Write an argument worthy of a response and I'll refute it. I've made my points clear and you haven't listened. I'm not going to go round and round in circles with you because it's as futile as arguing with creationists.weamo8 wrote:
That is quite a come-back. Dont refute any arguments, or point out flawed logic. Just assume that your opinion is right, and that I am an idiot. That is such a strong argument.Bertster7 wrote:
You deluded paranoid types do make me laugh. You really don't seem to know what you're talking about.
Civilian resisitance would be futile. It would be impossible for armed civilians to rise up and ovethrow the government. It is more likely, in a country like the UK, that unarmed civilians could overthrow the government. Peaceful protest would work far better.That especially made me laugh.weamo8 wrote:
Those who know absolutly nothing about history are doomed to repeat it.
Read a different book Bertster.
I mention I'm reading a book about history and you make a statement like that. An interesting response.
Your entire argument on this subject also suggests you either don't know much, or don't understand about "history".
I will take recorded "history" over your "confused pothead" opinions any day.
btw, read what I wrote before you act like I am paranoid. I have stated several times that such an occurance will probably not happen in our life times, but I think it is a little naive to assume that they will never happen again.
Bertster, write an argument worthy of a response and I'll refute it. I've made my points clear and you haven't listened. I'm not going to go round and round in circles with you because it's as futile as arguing with creationists.
(Great come-back. I thought I would use it myself.)
(Great come-back. I thought I would use it myself.)
enough personal insults, thank you very much. and i mean from both sides. this is supposed to be mature debate. if you want to exchange personal insults, then at least keep it out of debates that are supposed to be civilised. now, is there anyone with a reply against my points regarding the general sucess of armed and unarmed rebellions?
I'm sorry but I consider this an extremely poor point of arguement. it is more of an "exuse" to bear arms rather than a reason.
Inside a country a ballot is far more effective than a bullet.
There are many, many good arguements for the ownership of firearms. This one isn't one of them.
Inside a country a ballot is far more effective than a bullet.
There are many, many good arguements for the ownership of firearms. This one isn't one of them.
I've played Dead Rising, so as long as I get to a shopping centre I'll be able to defend myself with anything from a skateboard to a lawnmower!
Stealth City? Yo Bullet Tooth where is that? Just wondering where I can find you so I can steal your 360. I want one?
American values are wack.
I choose life.
I choose life.
My state was founded by Batman. Your opinion is invalid.
Im at Uni, but feel free to break into my house where my bro has stolen the 360 from me.ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
Stealth City? Yo Bullet Tooth where is that? Just wondering where I can find you so I can steal your 360. I want one?
It is hard to say. The first thing that popped into my mind was Tienamen Square in China. Hundreds of thousands of people in a peaceful protest did not make it far. Would they have made it further if they were armed? Who knows?samfink wrote:
enough personal insults, thank you very much. and i mean from both sides. this is supposed to be mature debate. if you want to exchange personal insults, then at least keep it out of debates that are supposed to be civilised. now, is there anyone with a reply against my points regarding the general sucess of armed and unarmed rebellions?
In the U.S., Martin Luther King Jr. is often credited with much of the Civil Rights movement. Luther, and the Million man March forced some legal action such as Brown v. The Board of Education and desegregation, but none were enforced. Not until Blacks started to really fight back and riot and kill people. Some attribute that to Malcolm X. I dont know about that, but I can certainly think of more action that came from violence than peace. It is unfortunate, but I think very true.
Only if you are part of the majority, and not always then.ShowMeTheMonkey wrote:
I'm sorry but I consider this an extremely poor point of arguement. it is more of an "exuse" to bear arms rather than a reason.
Inside a country a ballot is far more effective than a bullet.
There are many, many good arguements for the ownership of firearms. This one isn't one of them.
This is not my argument anyways. Why is everyone trying to read into what I said instead of taking what I said at face value? Why is everyone so sensitive?
wack? Wurd dog.Cheez wrote:
American values are wack.
I choose life.
Absolutely. I sort of already did though....samfink wrote:
enough personal insults, thank you very much. and i mean from both sides. this is supposed to be mature debate. if you want to exchange personal insults, then at least keep it out of debates that are supposed to be civilised. now, is there anyone with a reply against my points regarding the general sucess of armed and unarmed rebellions?
There has not been a successfull armed revolution in the past century against a modern military force. Civilians armed with rifles etc. cannot stand up against an army equiped with modern tanks and air support etc. It is due to this disparity of power between civilians and military forces in the modern age which makes examples from anything other than recent history almost completely irrelevant (although there have been armed revolts in recent history, but not against properly equiped military forces).
Examples of peaceful protest have been seen to work on many occasions in nations with powerful military forces. Cam mentioned the failled coup in Venezuela and I've already mentioned the Orange revolution in the Ukraine. There are many more similar examples, Paris '68 showed how a modern government can be crippled by peaceful protest.
Peaceful protests and general strikes would be the only sensible way to deal with a despot or corrupt government. Armed rebellion would not help the cause and would be crushed. Having soldiers killed by rebels would just strengthen the resolve of the military and would be counter productive.
In Tiananmen square tanks were deployed.weamo8 wrote:
It is hard to say. The first thing that popped into my mind was Tienamen Square in China. Hundreds of thousands of people in a peaceful protest did not make it far. Would they have made it further if they were armed? Who knows?samfink wrote:
enough personal insults, thank you very much. and i mean from both sides. this is supposed to be mature debate. if you want to exchange personal insults, then at least keep it out of debates that are supposed to be civilised. now, is there anyone with a reply against my points regarding the general sucess of armed and unarmed rebellions?
What are armed protestors going to do against tanks?
Or do they let people buy anti tank rockets in the US?
This is completely inaccurate and unsubstantiated. The only correct statement in your paragraph is "Martin Luther King Jr. is often credited with much of the Civil Rights movement."weamo8 wrote:
It is hard to say. The first thing that popped into my mind was Tienamen Square in China. Hundreds of thousands of people in a peaceful protest did not make it far. Would they have made it further if they were armed? Who knows?samfink wrote:
enough personal insults, thank you very much. and i mean from both sides. this is supposed to be mature debate. if you want to exchange personal insults, then at least keep it out of debates that are supposed to be civilised. now, is there anyone with a reply against my points regarding the general sucess of armed and unarmed rebellions?
In the U.S., Martin Luther King Jr. is often credited with much of the Civil Rights movement. Luther, and the Million man March forced some legal action such as Brown v. The Board of Education and desegregation, but none were enforced. Not until Blacks started to really fight back and riot and kill people. Some attribute that to Malcolm X. I dont know about that, but I can certainly think of more action that came from violence than peace. It is unfortunate, but I think very true.
Barricades, destruction to roads and bridges, etc. I'm sure there's plenty of RPGs out in the cities of America, and even then it's not like homemade explosives can't be fabricated. Don't forget the Chinese protesters were in an open square; rolling tanks into the middle of an urban center would be a more difficult task.What are armed protestors going to do against tanks?
Or do they let people buy anti tank rockets in the US?
Last edited by UGADawgs (2007-03-05 15:34:09)
Do you know how many people were killed by tanks? None.Bertster7 wrote:
In Tiananmen square tanks were deployed.weamo8 wrote:
It is hard to say. The first thing that popped into my mind was Tienamen Square in China. Hundreds of thousands of people in a peaceful protest did not make it far. Would they have made it further if they were armed? Who knows?samfink wrote:
enough personal insults, thank you very much. and i mean from both sides. this is supposed to be mature debate. if you want to exchange personal insults, then at least keep it out of debates that are supposed to be civilised. now, is there anyone with a reply against my points regarding the general sucess of armed and unarmed rebellions?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … square.jpg
What are armed protestors going to do against tanks?
Or do they let people buy anti tank rockets in the US?
Do you know how many people were killed by riot cops and soldiers? No one does. Estimates go from 500 - 50,000.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, none of them leveled their own countries, and sent tanks to drop buildings. Police were sent to round people up and kill them, or millions of people were starved to death with no way of revolt.
They don't pull a tank up to your apartment door, or carpet bomb your neighborhood.
Millions and millions of people have died all around the world in peaceful protest. It is called curl up in the corner of your hut and starve to death, because you have no other options. I want to see a government starve 50 million armed citizens. I think Mao would have had his hands full.
Now you are going to come back and argue that you will never starve to death because you don't have a potato garden in you back yard, but you are completely missing the point.
I thought the majority of the French revolution was by unarmed mobs (the storming of the Bastille etc.). They only armed themselves to counter the subsequent invasion by the rest of Europe, and by then the military was largely fighting on their behalf.CameronPoe wrote:
On the other hand though: armed rebellion worked in Ireland, France, America, Cuba, etc. Don't discount it.
That's because they don't have to.weamo8 wrote:
Do you know how many people were killed by tanks? None.Bertster7 wrote:
In Tiananmen square tanks were deployed.weamo8 wrote:
It is hard to say. The first thing that popped into my mind was Tienamen Square in China. Hundreds of thousands of people in a peaceful protest did not make it far. Would they have made it further if they were armed? Who knows?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … square.jpg
What are armed protestors going to do against tanks?
Or do they let people buy anti tank rockets in the US?
Do you know how many people were killed by riot cops and soldiers? No one does. Estimates go from 500 - 50,000.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, none of them leveled their own countries, and sent tanks to drop buildings. Police were sent to round people up and kill them, or millions of people were starved to death with no way of revolt.
They don't pull a tank up to your apartment door, or carpet bomb your neighborhood.
Millions and millions of people have died all around the world in peaceful protest. It is called curl up in the corner of your hut and starve to death, because you have no other options. I want to see a government starve 50 million armed citizens. I think Mao would have had his hands full.
Now you are going to come back and argue that you will never starve to death because you don't have a potato garden in you back yard, but you are completely missing the point.
The Israelis do it.
If you can show me an example of a civilian force standing upto a well equiped modern army successfully, I'll shut up. Till then I'm sticking with the stance that it is impossible.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-05 15:37:24)
But any armed militia these days would be horribly crushed by a well trained military force. It'd slow the government down, but the civilian losses would be horrific.weamo8 wrote:
Do you know how many people were killed by tanks? None.Bertster7 wrote:
In Tiananmen square tanks were deployed.weamo8 wrote:
It is hard to say. The first thing that popped into my mind was Tienamen Square in China. Hundreds of thousands of people in a peaceful protest did not make it far. Would they have made it further if they were armed? Who knows?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … square.jpg
What are armed protestors going to do against tanks?
Or do they let people buy anti tank rockets in the US?
Do you know how many people were killed by riot cops and soldiers? No one does. Estimates go from 500 - 50,000.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, none of them leveled their own countries, and sent tanks to drop buildings. Police were sent to round people up and kill them, or millions of people were starved to death with no way of revolt.
They don't pull a tank up to your apartment door, or carpet bomb your neighborhood.
Millions and millions of people have died all around the world in peaceful protest. It is called curl up in the corner of your hut and starve to death, because you have no other options. I want to see a government starve 50 million armed citizens. I think Mao would have had his hands full.
Now you are going to come back and argue that you will never starve to death because you don't have a potato garden in you back yard, but you are completely missing the point.
As I've said many times before. at the beginning of WWII there was no European country outside Germany that had a firearms ban on anything smaller than a fully automatic machine guns and the Germans creamed most of Europe, armed civilians or not. It's a fine example of how armed civilians can at best hope to be a pain for a military occupier, but victory is incredibly unlikely and will entail vast casualties.
That is a very good point.PureFodder wrote:
I thought the majority of the French revolution was by unarmed mobs (the storming of the Bastille etc.). They only armed themselves to counter the subsequent invasion by the rest of Europe, and by then the military was largely fighting on their behalf.CameronPoe wrote:
On the other hand though: armed rebellion worked in Ireland, France, America, Cuba, etc. Don't discount it.
Another very good point.PureFodder wrote:
But any armed militia these days would be horribly crushed by a well trained military force. It'd slow the government down, but the civilian losses would be horrific.
As I've said many times before. at the beginning of WWII there was no European country outside Germany that had a firearms ban on anything smaller than a fully automatic machine guns and the Germans creamed most of Europe, armed civilians or not. It's a fine example of how armed civilians can at best hope to be a pain for a military occupier, but victory is incredibly unlikely and will entail vast casualties.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-05 15:41:11)
On the other hand, don't forget that armed resistance in occupied Europe was vital to the Allied effort through sabotage and intelligence. Like I said before, armed resistance itself may not defeat a conventional army, but it can distract an army from outside forces.PureFodder wrote:
But any armed militia these days would be horribly crushed by a well trained military force. It'd slow the government down, but the civilian losses would be horrific.weamo8 wrote:
Do you know how many people were killed by tanks? None.Bertster7 wrote:
In Tiananmen square tanks were deployed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … square.jpg
What are armed protestors going to do against tanks?
Or do they let people buy anti tank rockets in the US?
Do you know how many people were killed by riot cops and soldiers? No one does. Estimates go from 500 - 50,000.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, none of them leveled their own countries, and sent tanks to drop buildings. Police were sent to round people up and kill them, or millions of people were starved to death with no way of revolt.
They don't pull a tank up to your apartment door, or carpet bomb your neighborhood.
Millions and millions of people have died all around the world in peaceful protest. It is called curl up in the corner of your hut and starve to death, because you have no other options. I want to see a government starve 50 million armed citizens. I think Mao would have had his hands full.
Now you are going to come back and argue that you will never starve to death because you don't have a potato garden in you back yard, but you are completely missing the point.
As I've said many times before. at the beginning of WWII there was no European country outside Germany that had a firearms ban on anything smaller than a fully automatic machine guns and the Germans creamed most of Europe, armed civilians or not. It's a fine example of how armed civilians can at best hope to be a pain for a military occupier, but victory is incredibly unlikely and will entail vast casualties.
IraqBertster7 wrote:
That's because they don't have to.weamo8 wrote:
Do you know how many people were killed by tanks? None.Bertster7 wrote:
In Tiananmen square tanks were deployed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … square.jpg
What are armed protestors going to do against tanks?
Or do they let people buy anti tank rockets in the US?
Do you know how many people were killed by riot cops and soldiers? No one does. Estimates go from 500 - 50,000.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, none of them leveled their own countries, and sent tanks to drop buildings. Police were sent to round people up and kill them, or millions of people were starved to death with no way of revolt.
They don't pull a tank up to your apartment door, or carpet bomb your neighborhood.
Millions and millions of people have died all around the world in peaceful protest. It is called curl up in the corner of your hut and starve to death, because you have no other options. I want to see a government starve 50 million armed citizens. I think Mao would have had his hands full.
Now you are going to come back and argue that you will never starve to death because you don't have a potato garden in you back yard, but you are completely missing the point.
The Israelis do it.
If you can show me an example of a civilian force standing upto a well equiped modern army successfully, I'll shut up. Till then I'm sticking with the stance that it is impossible.
Iraq?weamo8 wrote:
IraqBertster7 wrote:
That's because they don't have to.weamo8 wrote:
Do you know how many people were killed by tanks? None.
Do you know how many people were killed by riot cops and soldiers? No one does. Estimates go from 500 - 50,000.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, none of them leveled their own countries, and sent tanks to drop buildings. Police were sent to round people up and kill them, or millions of people were starved to death with no way of revolt.
They don't pull a tank up to your apartment door, or carpet bomb your neighborhood.
Millions and millions of people have died all around the world in peaceful protest. It is called curl up in the corner of your hut and starve to death, because you have no other options. I want to see a government starve 50 million armed citizens. I think Mao would have had his hands full.
Now you are going to come back and argue that you will never starve to death because you don't have a potato garden in you back yard, but you are completely missing the point.
The Israelis do it.
If you can show me an example of a civilian force standing upto a well equiped modern army successfully, I'll shut up. Till then I'm sticking with the stance that it is impossible.
I must have missed the insurgents overpowering the American forces and expelling them from Iraq before they seized control of the country.
That is not revolution.
I admit I didn't word my question very well, but Iraq is not a valid example. Hezbollah in Lebannon would have been a better example along similar lines, but is still far from being a valid example - relevant, yes, but not valid. It shows the limited success that poorly armed resistance can have against powerful militaries using guerilla tactics. Guerilla tactics against an indigenous force don't work at their best. Guerilla tactics work best against an occupying force, where they can make it too costly for the force to remain there.
In any case, in both Iraq and Lebannon the weapons used by insurgents/guerillas have been provided by an outside nation and so the relevance to private gun ownership preventing governmental oppression is tenuous at best.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-03-05 15:53:31)
only thing is, back then there weren't tanks, aircraft, or iron boats (excluding cuba and ireland). it has become exceedingly difficult to rebel because of these inventions, especially in a place like the US, where anti-armor weaponry is near nonexistant, and completely concentrated in the hands of the government.CameronPoe wrote:
Yeah - during the CIA-backed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela the people demonstrated largely peacefully in great numbers outside the presidential palace and other important governmental buildings and the army were forced in the end to swap sides back to Chavez. People power in action.samfink wrote:
armed rebellions historically have usually been crushed. unarmed rebellions, however, have usually succeeded, even whne firepower is brought to bear on the rebellion. and remember, soldiers have conscience. firing on unarmed civillians who are protesting against their government, with no associated carbombings/suicide bombings/etc would quite possibly cause the military to decide to join the ranks of the protestors, and then a despotic ruler is really f**ked. as then, his miltary, which he/she has built up to the point where they can easily kill anyoen, is trying to kill them. do you know how many despots have been overthrown by their own forces turning against them?
On the other hand though: armed rebellion worked in Ireland, France, America, Cuba, etc. Don't discount it.
if our theoretical despot was worth his weight in feathers, the first thing he would do is subsidize military weaponry production and completely lock down the border, utterly and completely crushing any true hope at rebellion.
of course, if our military has any shred of humanity, they'd more or less overthrow this guy, because in this day and age there are few racial or political beliefs to exploit, and certainly nothing on as large a scale as the massive depression germany was going through following WWI and reparations and whatnot.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
anyways, weamo, this should have been a poll in the junk drawer, because you seem unable to accurately state and defend your position, and refuse to debate it.
one doesn't need to answer with the options you provided, seeing as this is a debate.
saying that its nonissue is a perfectly acceptable answer to your question.
because you refuse to see it as such is not our fault, its yours.
An excellent point.UGADawgs wrote:
On the other hand, don't forget that armed resistance in occupied Europe was vital to the Allied effort through sabotage and intelligence. Like I said before, armed resistance itself may not defeat a conventional army, but it can distract an army from outside forces.PureFodder wrote:
But any armed militia these days would be horribly crushed by a well trained military force. It'd slow the government down, but the civilian losses would be horrific.weamo8 wrote:
Do you know how many people were killed by tanks? None.
Do you know how many people were killed by riot cops and soldiers? No one does. Estimates go from 500 - 50,000.
Hitler, Mao, Stalin, none of them leveled their own countries, and sent tanks to drop buildings. Police were sent to round people up and kill them, or millions of people were starved to death with no way of revolt.
They don't pull a tank up to your apartment door, or carpet bomb your neighborhood.
Millions and millions of people have died all around the world in peaceful protest. It is called curl up in the corner of your hut and starve to death, because you have no other options. I want to see a government starve 50 million armed citizens. I think Mao would have had his hands full.
Now you are going to come back and argue that you will never starve to death because you don't have a potato garden in you back yard, but you are completely missing the point.
As I've said many times before. at the beginning of WWII there was no European country outside Germany that had a firearms ban on anything smaller than a fully automatic machine guns and the Germans creamed most of Europe, armed civilians or not. It's a fine example of how armed civilians can at best hope to be a pain for a military occupier, but victory is incredibly unlikely and will entail vast casualties.
Although the intelligence aspect doesn't really rely on armed civilians.
Sabotage doesn't require people to be armed either. Bombs aren't that hard to make.
Nor did armed resistance work very well in Spain against Franco.
You did not question very well, and Iraq was a joke. I was trying to shut you up.Bertster7 wrote:
Iraq?weamo8 wrote:
IraqBertster7 wrote:
That's because they don't have to.
The Israelis do it.
If you can show me an example of a civilian force standing upto a well equiped modern army successfully, I'll shut up. Till then I'm sticking with the stance that it is impossible.
I must have missed the insurgents overpowering the American forces and expelling them from Iraq before they seized control of the country.
That is not revolution.
I admit I didn't word my question very well, but Iraq is not a valid example. Hezbollah in Lebannon would have been a better example along similar lines, but is still far from being a valid example - relevant, yes, but not valid. It shows the limited success that poorly armed resistance can have against powerful militaries using guerilla tactics. Guerilla tactics against an indigenous force don't work at their best. Guerilla tactics work best against an occupying force, where they can make it too costly for the force to remain there.
In any case, in both Iraq and Lebannon the weapons used by insurgents/guerillas have been provided by an outside nation and so the relevance to private gun ownership preventing governmental oppression is tenuous at best.
However, maybe you dont realize it, but you kind of just made my entire point.
Why are there no cases where governments gravely mistreat an armed populace? Because governments don't mistreat an armed populace. In such a situation they can not win. They either have to level their entire country, or fight an overwhelming number of armed civilians.
Give me an example of and well-armed populace that had to revolt.
I have given you several examples of unarmed populaces that were murdered by their own government.