Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.Turquoise wrote:
It's nothing personal, but I just don't put much faith in humanity. It's not an American problem, it's a human problem.lowing wrote:
I don't think you give us enough credit, our people are NOT afraid of our govt. in any way shape or form. Any real oppression would be seriously responded to. There is no way in the world our citizens would accept a Saddam style rule. First, he would not have the support of the citizen soldiers AND his ass would be swinging from a light post in no time.
Surely to god, you know that!!!
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 | ||||||
Thanks... I'd be one of the rebels myself, but hopefully, we'll never have to do that anyway.lowing wrote:
Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.Turquoise wrote:
It's nothing personal, but I just don't put much faith in humanity. It's not an American problem, it's a human problem.lowing wrote:
I don't think you give us enough credit, our people are NOT afraid of our govt. in any way shape or form. Any real oppression would be seriously responded to. There is no way in the world our citizens would accept a Saddam style rule. First, he would not have the support of the citizen soldiers AND his ass would be swinging from a light post in no time.
Surely to god, you know that!!!
No worries, as long as our citizens are armed.................see how it all comes full circle?.....Turquoise wrote:
Thanks... I'd be one of the rebels myself, but hopefully, we'll never have to do that anyway.lowing wrote:
Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.Turquoise wrote:
It's nothing personal, but I just don't put much faith in humanity. It's not an American problem, it's a human problem.
Well, as I said... It is a very good thing that we have both rights, but I know which ones we each value more.
That's a common misconception. In such a case, all you might accomplish is shooting a couple of cops before the fist of a totalitarian regime smashes you with better equipment. You and your AK would be better off (and more useful to a rebel cause) fighting a hidden war than going down like a cowboy.lowing wrote:
Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.Turquoise wrote:
It's nothing personal, but I just don't put much faith in humanity. It's not an American problem, it's a human problem.lowing wrote:
I don't think you give us enough credit, our people are NOT afraid of our govt. in any way shape or form. Any real oppression would be seriously responded to. There is no way in the world our citizens would accept a Saddam style rule. First, he would not have the support of the citizen soldiers AND his ass would be swinging from a light post in no time.
Surely to god, you know that!!!
I would take a tank rather than an AK any day.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's a common misconception. In such a case, all you might accomplish is shooting a couple of cops before the fist of a totalitarian regime smashes you with better equipment. You and your AK would be better off (and more useful to a rebel cause) fighting a hidden war than going down like a cowboy.lowing wrote:
Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.Turquoise wrote:
It's nothing personal, but I just don't put much faith in humanity. It's not an American problem, it's a human problem.
Very true...unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's a common misconception. In such a case, all you might accomplish is shooting a couple of cops before the fist of a totalitarian regime smashes you with better equipment. You and your AK would be better off (and more useful to a rebel cause) fighting a hidden war than going down like a cowboy.lowing wrote:
Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.Turquoise wrote:
It's nothing personal, but I just don't put much faith in humanity. It's not an American problem, it's a human problem.
I remember a C.O.P.S. video where a man stole a tank from the Nat'l Guard (CA, I think), and was driving it backwards down a freeway. Eventually, he got hung up on a concrete divider and was shot with a handgun when he opened the hatch. Try for something a bit less conspicuous.Miller wrote:
I would take a tank rather than an AK any day.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's a common misconception. In such a case, all you might accomplish is shooting a couple of cops before the fist of a totalitarian regime smashes you with better equipment. You and your AK would be better off (and more useful to a rebel cause) fighting a hidden war than going down like a cowboy.lowing wrote:
Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.
Maybe, but in America the chances that the tank driver would probably be on my side in the scenario of an opressive govt. such as NK is pretty damn good.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's a common misconception. In such a case, all you might accomplish is shooting a couple of cops before the fist of a totalitarian regime smashes you with better equipment. You and your AK would be better off (and more useful to a rebel cause) fighting a hidden war than going down like a cowboy.lowing wrote:
Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.Turquoise wrote:
It's nothing personal, but I just don't put much faith in humanity. It's not an American problem, it's a human problem.
let us also not forget, it was an army of farmers that defeated the most modern and advanved army in the world back about 225 years ago. Yeah yeah, I know, the damn french were there to.lowing wrote:
Maybe, but in America the chances that the tank driver would probably be on my side in the scenario of an opressive govt. such as NK is pretty damn good.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's a common misconception. In such a case, all you might accomplish is shooting a couple of cops before the fist of a totalitarian regime smashes you with better equipment. You and your AK would be better off (and more useful to a rebel cause) fighting a hidden war than going down like a cowboy.lowing wrote:
Thats ok you can stand behind me and my AK. when the govt. comes to try and take it.
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).
Nope the big factor in this scenario is, the military members are also free thinkers, they are US citizens, they would never stand for, or support a govt. that tried to rule with tyranny like Saddam or Kim. It simply will not happen. I am sure there would be exeptions of course but I would be willing to bet that MOST of our armed forces would never turn against its citizens to support a tyrannical govt. Therefore, no military to enforce your tyranny, no tyranny. I believe this would be the case in America. Look at all the liberal whining and pitching a fit over wire tapping terrorists. What do you think we would do to our govt. if they REALLY tried to come after our us. Our govt. needs to FEAR us, not the other way around.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).
since when????lowing wrote:
Nope the big factor in this scenario is, the military members are also free thinkers......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).
The British circa the American Revolution were more preoccupied with more important land as well. They didn't send their whole army to crush the rebels. India was a primary focus as well as other Eastern interests, because they had much more to offer in terms of trade. I mean really, if you were the Brits, would you position most of your strength toward keeping America, (which at the time had very little of the potential of the land showing) where you'd also later have to spend even more money to push the native americans and french out of the region as well...or secure yourself with already established lands of interest.
It would have been a giant mistake for Britain, considering that they were already tight for money given they'd been fighting a war across the entire world for years, to expend as much time, money, and manpower toward keeping land that at the time had very little potential realized, and a very long and difficult fight ahead of it to expand west.
What would you have done?
It would have been a giant mistake for Britain, considering that they were already tight for money given they'd been fighting a war across the entire world for years, to expend as much time, money, and manpower toward keeping land that at the time had very little potential realized, and a very long and difficult fight ahead of it to expand west.
What would you have done?
Have you ever served?? Actually, have you even left home yet?? I am guessing, no.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
since when????lowing wrote:
Nope the big factor in this scenario is, the military members are also free thinkers......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).
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.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
since when????lowing wrote:
Nope the big factor in this scenario is, the military members are also free thinkers......
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?
Therefore it's freedom of speech that ensures the military can choose whose side to join that will secure the populace from oppression not the citizens right to bear arms.lowing wrote:
Nope the big factor in this scenario is, the military members are also free thinkers, they are US citizens, they would never stand for, or support a govt. that tried to rule with tyranny like Saddam or Kim. It simply will not happen. I am sure there would be exeptions of course but I would be willing to bet that MOST of our armed forces would never turn against its citizens to support a tyrannical govt. Therefore, no military to enforce your tyranny, no tyranny. I believe this would be the case in America. Look at all the liberal whining and pitching a fit over wire tapping terrorists. What do you think we would do to our govt. if they REALLY tried to come after our us. Our govt. needs to FEAR us, not the other way around.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).
Well if the question is asking which we'd rather have under the circumstance that we would not have to defend it, then there's no reason to ask anyways... Everyone's reply would be freedom of speech. I'm just basing my decision on a more realistic scenario. I would rather not have to defend my rights at all, and have the peace of mind that everyone's will remain forever. But like I said, if that's the case, then this isn't even worth asking. That would be a utopia. Free speech may be gone for the moment, but the fact you have weapons is what empowers the people to be able to get that right back. Hell, that's the entire point to the second amendment. More then most of everyone who picked right to bear arms, did so because they felt it was logically sound in that they can gain and defend any rights they want with a populace armed with guns. It's not just about America, it could be any random government.IG-Calibre wrote:
K in this scenario - you can't choose the right to bare arms, and then say we can get free speech because we are armed. By choosing the Guns option you kiss free speech good bye, it is now no longer part of the equation, no longer an option no matter how armed to the teeth you are. Do you understand now? it's a hypothetical situation not a discussion about America or a utopia or whatever. It's a simple choice to be made, guns or free speech - which do you value more? it's as simple as that for the sake of poll.
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!lowing wrote:
Have you ever served?? Actually, have you even left home yet?? I am guessing, no.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
since when????
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?
nice words and right i think ... there are few situation when you have to deal with m%@#$ F%#% that do not understand or accept freedom of speech or the rights so the only option they leave you with its to bear arms. Some people fight with words, other with arms in their hands but the important is that they fight because they want to make difference... I have vote for arms and leave the nice words to othersNot wrote:
Wow, that's a very good question. It's definitely something that can't be answered simply in my opinion. Of course my natural knee-jerk reaction is to say freedom of speech. However, in order to protect any other rights we have, what good does freedom of speech really do? Of course you'd be free to tell people how you really felt, but if you're under the thumb of a new militant regime who'd just as soon shoot you as change their policies based on a public demonstration of the people, then what use is it?
I suppose it depends entirely on the current state of affairs for the nation. If it was a situation where politicians actually listened to the people rather than making decisions in the best interests of whomever donated the most campaign money then maybe freedom of speech would be the best choice. However, if the government wouldn't listen to the people in the first place, you may have to force them to listen to something, and gun shots are pretty loud.
Being a bit jaded at the moment, I'm going to vote for the right to bear arms.
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!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?
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.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?
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.Nicholas Langdon wrote:
since when????
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.
The power of speech is much stronger than the power of a gun.
tell ya what, you shoot me with your speech and I will shoot you with my gun, the last one standing wins.liquix wrote:
The power of speech is much stronger than the power of a gun.