When did I say it would be a better option? And are you gonna answer my questions or do I have to put you on ignore?
You wanna have a dialogue but you don't wanna defend your POV... typical
Piers Owned Again by Ben Shapiro: Thursday, 1-10-13
- Thread starter Prince.Skeletor
- Start date
You wanna have a dialogue but you don't wanna defend your POV... typical
If this ever happened the army would splinter into pro gov and pro people. People would be trained by the splinter sects of the army to fight pro gov forces just like revolutions in any other country. Its more of a matter of foreign allies and who controls supply lines and whos willing to get the gulliest. Think the society in the Hunger Games. The people living in the big house in a revolutionary scenario would have been the pro gov forces and the people who were participants in the hunger games were the people who lost. 
Choose wisely. Be a fakkit in heaven or a real Nagga living in squalor selling buttons for food.
Choose wisely. Be a fakkit in heaven or a real Nagga living in squalor selling buttons for food.
if obama pushes through his "executive order" will you support it?
this is the issue for me..
Executive Order power was never established as a means of setting national policy or major issues of law/regulation.
That's the tool of a tyrant not an elected leader.
Those were meant to give the President a means to handle housekeeping issues or matters outside the usual duties of Congress. Obama has used few compared to past Presidents but he's using them in a way past ones haven't generally dared attempt getting away with.
He isn't even inagurated to his second term and already he's making fr threats about going around Congress (The point HE uses for EO power) and doing things unilaterally. I thought we elected a President, not a King. Enough with the Royal Decrees. If he can't get it done INSIDE THE SYSTEM it probably means on a given issue, not enough of this nation agree with him to get it done. That isn't a problem. That's HOW IT'S SUPPOSED to work.
this is the issue for me..
Executive Order power was never established as a means of setting national policy or major issues of law/regulation.
That's the tool of a tyrant not an elected leader.
Those were meant to give the President a means to handle housekeeping issues or matters outside the usual duties of Congress. Obama has used few compared to past Presidents but he's using them in a way past ones haven't generally dared attempt getting away with.
He isn't even inagurated to his second term and already he's making fr threats about going around Congress (The point HE uses for EO power) and doing things unilaterally. I thought we elected a President, not a King. Enough with the Royal Decrees. If he can't get it done INSIDE THE SYSTEM it probably means on a given issue, not enough of this nation agree with him to get it done. That isn't a problem. That's HOW IT'S SUPPOSED to work.
what plays into my thinking is the last 3 major american wars of vietnam, iraq and afghanistan. in all 3 cases the americans military superiority didnt mean anything and the americans with their military superiority were pushed back by what is essentially civilians with guns
i think you have to be retarded to say that armed civilians are not a threat, what rock have you been hiding under?
The crazy white people prompting these discussions never go for targets that can defend themselves... people in a movie theater, 1st graders... no, those folks wont attack an army, literally everytime the cops show up these folks kill themselves
But never mind the fact that your strawman... never said we do or dont need gun control
Now whose peddling bullshyt
yeah the actual crazy people, crazy people arent that dangerous in the big scheme of things
but attacking soft targets is how the superior americans got pushed back in other countries
Those countries had home court advantage and the support of their govts
American people would have neither
And im not sure id put a Vietcong guerrilla or Taliban suicide bomber on the same footing of softness as an unarmed 6 year old
That's just me though maybe i'm off base there
Sent from handheld Minority Report console
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 42,423
- Reputation
- 3,805
- Daps
- 152,087
- Reppin
- black love, unity, and music
If you have ever cared to read history you would realize that nearly all the great tyrannical governments fell due to the army refusing to commit atrocities against its own people. From the final days of the Tsar's reign in Russia, to the end of Mubarak's regime in Egypt, tyrannical governments are only as strong as the army that enforces its laws.
Tell that to the us citizens killed by the military
Tell that to the Syrians who died at the hands of their presidents agents
Not to mention, if it's a given that the military will fight for us, why do we need the right to near arms?
Sent from handheld Minority Report console
what exactly are you smoking? how would american civilians not have homecourt advantage??? neither the vietcong, iraqis or taliban have the backing of their government or their previous government no longer existed, your facts are just point blank wrong
and i dont know what information you have been reading, but insurgents in iraq and afghanistan always run when they are confronted, their strategy was not to confront the americna soldiers and simply hit soft weak targets
this notion that insurgents are fierce warriors that forced american back is not correct, what happened is that the insurgents had the support of the civilian population and they never had to really confront american soldiers, so the american strategy is to try to get civilians on their side, firepower is not going to win the war in that situation
what the fuk do you read ^^^^^^ all this is standard stuff if you read anything about the iraq and afghan wars, its well understood that military force cannot win over a population in those types of situations and an army cannot win without the backing of civilians
what on earth does an unarmed 6 year have to do with anything? are you saying the american civilians are made up of unarmed 6 year olds?
are you retarded? what us citizens are you referring to that have been killed by the us military
and the syrian government is about to fall dumb fuk, as anybody that doesnt live under a rock knows
The Vietcong was a governing organization as much as it was a military force. So was the Taliban. And their home court advantage comes from knowing tactics and terrain that are unfamiliar to the invading force. A jungle or a desert or caves are all different from middle America, which is not anything close to unfamiliar terrain in the sense of those former environments. A middle American with a little firearms training is nothing like a Viet Cong or Taliban guerilla, and knows little that is unfamiliar to the American military, besides being less trained.
No, they don't always run when confronted. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. They run when confronted in a context where they don't have a distinct advantage, like open fighting on flat terrain. That is only one of the contexts of battle, though. Their purpose is the same as the purpose of any army- to destroy and demoralize their opponents until they give up. They just choose their terms of engagement carefully. When you're fighting at a technological disadvantage, among others, those tactics are essential.
They are fierce. The implication that they are not real opponents is very misguided.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
@The Real
You make good points, but you are forgetting several points:
-A military firing on its own people en masse leads to dissent among the ranks. Recent history has shown us this.
-Conducting a large counter-insurgency in America isn't a walk in the park. If the civilians are behind the "rebels", it is much easier to blend in and out.
-The amount of people who armed on this country form an extremely large infantry force. Might actually be one of the biggest standing armies on the planet. You are assuming that it would be difficult to get this group organized, but again, recent history has shown this not to be true.
-A rebellion in this country would see many countries jumping at the chance to fund and support such a movement. A lot of countries feel the US government does not represent the interests and wellbeing of its citizens, and mingles in too many affairs around the world. They would jump at the chance to destabilize the world's only super power.
You make good points, but you are forgetting several points:
-A military firing on its own people en masse leads to dissent among the ranks. Recent history has shown us this.
-Conducting a large counter-insurgency in America isn't a walk in the park. If the civilians are behind the "rebels", it is much easier to blend in and out.
-The amount of people who armed on this country form an extremely large infantry force. Might actually be one of the biggest standing armies on the planet. You are assuming that it would be difficult to get this group organized, but again, recent history has shown this not to be true.
-A rebellion in this country would see many countries jumping at the chance to fund and support such a movement. A lot of countries feel the US government does not represent the interests and wellbeing of its citizens, and mingles in too many affairs around the world. They would jump at the chance to destabilize the world's only super power.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Before I respond, let me clarify that I'm not using my skepticism of the possibility of civilian war against the government as grounds for gun control- I actually prefer to approach the issue from a different angle. I do, however, want to complicate TWISM's idealistic scenario where the armed citizenry can crush the government in a war scenario.
True, but which civilians, and where? I don't think it would present nearly as much of a problem as TWISM's chosen comparative scenarios in Vietnam and Afghanistan, for the same reasons I cited in my earlier post. Gun ownership rates are much higher in suburbs and rural areas than cities. Rural areas support yoru argument, I think, but not suburbs, which are more populated than rural areas but also don't present any kind of major problem for an invading military.
See my last point about the location of guns in the US. Also, I am assuming this group would be difficult to organize. Americans just rarely protest like our counterparts across the rest of the world. Our whole culture of dissent has been watered down like crazy. Remember what a shock 9/11 was to the collective consciousness of this country? We just aren't used to shyt popping off like that.
Which countries do you think would do this?
This is a very good point, but I think it leads to another problem- is the military more likely to act on this moral urge when their targets aren't actively trying to kill them? I would say yes. I think having an actively violent adversary helps to dull that empathy, especially in smaller combat scenarios where people are just fighting for their lives.
True, but which civilians, and where? I don't think it would present nearly as much of a problem as TWISM's chosen comparative scenarios in Vietnam and Afghanistan, for the same reasons I cited in my earlier post. Gun ownership rates are much higher in suburbs and rural areas than cities. Rural areas support yoru argument, I think, but not suburbs, which are more populated than rural areas but also don't present any kind of major problem for an invading military.
See my last point about the location of guns in the US. Also, I am assuming this group would be difficult to organize. Americans just rarely protest like our counterparts across the rest of the world. Our whole culture of dissent has been watered down like crazy. Remember what a shock 9/11 was to the collective consciousness of this country? We just aren't used to shyt popping off like that.
Which countries do you think would do this?