Iran: Nukes, good; e-cigs, bad

[leaford]

I think people in Texas believed this. In Waco, to be precise.
Do you really believe individually owned guns can really protect you from your government taking your freedom? Oh, come on...

Taking your Magnum against a helicopter gunship or a tank brigade might be a grand gesture, but no freedom will be gained.

We were in the same position 230 years ago, a poorly armed rabble, with nothing but personal hunting weapons, rising against the most powerful military in the world. We did it then.

EVERY rebellion is against a better armed force. Personal arms can't win it alone, no. We needed the French's help to arm against the British. But we could never have reached that point if we hadn't had our own guns to begin with. Without personal gun ownership the revolution would have been smashed before it ever began. And you can count the countries which have gained their freedoms WITHOUT weapons on one hand. And have fingers left over.

The wacos were wacko, militias are nuts, and I'm not an anti-government nut. We have the best functioning democracy in the world, and we are far FAR off from needing a revolution. BUt if that day were ever to come, only our 2nd amendment rights would give us any hope of restoring our freedom.

Not to mention, of course, that there are people who subsist on hunting, or at least depend on supplimenting their food sources with hunting. ANd that not everyone lives conveniently near to police protection. As someone who grew up in the Alaskan bush, guns are a tool as well as a weapon.

[leaford]

No, I don't see the necessity, it's time we evolved into a civilised society that doesn't see violence as a quick fix to difficult problems.

Among my biggest heros are Martin Luther King JR, Gandhi, suffragettes, the Dalai Lama and early trade unionists.

Civil disobedience is a much better long term strategy in my opinion than killing.

Civil disobedience is a limited strategy. It worked for Ghandi with the British. Do you think it would have worked for the Jews under Nazi Germany? Do you think Stalin could have stopped the Germans with a peace march and Kumbayaa's? Could civil disobedience have reconciled the Kurds and Sadaam?

Some people and governments will not respond to reason or negotiation, do not have a conscience to appeal to. They aren;t interested in a civilized resolution. They simply want to force their will on others, and only force can meet that force.

I've lived with killing Leaford and I can tell you it's very hard to find forgiveness and reconciliation after the boys have finished shooting.

No gun will ensure your freedom if someone wants to take it away, there will always be someone with more firepower than you. You'll find that out the hard way when terrorists start using nukes.

Sorry, but I disagree. It doesn't assure anything, but saying you CAN'T stop your enemy is ludicrous. Just because it is possible that someone better armed will defeat you anyway, is no reason NOT to try and defend yourself.

Seriously, do you apply that same reasoning in other areas of life?

No lock will stop a truly determined burglar or car thief, so lets not lock our doors? Condoms aren't 100% effective, so lets not bother? Drug laws will never stop all drug use, so lets legalize it all?

[Kate]

"Some people and governments will not respond to reason or negotiation, do not have a conscience to appeal to. They aren;t interested in a civilized resolution. They simply want to force their will on others, and only force can meet that force."

Lots of people subscribe to that view, it will be the downfall of your empire.

Short term thinking v long term planning.

Do you think Malcolm X's theories were more sustainable than MLK's?

[Frankie]

If you want to rebel successfully against a dictatorship, you need to influence people. LOTS OF people. With or without personally owned arms, that is no difference really. Once you have enought people, there will be weapons. The other way round will only mean the dictator will burn you alive with your weapons, kids... And the masses will watch it live on CNN for their evening entertainment.

Two biggest revolutions come to my mind. The French and the Russian Bolshevik one. In both countries there was absolutely no right to own/carry for the classes that rebelled - and won. I am trying to remember a nation that successfully fended off dictatorship or other type of enemy through personally owned weapons. Sort of cannot find the one. I do not believe the one you use is a real example. It was superpowers clashing using a proxy war providing weapons etc., just like Americans in Afghanistan in the 80-ies or Russians in Vietnam in the 60-ies.

Oh, I found it. SOMALIA! This country defeated the invaders through thouroughly armed population. US soldiers just never knew who/when will kill them. 8-y-o kids were just as lethal as an army force to them. BUT: I would not like to live in that country afterwards. I already mentioned "kalashnikov index". Personally owned firearms do not usually bring freedom; they bring chaos and loss of every human right you can think of. Only the right of the strongest remains.

Don´t get me wrong. I like guns. They are perfect toys and give you a feeling of safety at times. But I do not buy the "freedom" argument.

Yes, and my boys love them, too. They go bang much better in real life than in the movies

[leaford]

Do you think Malcolm X's theories were more sustainable than MLK's?

No, but I also don't think MLK's soft talk could have gotten anywhere anywhere wihout the threat of Malcolm X's big stick. Nor could Ghandhi have won out if the British hadn't been more afraid of the VIOLENT unrest that had occured under other opposition leaders.

Non violent solutions are always best, IF they are achievable. But they won't always work. Sometimes you have to fight for your beliefs and freedoms. Because there will always be others who are willing to fight to take them from you.

I don't care how pacifistic you are, when someone punches you in the face, all you can do is either defend yourself, or be prepared to be hit again.

[leaford]

If you want to rebel successfully against a dictatorship, you need to influence people. LOTS OF people. With or without personally owned arms, that is no difference really. Once you have enought people, there will be weapons.

Yeah, that's how it works. When enough people gather, weapons just appear. Sure.

I am trying to remember a nation that successfully fended off dictatorship or other type of enemy through personally owned weapons. Sort of cannot find the one. I do not believe the one you use is a real example. It was superpowers clashing using a proxy war providing weapons etc., just like Americans in Afghanistan in the 80-ies or Russians in Vietnam in the 60-ies.

We secured the French's help, sure. But not until WELL into the war. Until then we fought alone, with out own arms. THe Continental army did not have uniform supplies, uniforms, or weapons until around the second year. Until then they were fighting with their personal weapons and gear. THe French only came to our aid providing supplies and arms AFTER we had proven ourselves by defeating the British in a couple major battles.

You can choose to believe what you will, but there's no doubt historically that it was widespread gun ownership that made the American Revolution possible. And there's no doubt that many of the founding fathers saw gun ownership as the ultimate check-and-balance against a tyrannical government, and forsaw the possibility of the American people needing to revolt again.

[Kate]

Well, I'm glad I don't have a gun or feel so threatened that I would want one. What good would it be against an army or a terrorist anyway? Acceptance of weapons also increases civilian deaths and gun crime.

Guns don't make us better people or our societies better places, just the opposite.

Your examples don't impress me Leaford, all the armed struggles I know about left a blood legacy that was worse in many ways than the original issue being fought against. Your own culture shows this example well. Strutting around the world, at home and abroad thinking you have a divine right to define and kill the 'enemy'.

[trog100]

don't care how pacifistic you are, when someone punches you in the face, all you can do is either defend yourself, or be prepared to be hit again.

or run like f-ck.. he he

but i do think citizens should be allowed the means to defend themselves when need be.. its also quite clear that in the UK this right has been taken away from them..

the main rule in modern warfare thow seems to be never attack those who have the means to fight back.. i recon this rule apples on a personal level as well as higher levels....

we have the world how we would like it to be and the world as it is.. assuming we are around long enough to "evolve" we might kinda get better.. but i recon we have a few more harsh lessons to learn along the way..

we also might be learning a few sooner than some of us expect with things as they are..

trog

[Kate]

"... i do think citizens should be allowed the means to defend themselves when need be..."

That's how the IRA was born.

Good or bad, oppressive behaviour from any quarter gets a reaction, sometimes proportionate and thought out and sometimes a random act of violence. Sometimes it's about luck and sometimes it's about socialisation, what you're used to.

An eye for an eye ...
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword ...
Blah, blah, blah ...

EDIT
You know Trog, for such an eejit, you don't half have some good lines

[leaford]

Well, I'm glad I don't have a gun or feel so threatened that I would want one. What good would it be against an army or a terrorist anyway? Acceptance of weapons also increases civilian deaths and gun crime.

Did I say I felt threatened? I don't feel that my religious rights are threatened, but I am glad my Constitution enshrines that freedom. Neither do I feel so threatened that I need to own a gun, but I am glad to live in a country where I can.

As for what good would it do, if push came to shove I would prefer to fight back and resist than give up and die.

Guns don't make us better people or our societies better places, just the opposite.

They make us worse people? NONSENSE! Kate, guns are hunks of metal. They don't make us better or worse. Good people with guns save lives every day. They're called police, and sometimes good samaritans help out with their guns, too. Bad people with guns also kill people every day. I guarantee you they were bad people before they ever picked up a gun, and would have been just as bad of people if they had a knife, instead.

Guns aren't demons to make us anyhing. WE make guns good or bad based on how we use them.

Your examples don't impress me Leaford, all the armed struggles I know about left a blood legacy that was worse in many ways than the original issue being fought against.

So, fighting back against Hitler was worse than letting him invade and conquer France, Holland, Austria, Poland, Britain, and all the rest of Europe? Really? There's no just war? Evil should not be resisted? If someone wants to kill you you would not try to fight back against them? I can't even begin to understand that.

Your own culture shows this example well. Strutting around the world, at home and abroad thinking you have a divine right to define and kill the 'enemy'.

Generally enemies define themselves as such by their actions. And Sadaam certainly defined himself as our enemy long before our invasion. And while I wouldn;t refer to it as "divine," I think every person and every nation has a right to defend themselves. More, it's not just a right, but a duty for those who can to defend those who can't. And I thank god for every soldier and every policeman who swears to do just that. WITH GUNS!