. Secondly, it pretty much proves, free speech doesn't mean t omuch if you are going to be killed for using it.sergeriver wrote:
You changed your speech. Wasn't all this about people having guns not the government?lowing wrote:
Tell that to China 1932.or Europe in 1939doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
You can fight a weapon but not an idea. Speech wins.
The fact that all of Europe was bowled over so easily during ww2 pretty much is a notch in the gun belt of gun ownership. And it happened twice.
i think ironchef has it nailed in this post, maybe have a read lowing. do remember that if you didnt have freedom of speech you couldnt get a revolution going.IRONCHEF wrote:
i think what many people are failing to understand is how the loss of these rights would play out in reality. For example, systray's suggestion that he'd prefer to be armed so as to redeem his lost free speech. but in reality, he'd never be able to assemble to take back his right because media outlets would not be able to indicate to the populous that there is an uprising. Instead, you'd be watching your information tube feed you things like "the government is your friend, your speech is "protected" from those that would abuse it!, and underlying tones would suggest that all is well, bearing arms is still there! freedom from illegal search and seizure is still there..etc.SysTray wrote:
I'd take the right to bear Arms so I could overthrow the government that took my free speech away. (or at least try to overthrow it...I'd need help obviously)
I'm imagining Nazi era germany where Nazi propaganda ruled the information flow and people were armed, yet they could not supress this government and retake their free speech.
So it seems that unless you're going to storm the government with you and your neighbors..instead of a mass populous of informed and angered constitution lovers....you'll meet with dissapointment.
However, if you don't have weapons, but you have free speech, you can beat the machine, rally necessary support to redeem your lost arms rights, and you have the power of propaganda in your favor.
I don't know..the pen is mightier than the sword here folks. But hey, that's my opinion! Don't shoot me or curse at me (yep, i've taken away both your rights! muahahahahaaa!).
LOL, as if you could get one going without guns??Nicholas Langdon wrote:
i think ironchef has it nailed in this post, maybe have a read lowing. do remember that if you didnt have freedom of speech you couldnt get a revolution going.IRONCHEF wrote:
i think what many people are failing to understand is how the loss of these rights would play out in reality. For example, systray's suggestion that he'd prefer to be armed so as to redeem his lost free speech. but in reality, he'd never be able to assemble to take back his right because media outlets would not be able to indicate to the populous that there is an uprising. Instead, you'd be watching your information tube feed you things like "the government is your friend, your speech is "protected" from those that would abuse it!, and underlying tones would suggest that all is well, bearing arms is still there! freedom from illegal search and seizure is still there..etc.SysTray wrote:
I'd take the right to bear Arms so I could overthrow the government that took my free speech away. (or at least try to overthrow it...I'd need help obviously)
I'm imagining Nazi era germany where Nazi propaganda ruled the information flow and people were armed, yet they could not supress this government and retake their free speech.
So it seems that unless you're going to storm the government with you and your neighbors..instead of a mass populous of informed and angered constitution lovers....you'll meet with dissapointment.
However, if you don't have weapons, but you have free speech, you can beat the machine, rally necessary support to redeem your lost arms rights, and you have the power of propaganda in your favor.
I don't know..the pen is mightier than the sword here folks. But hey, that's my opinion! Don't shoot me or curse at me (yep, i've taken away both your rights! muahahahahaaa!).
ok ive got it! your disagreeing just to disagree, i never said you would need a revolution if you had freedom of speech, in fact i havent seen anyone who posted for freedom of speech talk of a revolution being needed. just the gun nuts so far.
you ignore the obvious truth behind this post and see no farther than your penis enhancer. and yes i think you could have a revoulution with out guns, or at least get one started easier, as you are able to communicate about it, instead of being thrown in jail for talking about it.
you ignore the obvious truth behind this post and see no farther than your penis enhancer. and yes i think you could have a revoulution with out guns, or at least get one started easier, as you are able to communicate about it, instead of being thrown in jail for talking about it.
Down boy, down!!Nicholas Langdon wrote:
ok ive got it! your disagreeing just to disagree, i never said you would need a revolution if you had freedom of speech, in fact i havent seen anyone who posted for freedom of speech talk of a revolution being needed. just the gun nuts so far.
you ignore the obvious truth behind this post and see no farther than your penis enhancer. and yes i think you could have a revoulution with out guns, or at least get one started easier, as you are able to communicate about it, instead of being thrown in jail for talking about it.
I don't disagree just to disagree. I disagree simply because my opinion doesn't match yours.
This thread is an OPINION based thread. There is absolutely no right or wrong to it. ( except the fact that you are wrong)
We might as well be discussing, what came first the chicken or the egg.
PS. If you think you can instigate a revolution without guns I trust you have an example of such an occurrence to back up that claim. Cuz I can site examples where ya needed them. Good luck on your search.
ok I'll look quickly but im off to bed soon so im just going to do a quick search.lowing wrote:
Down boy, down!!Nicholas Langdon wrote:
ok ive got it! your disagreeing just to disagree, i never said you would need a revolution if you had freedom of speech, in fact i havent seen anyone who posted for freedom of speech talk of a revolution being needed. just the gun nuts so far.
you ignore the obvious truth behind this post and see no farther than your penis enhancer. and yes i think you could have a revoulution with out guns, or at least get one started easier, as you are able to communicate about it, instead of being thrown in jail for talking about it.
I don't disagree just to disagree. I disagree simply because my opinion doesn't match yours.
This thread is an OPINION based thread. There is absolutely no right or wrong to it. ( except the fact that you are wrong)
We might as well be discussing, what came first the chicken or the egg.
PS. If you think you can instigate a revolution without guns I trust you have an example of such an occurrence to back up that claim. Cuz I can site examples where ya needed them. Good luck on your search.
http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/WestCivI/th … lution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Sc … dependence
im sure i could find many more, but as i said im off to bed, the word revolution was created long before the gun you know. anyway im over this.... maybe ill get back to you again maybe i won't.
Freedom of speech - In my opinion the less guns in circulation the better.
So as the combined forces of Britain, France, Russia, Poland, Australia, New Zealand, Nepal, South Africa, Canada, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherland, Greece, Kingdom of Yugoslavia failed to stop the Germans and even after the addition of the US, Panama, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Haiti, Hoduras, Nicaragua, China, Guatamala, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, Ethiopia, Iraq, Bolivia, Iran, Italy, Columbia and Liberia still had great difficulty in Destroying the German armies I truely believe that if the German citizens had a few handguns between them they'd have stopped the Nazis in no time.lowing wrote:
Like I siad earlier, first, if the people WERE armed, they could resist. Secondly, it pretty much proves, free speech doesn't mean t omuch if you are going to be killed for using it.sergeriver wrote:
You changed your speech. Wasn't all this about people having guns not the government?lowing wrote:
Tell that to China 1932.or Europe in 1939
The fact that all of Europe was bowled over so easily during ww2 pretty much is a notch in the gun belt of gun ownership. And it happened twice.
By the way, pretty well all europeans had the right to own guns at the time too, just to emphasis how stupid the idea that lightly armed citizens can successfully take on an entire army is.
The resistance always carried guns, but what could they do against an army? Let's say France against the Germany occupation. That's why this thread isn't meant for war affairs.lowing wrote:
Like I siad earlier, first, if the people WERE armed, they could resist. Secondly, it pretty much proves, free speech doesn't mean t omuch if you are going to be killed for using it.sergeriver wrote:
You changed your speech. Wasn't all this about people having guns not the government?lowing wrote:
Tell that to China 1932.or Europe in 1939
The fact that all of Europe was bowled over so easily during ww2 pretty much is a notch in the gun belt of gun ownership. And it happened twice.
What a smart ass, figures you would pull up shit before guns were invented.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
ok I'll look quickly but im off to bed soon so im just going to do a quick search.lowing wrote:
Down boy, down!!Nicholas Langdon wrote:
ok ive got it! your disagreeing just to disagree, i never said you would need a revolution if you had freedom of speech, in fact i havent seen anyone who posted for freedom of speech talk of a revolution being needed. just the gun nuts so far.
you ignore the obvious truth behind this post and see no farther than your penis enhancer. and yes i think you could have a revoulution with out guns, or at least get one started easier, as you are able to communicate about it, instead of being thrown in jail for talking about it.
I don't disagree just to disagree. I disagree simply because my opinion doesn't match yours.
This thread is an OPINION based thread. There is absolutely no right or wrong to it. ( except the fact that you are wrong)
We might as well be discussing, what came first the chicken or the egg.
PS. If you think you can instigate a revolution without guns I trust you have an example of such an occurrence to back up that claim. Cuz I can site examples where ya needed them. Good luck on your search.
http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/WestCivI/th … lution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_Sc … dependence
im sure i could find many more, but as i said im off to bed, the word revolution was created long before the gun you know. anyway im over this.... maybe ill get back to you again maybe i won't.
Wrong again. Even if a military did make it past ours I would absolutley love to see them try and roll through the streets of Compton. They are better armed than some National Guard units.Bubbalo wrote:
The big issue, though, is the gap between the capabilities of the armies. The gap between the British and Americans wasn't huge: both had about the same level of technology, the British had superior training, but the Americans probably had better morale/were more willing to fight. The difference between civilians and the US military is huge (unless you've got tanks that you haven't told me about).
Malloy must go
A gun or any other form of Lethal arms weapon, although terrifying do not stand any chance against the speech of any man (or woman) who is prepared to stand up for what is right. Although the gun can kill, the tongue can ruin lifes, and in many cases can als kill. The question i feel is should some select few people have the freedom of speech due to the immense power it holds? All it takes is one mind and the words that flow from it into the mouth and into the minds of others, to turn the world up-side down. Look at Hitler. He started off small and grew and grew until nearly all of Germany and Austria were behind him all the way, even to risk their lives for what HE believed in, as he was a magnificent speech maker. I do not know, but for in the lords name, i do care.
Please post your views.
(I can only apologise for such a late post to the topic about some of the things that are limited to the first few pages, this is due to me becoming a new member only this week)
Please post your views.
(I can only apologise for such a late post to the topic about some of the things that are limited to the first few pages, this is due to me becoming a new member only this week)
Last edited by smartasskid (2006-11-14 12:48:57)
i doubt anyone would die to keep a gun...
A street gang with handguns and other assorted small arms is no match for an actual professional military unit with body armor, mortars, APCs, and tanks. Even if a NG unit deployed to stop an armed rebellion in the US were out gunned I'm sure the government would dispatch more and better armed forces to quell the unrest.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Wrong again. Even if a military did make it past ours I would absolutley love to see them try and roll through the streets of Compton. They are better armed than some National Guard units.Bubbalo wrote:
The big issue, though, is the gap between the capabilities of the armies. The gap between the British and Americans wasn't huge: both had about the same level of technology, the British had superior training, but the Americans probably had better morale/were more willing to fight. The difference between civilians and the US military is huge (unless you've got tanks that you haven't told me about).
In that situation the right to own 1,2, or even 100 small arms is largely irrelevant. It's not going to prevent coercive (often violent) force to stop mobilization.
Nobody within Nazi Germany tried to revolt. Some people spoke out, and they were killed. But no one even tried a revolution.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
i think ironchef has it nailed in this post, maybe have a read lowing. do remember that if you didnt have freedom of speech you couldnt get a revolution going.IRONCHEF wrote:
i think what many people are failing to understand is how the loss of these rights would play out in reality. For example, systray's suggestion that he'd prefer to be armed so as to redeem his lost free speech. but in reality, he'd never be able to assemble to take back his right because media outlets would not be able to indicate to the populous that there is an uprising. Instead, you'd be watching your information tube feed you things like "the government is your friend, your speech is "protected" from those that would abuse it!, and underlying tones would suggest that all is well, bearing arms is still there! freedom from illegal search and seizure is still there..etc.SysTray wrote:
I'd take the right to bear Arms so I could overthrow the government that took my free speech away. (or at least try to overthrow it...I'd need help obviously)
I'm imagining Nazi era germany where Nazi propaganda ruled the information flow and people were armed, yet they could not supress this government and retake their free speech.
So it seems that unless you're going to storm the government with you and your neighbors..instead of a mass populous of informed and angered constitution lovers....you'll meet with dissapointment.
However, if you don't have weapons, but you have free speech, you can beat the machine, rally necessary support to redeem your lost arms rights, and you have the power of propaganda in your favor.
I don't know..the pen is mightier than the sword here folks. But hey, that's my opinion! Don't shoot me or curse at me (yep, i've taken away both your rights! muahahahahaaa!).
You don't need the government to broadcast messages. It's 2006.
Does everyone really think the entire U.S military would fight its citizens? Even if a portion did, doesn't anyone believe that units will go rogue with U.S equipment? The bottom line to this whole debate is that the government should always fear the people. That's all there is to it. There's nothing to fear about a bunch of yapping jaws. There is something to fear about a bunch of guns, in the hands of people who want to yap their jaws.