They are taking our guns away !

IHateGovernment said:
I can tell you of an uprising against a totalitarian regime that was sucessful. The rise of the Taliban.
Click to expand...

Bad example.

The taliban rose up against an afghan government that was run by communists and warlords. And they replaced it with a brutal theocracy.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.
 
Damocles said:
I can, however buying a propane tanker, or attempting to find out where one is going is going to attract far more attention than buying fertilizer.

My point: These people have had these guns, even while they made plans with poop. There was a reason they chose the poop. First it was their best chance at improvising a device to hit a specific target without being noticed, second a good-sized fertilizer bomb is far more efficient than any gun at all, anywhere.

Those who would buy these weapons have the knowledge to improvise those devices. They do so. Those who go nuts with guns don't have that type of knowledge and access to that kind of weapon.

So... The idea that we should use the "they may go crazy" reason to ban the weapon is what I object to. They may go crazy, so we need to ban poop, not this weapon.

There can be many reasons for banning it, but not the emotive "They might go crazy" reason. It isn't logical. When people who own that type of weapon go crazy they go for far more damage and for specific targets that provoked their particular insanity.
Click to expand...
It's not that people "may go crazy" it's that they do. Every year. With rifles.
 
Also passive resistance espoused by MLK and Gandhi are only effective against democracies. They would not have suceeded against a totalitarian government that does not have to answer to the cries of the people.
 
In modern history IHG, people with guns who rise up against a government, rarely have democracy and fairness on their mind.

Do you think those survivialist guys who play militia on the weekends in Idaho, really have "democracy" on their minds?
 
OrnotBitwise said:
It's not that people "may go crazy" it's that they do. Every year. With rifles.
Click to expand...
Not with these ones. You keep not addressing what I have been saying.

You think the survivalist who would buy this type of weapon would go crazy with it. However they have owned them in the past and chose a more efficient means of expressing their "insanity".

So, I will say again, promoting the idea we should ban this particular weapon because of that is ignoring past evidence that it would save far more lives to ban poop than this weapon.
 
Bad example.

The taliban rose up against an afghan government that was run by communists and warlords. And they replaced it with a brutal theocracy.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Not its not. The Taliban fought for a new ideology they fought Communism to restore a nation that was founded on Islam. In Afghanistan this is the local popular ideology they would fight and die for. In a nation like the US it would be fought to restore Democracy and liberty. The Taliban consider themselves fighting for freedom as they see that living in accordance with Islam is the means to which man can be free. The only difference is ideology. A violent revolution fought against a dictatorship here would not be fought to bring a different one.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Also passive resistance espoused by MLK and Gandhi are only effective against democracies. They would not have suceeded against a totalitarian government that does not have to answer to the cries of the people.
Click to expand...

India wasn't a democracy. It was under occupation authority.

The eastern european countries freed themselves, without a shot being fired.
 
Cypress said:
A disarmed populace is a pacified populace and encourages tyranny.


Iraq under Saddam, was one of the most heavily armed nations of the planet. Every home had at least an AK47.
Click to expand...

that would support the founding father's reason for arming the general populace for a matitia; heavily armed populace makes it very difficult for an invading army.......
 
IHateGovernment said:
Bad example.

The taliban rose up against an afghan government that was run by communists and warlords. And they replaced it with a brutal theocracy.

Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Not its not. The Taliban fought for a new ideology they fought Communism to restore a nation that was founded on Islam. In Afghanistan this is the local popular ideology they would fight and die for. In a nation like the US it would be fought to restore Democracy and liberty. The Taliban consider themselves fighting for freedom as they see that living in accordance with Islam is the means to which man can be free. The only difference is ideology. A violent revolution fought against a dictatorship here would not be fought to bring a different one.
Click to expand...


I don't accept that replacing a communist warlord regime, with a brutal theocracy, as being a good example of armed people rising up against a government, and replacing it with something good.
 
In modern history IHG, people with guns who rise up against a government, rarely have democracy and fairness on their mind.

Do you think those survivialist guys who play militia on the weekends in Idaho, really have "democracy" on their minds?

Like I said they seek to restore the order brought about by a local ideology. For Americans it is democracy and freedom. Those survivalists have often lamented the usurpation of freedom and democracy in this country they are not arming to bring about a fascist or theocratic regime.
 
India wasn't a democracy. It was under occupation authority.

The eastern european countries freed themselves, without a shot being fired.

But Britain was and the Indians struggle moved hearts and minds in Britain to convince it to give up its empire.
 
The eastern european countries freed themselves, without a shot being fired.

There was not a movement like there was in India in the eastern bloc. With the fall of the USSR many of these govenrments lost their raison detre.
 
IHateGovernment said:
In modern history IHG, people with guns who rise up against a government, rarely have democracy and fairness on their mind.

Do you think those survivialist guys who play militia on the weekends in Idaho, really have "democracy" on their minds?

Like I said they seek to restore the order brought about by a local ideology. For Americans it is democracy and freedom. Those survivalists have often lamented the usurpation of freedom and democracy in this country they are not arming to bring about a fascist or theocratic regime.
Click to expand...

I've seen documentaries on those militia guys. They may quote thomas jefferson from time to time, but at heart I don't see these guys having democracy, fairness on their minds. If these are the guys we're relying on to violently replace an authoritiarian government, God help us.
 
IHateGovernment said:
The eastern european countries freed themselves, without a shot being fired.

There was not a movement like there was in India in the eastern bloc. With the fall of the USSR many of these govenrments lost their raison detre.
Click to expand...


With the fall of the USSR many of these govenrments lost their raison detre


I'm not sure how old you are, or if you remember, but the eastern european countries overthrew their communist regimes BEFORE the USSR fell.
 
first you say that no uprising against a totalitarian government suceeded. Then when I show you one you say it doesn't count because it doesn't fall into the line of what you consider to be an appropriate governmental model.

Those taliban fighters just as the American revolutionaries thought they were fighting for something a better nation to live in. The American revolution could have easily ended up like the French revolution if the personalites of the leaders were different.

Do you mean to tell me that given the American cultrual narrative that freedom fighters in this country fighting against a totalitarian government wouldn't seek to restore freedom and democracy but would instead simply institute more repression and tyranny. I highly doubt it. You must be aware of differences in cultures among nations no?
 
Cypress said:
With the fall of the USSR many of these govenrments lost their raison detre


I'm not sure how old you are, or if you remember, but the eastern european countries overthrew their communist regimes BEFORE the USSR fell.
Click to expand...


IHG,

Don't you remember it was the eastern european Labor Unions, that basically led the way to replacing the eastern european communist regimes? It wasn't militias, or violent demonstrators in the streets. And the rise of the polish labor unions occured when the USSR was still a superpower.
 
I've seen documentaries on those militia guys. They may quote thomas jefferson from time to time, but at heart I don't see these guys having democracy, fairness on their minds. If these are the guys we're relying on to violently replace an authoritiarian government, God help us.

What do you base this on? Is this just a gut feeling?
 
I'm not sure how old you are, or if you remember, but the eastern european countries overthrew their communist regimes BEFORE the USSR fell.

Of course. I meant to say the decline of the USSR. Regardless I am not saying that dictatorships can only be overthrown by armed insurrection. It depends on the situtation but their are situations where it is the best or only choice.
 
first you say that no uprising against a totalitarian government suceeded. Then when I show you one you say it doesn't count because it doesn't fall into the line of what you consider to be an appropriate governmental model.


That's right. Because if you're going to convince me that survivalist militias in Idaho have our best interest at heart, you need to show me a modern armed civil war, that replaced an authoritarian regime, with a fair and democratic one.

I have no interest in replacing one authoritarian with another. And, I think at their heart, (many of) these Idaho militiamen are theocrats, racists, and authoritarians.
 
The premiership of Gorbechev gave the eastern bloc the unspoken green light to go ahead with the change. It would not have happened with a leader like Breznev or Kruschev on watch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top