|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 321 of 404:
| 
Jan 22 07:24 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 322 of 404:
|
Jan 22 07:59 UTC 2006 |
re #318: You know that that argument cuts both ways, right? From an
anti-gun-ownership standpoint you can use it to reason that the rationale
for an armed citizenry is outdated, but from a pro-weapons standpoint it
works just as well (which is to say, not especially..) as an argument that
citizens should be allowed to own anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air
missiles if they so choose.
|
bru
|
|
response 323 of 404:
|
Jan 22 08:48 UTC 2006 |
well, individuals used t be able to own cannon during the civil war and
earlier. I think you still can own a muzzle loading cannon today. It
ain't going to compete with a 155 howitzer, thats for sure.
The citizens are not going to be shooting down any aircraft with
hunting rifles either, or stand up against a determined advance against
a brigade. No one thinks that, and no one has said that. But if I
want to get my hands on a SAM, I will need to start with a rifle. If I
intend to take on an M1-A1, I will need to use other means, but a rifle
or pistol would be a good start.
If I was the violent kind, I could have taken several military rifles
from the National Guard down here with nothing but my pistol. these
guys are walking around with unloaded rifles, and they are not wearing
armor, just fatigues.
in a guerilla war, you take what you need from the enemy, or it is
given to you by people who agree with your position.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 324 of 404:
|
Jan 22 16:58 UTC 2006 |
So, does that mean that you support the Iraqi insurgency, who are just
citizens protesting against their propective government?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 325 of 404:
|
Jan 22 17:01 UTC 2006 |
Thats an interesting point Rane. But I'm not sure you can apply this to
Iraq since most of the insurgency are not Iraqis, but are muslim
extremists from other countries like Syria.
Another difference is that the insurgency is not fighting an oppressive
government, but rather a government that isn't oppressive enough! :)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 326 of 404:
|
Jan 22 17:14 UTC 2006 |
I'd like to know what factual information you have about the makeup of the
Iraq insurgency fighters. I heard recently it is mostly radical Sunni
Iraqis.
Their arms and explosives come from munition dumps plundered when we
invaded and failed to protect them. The foreign fighters weren't in Iraq
in any number then.
The radical Sunnis expect a Shiite/Kurd government will be oppressive, and
they are therefore resisting it.
Even with foreigners in the Insurgency - I presume that when armed
American citizens rise up with their 30-06s against our government, they
will welcome Canadians coming to assist them.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 327 of 404:
|
Jan 22 17:21 UTC 2006 |
...just as, when we were rebelling against the British, we were happy to
accept outside aid from the French. I don't think many people would
argue that the American Revolution wasn't a genuine movement but was
instead the meddling of a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
Most successful insurgencies will need some kind of outside assistance
eventually.
My take is that such an insurgency, unfortunately, ups the ante on
brutality. If the occupying force is willing to be extremely brutal
(e.g. the Germans occupying Belgium) then the occupier is likely to
prevail militarily (but perhaps not politically.)
|
mcnally
|
|
response 328 of 404:
|
Jan 22 20:24 UTC 2006 |
> But I'm not sure you can apply this to Iraq since most of the
> insurgency are not Iraqis, but are muslim extremists from other
> countries like Syria.
That's almost certainly not correct. It's possible the majority of
the people setting off car bombs in mosques and marketplaces are
foreign terrorists but the bulk of the insurgency appear to be Sunni
Arabs who feel they will be effectively disenfranchised by the new
government.
> Another difference is that the insurgency is not fighting an oppressive
> government, but rather a government that isn't oppressive enough! :)
Don't kid yourself, the current Iraqi government is, and will continue
to be, plenty oppressive.
|
bru
|
|
response 329 of 404:
|
Jan 23 04:42 UTC 2006 |
no I do not support the Iraqi insurgency. silly statement.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 330 of 404:
|
Jan 23 05:43 UTC 2006 |
Why not? The Iraqi insurgents are doing what you want American insurgents to
do.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 331 of 404:
|
Jan 23 07:19 UTC 2006 |
Kidnap journalists and detonate car bombs in public places? When did
bru claim he wanted anyone to do that?
Look, I like to turn someone's words against them as much as the next
grexer, possibly more, but the equivalence you've set up is too weak
even to be called "flimsy." Surely a respected professor who prides
himself on his logic can do better..
|
bru
|
|
response 332 of 404:
|
Jan 23 08:43 UTC 2006 |
No, it is not what I want american insurgents to do. I do not want
another american civil war.
What I do want is for people to understand and respect the constitution
and not warp the original intent to meet their own ends.
What I want is for people to understand that the ability to do
something does not mean that you have to do something.
What I want is for the people who are charged with defending this
country to understand that they are not invincible and that they can be
killed just as quick by a .22 caliber round in the wrong hands as by
a .308 in those same hands.
|
cross
|
|
response 333 of 404:
|
Jan 23 15:17 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 334 of 404:
|
Jan 23 16:31 UTC 2006 |
I'm not defending anybody here, but I learn more by stating something on
Grex and having it contradicted than by asking a question.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 335 of 404:
|
Jan 23 16:31 UTC 2006 |
Don't think that American insurgents wouldn't resort to kidnappings and car
bombings.
Bru writes "What I do want is for people to understand and respect the
constitution and not warp the original intent to meet their own ends", but
the original intent was clearly stated to be to form "A well regulated
Militia", and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Who is warping
the "original intent to meet their own ends"? Bru.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 336 of 404:
|
Jan 23 16:38 UTC 2006 |
If you take "militia" as meaning another military, then I can see your
point. But if you take "militia" as meaning an armed citizenry, can you
see our point?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 337 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:28 UTC 2006 |
The most famous contemporary American "insurgents" used bombs in
Oklahoma City and Atlanta. I see no reason to believe that, in the
presence of a more oppressive government, these tactics would change.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 338 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:39 UTC 2006 |
Theodore Kaczynski and Eric Robert Rudolph were insurgents. Timothy
McVeigh was not.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 339 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:43 UTC 2006 |
McVeigh was a terrorist.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 340 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:44 UTC 2006 |
How is McVeigh different from the people planting car-bombs in Iraq?
I'm not sure I follow.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 341 of 404:
|
Jan 23 17:55 UTC 2006 |
An insurgent is someone who tries to exact political change through
violence. McVeigh's purpose was vengance for the Branch Davidian attack
two years before.
The people in Iraq planting car-bombs are terrorists, but some may not
be insurgents.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 342 of 404:
|
Jan 23 18:07 UTC 2006 |
Re #336: "But if you take "militia" as meaning an armed citizenry, can you
see our point?"
How can just a randomly armed citizenry be a "A well regulated Militia"?
It's impossible: clearly the 2nd Amendment means "another military"
regulated by some governmental agency. The Supreme Court agreed with this.
What is SO DIFFICULT to understand about "A well regulated Militia"?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 343 of 404:
|
Jan 23 19:14 UTC 2006 |
Re #342: I'll take that as a >NO< to the question I asked.
A radomly armed citizenry is the necessary pool by which the militia
must be drawn. The 2nd amendment ensures that pool is always there.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 344 of 404:
|
Jan 23 19:33 UTC 2006 |
That's not what the Supreme Court said.
|
eprom
|
|
response 345 of 404:
|
Jan 23 20:20 UTC 2006 |
ok..Whats with the silly argument that if you've never served in the
military, your point is somehow less valid?
I'm sure Bela Karoli couldn't do a back handspring to save his life,
but it certainly doesn't mean he don't know what he's talking about.
|