"Assault Weapons" Confiscation Turn Violent in Boston - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Stompy · 07-13-2004, 07:45 AM

This makes me realize... it's so pointless to have guns at this point in time.

Let's just say that the govt decided to do something that sparked a revolution of sorts... do you HONESTLY think that those bearing arms will stand a chance against this military?

This govt doesn't fear its citizens, and it certainly doesn't fear any weapons they have.

Very interesting.

Lebell · 07-13-2004, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stompy
This makes me realize... it's so pointless to have guns at this point in time.

Let's just say that the govt decided to do something that sparked a revolution of sorts... do you HONESTLY think that those bearing arms will stand a chance against this military?

This govt doesn't fear its citizens, and it certainly doesn't fear any weapons they have.

Very interesting.

Honestly?

Yes.

As to the govt. fearing guns in the hands of citizens, then why is private gun ownership heavily restricted in other countries, especially dictatorships?

Why was it heavily restricted in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and communist Cambodia?

As Mao once said, power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Zeld2.0 · 07-13-2004, 10:58 AM

Honestly? Yes but only if we have the support of a part of the military itself.

It's true that guns were restricted in dictator countries such as Nazi Germany and Sovit Russia and other nations.

But at the same time, take a look at how far technology has come since then.

Movements are tracked with satellites. You can't hide in buildings with modern surveillance and thermal imaging as just one example.

Guns versus modern armor? Planes? A flight of B-52s could level cities if they wanted to with carpet bombing. Don't even get started on nukes.

Again which is why I would say it is hard to overthrow a government in modern times against a modern army (the best, no-less) unless the people in the military themselves were on the revolutionaries' side.

If you are simply fighting police agencies (local police, FBI, ATF, etc.) it's far more effective than trying to take on the 1st division or the airborne.

Lebell · 07-13-2004, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Again which is why I would say it is hard to overthrow a government in modern times against a modern army (the best, no-less) unless the people in the military themselves were on the revolutionaries' side.

I would agree that this is a sine qua non for a successful revolution, but this has always been the case, in modern times and in olden.

Zeld2.0 · 07-13-2004, 11:10 AM

Well of course because ultimately, a government itself has no power to enforce without a military.

To be honest, I don't think guns are going to affect the national scene as much as the local scene. That's just my stand though - defends your rights from local intrusion more often that it will affect the national government. Its when you have massive support though, then they better watch out!

DelayedReaction · 07-13-2004, 01:04 PM

If all of America's technology is so amazing, why are insurgents so effective in Iraq? Those who hide among a civilian population are extremely hard to root out. The government does not fear it's citizens because it works FOR them, and is a body made up of elected legislators. If the government truly feared its citizens, we would not be armed.

And there is much more to owning a gun than being able to defend against some far-fetched revolution. Were I allowed to (I fucking HATE Maryland's CCW laws!), I would carry a weapon for self defense. Handguns are also extremely fun to shoot, and many people are actively involved in sporting events.

I have a better question; why shouldn't civilians be armed?

Zeld2.0 · 07-13-2004, 01:13 PM

I don't think you can compare a situation in Iraq versus a situation in the United States itself in a hypothetical revolution that will most likely not occur anytime soon. Not to mention that the weapons that are being used is far more than the average American could or would own. (Given that you don't exactly find RPGs, mortars, explosives, AK-47's, etc. out on the streets).

Again I don't want to get into specifics but this is something you have to see with heavy use of military equipment and doctrine.

And I hope that question you're asking isn't directed at me considering I own many handguns and a rifle myself. I'm just saying its not going to be an effective way to stop a military juggernaut.

DelayedReaction · 07-13-2004, 06:58 PM

Well, it was more a general question aimed at someone who doesn't believe we should be armed. It was actually directed towards Stompy.

And while the average American doesn't have access to milspec weaponry, I still think the comparison stands. It's extremely hard to root out resistance when it's hidden within a civilian population, no matter how well they're armed.

I also think it's safe to assume that any kind of action that would result in citizens defending themselves from American soldiers would also have soldiers in it that don't want to fire upon civilians. In that context it's entirely plausible that milspec weaponry would be placed in civilian hands.

Again, this is a purely hypothetical situation. But still a fun one to debate.

hrdwareguy · 07-14-2004, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zeld2.0
Not to mention that the weapons that are being used is far more than the average American could or would own. (Given that you don't exactly find RPGs, mortars, explosives, AK-47's, etc. out on the streets).

Not everyone has these thing readily available to them. Some do.

As far as explosives go, these could be manufactured with a large enough degree of safety they could be effective. I'm not talking about building a factory to do it, I'm talking about people doing it in their homes.

Many of those who don't own full auto guns could have theirs converted to full auto relatively easily if the need arose.

Just because these things aren't out on the streets now doesn't mean they couldn't be in a very short amount of time.

ggadgit · 07-14-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Not to mention that the weapons that are being used is far more than the average American could or would own. (Given that you don't exactly find RPGs, mortars, explosives, AK-47's, etc. out on the streets).

Explosives, you have not been around a farm in the Mississippi delta, big business blowing beaver dams.

Ak-47s- there are some out there, and in a full outbreak of fighting more would come.

Anyway a friend of mine hunts Prairie Dogs, what he can do with a hand loaded 220 swift bolt action is scary.

07-13-2004, 07:45 AM	#81 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	This makes me realize... it's so pointless to have guns at this point in time. Let's just say that the govt decided to do something that sparked a revolution of sorts... do you HONESTLY think that those bearing arms will stand a chance against this military? This govt doesn't fear its citizens, and it certainly doesn't fear any weapons they have. Very interesting. __________________ I love lamp.

07-13-2004, 01:04 PM	#86 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	If all of America's technology is so amazing, why are insurgents so effective in Iraq? Those who hide among a civilian population are extremely hard to root out. The government does not fear it's citizens because it works FOR them, and is a body made up of elected legislators. If the government truly feared its citizens, we would not be armed. And there is much more to owning a gun than being able to defend against some far-fetched revolution. Were I allowed to (I fucking HATE Maryland's CCW laws!), I would carry a weapon for self defense. Handguns are also extremely fun to shoot, and many people are actively involved in sporting events. I have a better question; why shouldn't civilians be armed? __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

07-13-2004, 06:58 PM	#88 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	Well, it was more a general question aimed at someone who doesn't believe we should be armed. It was actually directed towards Stompy. And while the average American doesn't have access to milspec weaponry, I still think the comparison stands. It's extremely hard to root out resistance when it's hidden within a civilian population, no matter how well they're armed. I also think it's safe to assume that any kind of action that would result in citizens defending themselves from American soldiers would also have soldiers in it that don't want to fire upon civilians. In that context it's entirely plausible that milspec weaponry would be placed in civilian hands. Again, this is a purely hypothetical situation. But still a fun one to debate. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm. Last edited by DelayedReaction; 07-14-2004 at 07:34 AM..

07-13-2004, 10:58 AM	#83 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Honestly? Yes but only if we have the support of a part of the military itself. It's true that guns were restricted in dictator countries such as Nazi Germany and Sovit Russia and other nations. But at the same time, take a look at how far technology has come since then. Movements are tracked with satellites. You can't hide in buildings with modern surveillance and thermal imaging as just one example. Guns versus modern armor? Planes? A flight of B-52s could level cities if they wanted to with carpet bombing. Don't even get started on nukes. Again which is why I would say it is hard to overthrow a government in modern times against a modern army (the best, no-less) unless the people in the military themselves were on the revolutionaries' side. If you are simply fighting police agencies (local police, FBI, ATF, etc.) it's far more effective than trying to take on the 1st division or the airborne.

07-13-2004, 11:10 AM	#85 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Well of course because ultimately, a government itself has no power to enforce without a military. To be honest, I don't think guns are going to affect the national scene as much as the local scene. That's just my stand though - defends your rights from local intrusion more often that it will affect the national government. Its when you have massive support though, then they better watch out!

07-13-2004, 01:13 PM	#87 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	I don't think you can compare a situation in Iraq versus a situation in the United States itself in a hypothetical revolution that will most likely not occur anytime soon. Not to mention that the weapons that are being used is far more than the average American could or would own. (Given that you don't exactly find RPGs, mortars, explosives, AK-47's, etc. out on the streets). Again I don't want to get into specifics but this is something you have to see with heavy use of military equipment and doctrine. And I hope that question you're asking isn't directed at me considering I own many handguns and a rifle myself. I'm just saying its not going to be an effective way to stop a military juggernaut.