BF2S Forums Brits and Aussies: Citizens or Subjects?

weamo8 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

Iraq

Iraq?



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.

You did not question very well, and Iraq was a joke.  I was trying to shut you up.

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.

Examples aplenty in Africa.

weamo8 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

You did not question very well, and Iraq was a joke.  I was trying to shut you up.

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.

Examples aplenty in Africa.

Yes.  Of unarmed people being slaughtered by their government.

There are more assault weapons per head in your average troubled African state than in the US, so I'd say they're fairly well armed actually. In some parts of Africa you can pick up an AK-47 for $6. For example, almost 80% of the residents of Mogadishu own assault weapons (1 million guns between 1.3 million people).

weamo8 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

Iraq

Iraq?



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.

You did not question very well, and Iraq was a joke.  I was trying to shut you up.

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.

for the love of all things nice and good, pick a damned side. this isn't politics; you can't get away with fence walking here.

If Iraq had been a joke, you probably would have said so in your first post.

there are plenty of cases where it happens. Ireland was mistreated, and armed, and so was the country you call home. India was; not everybody there was Gandhi, South Africa had the problem, Cuba did,  Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Mexico/Texas, France (to the extent that they were in fact violently revolting, if unarmed), England, Scotland, Russia, Serbia, China, Mongolia, Tamerlane's empire, Rome, Greece, the later rules of the Persian Empire, Australia, Viking expansion, Holy Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Ivan The Terrible's Reign (Tzar of Russia), Eygpt, the Assyrian Empire, Libyia, Israel, Italy, need I go on?

if you really think that Africans are for the most part unarmed, you're a blustering, ignorant buffoon.

warlords, insurgents, rebels and the like have a ridiculously easy time of obtaining weapons. its not hard in a country that lacks the infrastructure of the US.

Firearms here are more restricted than the US; there are almost no pistols, SMGs, MGs and assault rifles (though recent police raids have found a few, and by that I mean five or six)...that said, theres a million guns to go round 4 million people.

TBH I'm not too sure what I'd do if the government started rounding up Muslims or any other religious/ethnic group.  It would depend on the circumstances.