Print Page | Close Window

Guns in the US

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: SCHOLARLY PURSUITS
Forum Name: General Intellectual Discussions
Forum Description: General area for Intellectual Discussions not covered at the specific subforums
URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=126181
Printed Date: 17 Jun 2018 at 23:04
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Guns in the US
Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Subject: Guns in the US
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 17:27

To take just one random sample of violence from the news of the day, consider Tunisia. Civil society is rebelling, and being met with violence. The army is in the streets. The world’s media is focused.  The official death toll is about 23; some say it is higher.

 

Now consider New York City, neither the most crime prone area of the US, nor the safest. A death toll of 23 in NY during the same time period of the Tunisian unrest would be considered chicken feed, considerably lower than usual, a bit of a respite for the homicide squad.

 

When Obama addressed the recent violence in Arizona, he notably skirted around the suggestion that a country awash in guns might pose a problem for a civilized society.

 

Why is it, do you at AE suppose, that guns and gun crimes are accepted in the cavalier fashion that they are in the US, in comparison to many other countries? Indeed in some jurisdictions in the US, gun ownership seems to be increasing, and minimal gun laws are being challenged. What sociological forces are at work in a society that is arming itself to the degree that is the case in the US today?




Replies:
Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 17:59
I have waited for so long for this topic and the desire to join the chorus in glee with the below is now irresistible:
 
GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO!
 
If one is hell-bent on homicide they will not permit a piddling detail such as not owning a firearm deter them from their objective. Besides, committing a felony with a firearm represents grounds for an additional charge so it is technically incorrect in claiming there are no "gun laws" in the United States. After all it has been a felony to possess a fully automated firearm in the US since 1934! As for "targetting" New York City, and claiming that 23 homicides with firearms in NYC in a three day period would be considered chicken-feed, such is preposterous on its face. here is a "blast from the past":
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html?_r=1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html?_r=1
 
But heck, I am not going to start generating static with statistics since if one is going to search for an area where gun control laws are pyrrhic in nature one need look no further than Washington DC, which has led the nation in firearm homicides for years and ranks #1 repeatedly--
 
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000 - http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
 
Now for some pinguinesque fun:
 
Anti Gun Control Bumper StickerWhy a .45 Bumpersticker
How I Feel About Gun Control Decal Sticker


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 18:55
Doc,

It is a reprise of the same tune that has been played a million times (999,999 of them by non US citizens).

Great bumper stickers.  Keep up the good work.  Smile 

Jefferson's opinion of a citizen's right to arm himself is enough IMO.






Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 18:57
Fact: Americans love guns. People has the problems that chose. Simple.

I wonder when they are going to start saling portable nukes at the gun shops.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 19:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Fact: Americans love guns. People has the problems that chose. Simple.

I wonder when they are going to start saling portable nukes at the gun shops.


"Simple."  Typical "simple" response.  So "Simple."  I think you are an intelligent man pinguin, but often your comments are those of the simpleton.




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 19:06
It is very hard to convince Americans they are wrong. They don't listen.





Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 19:30
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
But heck, I am not going to start generating static with statistics since if one is going to search for an area where gun control laws are pyrrhic in nature one need look no further than Washington DC, which has led the nation in firearm homicides for years and ranks #1 repeatedly--
 
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000 - http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
 
 
 
 
 
Last time I checked most DC suberbs are in Virginia and in Virginia a baby could by a gun without any background checks.
 
Anyway most people advocating gun control advocate laws that are sensible, ban on semi automatics, ban on open or concealed carriage and restriction on cartridge size and how many guns one can own. I mean why the hell are pro-gun people so up and arms against such measures?
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 19:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is very hard to convince Americans they are wrong. They don't listen.





We think differently on this.  It is an historical issue, and this IS an historical forum.

"Those who try to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it is not an individual right are courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

- Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law School)...and hardly a right winger.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of some other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

- James Madison (The Federalist Papers)

"Tyrants mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of arms."

- Aristotle

English law and the "assize of arms" predates the US Constitution by quite some time, and there is no reason to suppose the legal theory has any less validity now than it did then.

For those who are outraged, just deal with it.

Incidentally, I don't own any guns and never have.  I fired weapons in the navy but just on the range.  Noisy back then - no ear guards.








Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:09
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Last time I checked most DC suburbs are in Virginia and in Virginia a baby could buy a gun without any background checks.
 
Anyway most people advocating gun control advocate laws that are sensible, ban on semi automatics, ban on open or concealed carriage and restriction on cartridge size and how many guns one can own. I mean why the hell are pro-gun people so up and arms against such measures?
 
Al-Jassas
 
Er, Al, when one says Washington DC they are not talking Arlington nor Fairfax. They mean the bounds set by Maryland's perimeters and the Potomac. Are you suggesting that the DC crime rate is the fault of Virginia? And hey, are you questioning Virginia's honor by saying "babies" can buy guns...oh the calumny, oh the misrepresentation, oh the untruth: The law:
 
It is a crime for any person to sell, give or otherwise furnish a handgun to a minor if he has reason to believe that the buyer or recipient is under 18 years of age, unless such transfer is made between family members or for the purpose of engaging in a sporting event or activity. 

Now excuse me while I go make sure the nursery is armed.

 



-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:16
Sorry, my bad, the case happened in Illinois:
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6662213.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6662213.stm
 
But that doesn't mean Vrginia (and Maryland) doesn't have some of the most liberal gun laws in the US. 
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:21
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Sorry, my bad, the case happened in Illinois:
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6662213.stm - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6662213.stm
 
But that doesn't mean Vrginia (and Maryland) doesn't have some of the most liberal gun laws in the US. 
 
Al-Jassas


By logic, the Second Amendment providing for militias (local posse comitatus) devolves upon the several states the power to regulate (or not) guns and the criteria for their ownership.

This confuses many non US citizens, but the Constitution was explicitly intended to empower the states with all civil authority not expressed in the US Constitution.






Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:39
Doesn't Canada, per capita have more guns than the US?  I guess it is more about culture than the weapons themselves in the case of the US.  Mass murders involving firearms are not unique to the US.  I don't have any issue with guns themselves but rather the mental condition of their owners.  IMO there needs to be comprehensive psychological assessments and consideration of the criminal record of a person wishing to own a gun.  The UK's gun firearms laws are effective to this end.  But you can never be sure whether someone will flip one day and so therein lies the question: Ban guns altogether or tolerate the inevitability of such tragedies (which can be reduced through better gun control)?

Is the right to bear arms in the US tantamount to a right to vigilantism?  What's the history, something about having the capacity to supplement a limited standing army?  If that's the case then the right is clearly outdated/redundant.


-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:43
That said though, I fully understand most positions of respectable Americans in their support of the 2nd Amendment as a right to self defence given the realities they face.


-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 21:44
For starters, I am generally pro-right to bear arms.
At the end of the day, an armed populace does protect you from invasion, but considerations must be made for general law & order.
 
For the majority of this post however, I want to debunk DrG's ridiculous implication that without guns, people would just kill people with knives. While it is true that a homocidal operator of a gun probably would try to kill people with a knife if he couldn't get a gun. It must be remembered that a gun makes killing far more efficient.
 
Try going on a killing spree with a knife. A knife in a school may be serious but it's no school shooting. If the Arizona assassin only had a knife, he would never have been able to kill 9 people.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 22:11
Yes, it is much easier to point and pull a trigger than to stab someone, both physically and mentally.

-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 22:30
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

For starters, I am generally pro-right to bear arms.
At the end of the day, an armed populace does protect you from invasion, but considerations must be made for general law & order.
 
For the majority of this post however, I want to debunk DrG's ridiculous implication that without guns, people would just kill people with knives. While it is true that a homocidal operator of a gun probably would try to kill people with a knife if he couldn't get a gun. It must be remembered that a gun makes killing far more efficient.
 
Try going on a killing spree with a knife. A knife in a school may be serious but it's no school shooting. If the Arizona assassin only had a knife, he would never have been able to kill 9 people.
 
But they do, Omar, they do and when you look at total homicide numbers the rarity is the armed whacko unloading his .45...in a teeming crowd.  Of course, not all of these loons can be as creative as McVeigh nor have the patience of detailed planning, but then are you questioning the actual statistics from the NYPD as presented in the NYTimes? It is a fact of life that the probability of your sudden death through violence will be far more likely at the hands of an acquaintance or family member, gun or no gun, than a casual visit at some Mall venue holding a political event no matter the noise made by the Mass Media. You can not "control" for the medically deranged or vengeful suicide nut (as the one who flew his private plane into federal offices here in Texas) so in actuality all of the rhetoric is more or less misdirection (or is it really a vast conspiracy to disarm the general public so as to bring Socialism or worse to the massesEvil Smile).


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 23:42
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

...
We think differently on this.  It is an historical issue, and this IS an historical forum.

"Those who try to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it is not an individual right are courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

- Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law School)...and hardly a right winger.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of some other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

- James Madison (The Federalist Papers)

"Tyrants mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of arms."

- Aristotle

English law and the "assize of arms" predates the US Constitution by quite some time, and there is no reason to suppose the legal theory has any less validity now than it did then.

For those who are outraged, just deal with it.

Incidentally, I don't own any guns and never have.  I fired weapons in the navy but just on the range.  Noisy back then - no ear guards.



But that's naive. Anybody nows that part of the rules of a civilized country is to give the right of the force to the police.

Most countries worldwide allow civilians to own guns, if they wish, but with restrictions. But those guns hardly are more powerful than a revolver or a small pistol.
How come it could be smart to allow people to own automatic weapons!

An give me a break, the day a dictator took power in the U.S., a bunch of disorganized citizens with a few machine guns will be wiped out in two days by the army.  Believing civilians can stop an organized army not only is naive. It is an stupid excuse.















Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 01:43
In 1996 in Tasmania, a deranged lone gunman by the name of Martin Bryant (IQ 66!) went on a rampage. This was just one man, alone and without any support, who decided he wanted to take human life. He picked a popular tourist resort. The total death toll: 35 dead and 21 wounded. That is what one man with a self loading automatic gun can do in 5 hours.

Needless to say, the nation was mortified. Nothing like that has ever occurred before. Newly elected Prime Minister John Howard, whose coalition represented the country's right wing sympathies, forged ahead with new gun control laws. Some Australians objected to this, and doubtless some may even have retained their firearms illegally, but the vast majority took advantage of the government's offer to cashier all pump action and self loading rifles and shotguns. Despite the attempts by lobbyists and some government ministers, the gun reform laws passed due to the juggernaut of public opinion.

Don't get me wrong, we need some guns. Having been roo shooting from the time I was a little boy I know too well their usefulness in pest control and protecting agriculture. But we came to the collective realisation that we don't need self reloading automatic weapons that are THAT powerful in our civic society. Our soldiers will wield the best, but our citizens should only have the bare basics.

The argument that guns don't kill people, people do, is a fair one. But I am unconcerned with absolutes. I don't care if people get murdered; or rather I accept that this will always be so and don't make it my object to come up with ways to eliminate murder entirely. Why? People people will always get murdered. No matter what. We have to live with that.

What I am concerned with is HOW MANY people get murdered. My concern is scale and proportion, not absolutes. I do not accept that if Martin Bryant were equipped with a knife or a sword or a crossbow or a musket that he could have liquidated 35 human beings and wounded another 21. It doesn't happen, it just doesn't.

And I know Americans know exactly the same thing that I do. In fact, I would wager they would be even more keenly aware of it than I am as they probably have more exposure to how effective these sorts of weapons can be from first hand experience in handling them. So the question I wish to pose (ha! you thought I was making a point, but no, I just want to ask a question) is: "why even with the abundant knowledge we have that shows that having these sorts of military grade weapons in our society will result in more death proportionally, do people insist that society retains access to these weapons?"

To go back into my economics groove and employ stock standard auditing techniques, what is the 'payoff' that US society gets by people retaining these weapons that justifies the inevitable increase in human carnage? (which of course is the cost)


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 01:50
There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.




Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 01:51
pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 01:55
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.


That's nonsense.

A society has to prevent nuts to commit massive murder. And a very good defense is to constrain the availability of authomatic guns. Even more, gun commerce should be regulated and controlled more as much as the saling of legal drugs.

A civilian shouldn't have access to military weapons. At much civilians should have access to small guns.

Only the U.S. don't see that, because in that country nobody worries for the lives of innocent people.





Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 02:00
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


Certainly. Because Americans are more easily fooled. You play the Yankee Doodle and all Americans dance to the tune. Just imagine a people chosing an idiot like George Bush Confused

So, there is no need of dictators there, giving the fact that people is already controlled quite well. Only rebelious people had dictators.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 02:10
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.




Thank you for the reply, pike. And yes, low IQ and mental illness are a fact of life that we must all simply do our best to cope with.

But there are two points in your answer not being addressed. Firstly, I am sure we can both agree that the scale of destruction committed by the mentally deranged depends on the scale of the destructiveness of the weapons they are able to access.

Secondly, and this was the question I really would like answered as I do not know for myself, why is it that in the US the inevitable increase in the death toll from firearm access is tolerated? What is the 'payoff' for the cost in additional loss of human life?


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 02:16
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


A state where only the police have arms is a police state.


A state where everybody can own authomatic weapons, bazookas and flame throwers is the Far West. Come on, Americans, get civilized!

You live under the more militarized state in the world. A state that waste half its budget in weapons. And you still believe owning a few guns to kill cats will keep you free from such mighty power: your own state?

Give me a breake. That's been naive.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 03:26
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


Certainly. Because Americans are more easily fooled. You play the Yankee Doodle and all Americans dance to the tune. Just imagine a people chosing an idiot like George Bush Confused

So, there is no need of dictators there, giving the fact that people is already controlled quite well. Only rebelious people had dictators.


LOL


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 03:26
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


A state where only the police have arms is a police state.


A state where everybody can own authomatic weapons, bazookas and flame throwers is the Far West. Come on, Americans, get civilized!

You live under the more militarized state in the world. A state that waste half its budget in weapons. And you still believe owning a few guns to kill cats will keep you free from such mighty power: your own state?

Give me a breake. That's been naive.


LOLLOL  You are so easy to twist around.








Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 03:30
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

I have waited for so long for this topic and the desire to join the chorus in glee with the below is now irresistible:
 
GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO!
 
If one is hell-bent on homicide they will not permit a piddling detail such as not owning a firearm deter them from their objective. Besides, committing a felony with a firearm represents grounds for an additional charge so it is technically incorrect in claiming there are no "gun laws" in the United States. After all it has been a felony to possess a fully automated firearm in the US since 1934! As for "targetting" New York City, and claiming that 23 homicides with firearms in NYC in a three day period would be considered chicken-feed, such is preposterous on its face. here is a "blast from the past":
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html?_r=1 - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html?_r=1
 
But heck, I am not going to start generating static with statistics since if one is going to search for an area where gun control laws are pyrrhic in nature one need look no further than Washington DC, which has led the nation in firearm homicides for years and ranks #1 repeatedly--
 
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000 - http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
 
Now for some pinguinesque fun:
 
Anti Gun Control Bumper StickerWhy a .45 Bumpersticker
How I Feel About Gun Control Decal Sticker
 
 
 

There is some reason in your logic for as far as it goes Mr D, but the problem is that it doesn’t go nearly far enough.

 

Despite the best efforts of Hollywood and the news media to project a different picture, those who coolly and calmly plan murder are quite rare. Much, much more common in real life are people getting themselves into the human situations that they do, and then have events escalate out of control and into violence.

 

There is the co-dependant, battling husband and wife, whose conflict periodically becomes physical. But one day it is remembered that there is a handgun in the kitchen drawer, and then the embarrassed trip to the clinic the next day becomes a trip to the morgue. There is the kid strung out on crystal meth, who after a few good snorts of whisky to get some liquid courage, breaks into a house to get some cash for the next fix. Surprised by the angry homeowner, his muddled brain makes a poor decision. Whether he is armed with a tire iron, or with a handgun, will have a profound effect on the future of both parties. The list goes on.

 

What is a common factor in the potential for death in these situations, and what separates the US from most other developed, stable democracies in gun death statistics, is that the US has a massive number of guns in circulation, whereas the latter do not. You have repeated the glib slogan of the NRA, but it is one that is only of utility to those who want to rationalize gun ownership. Human nature will likely remand as it is for some time yet, which means conflict will occur. The more deadly force that is widely available, the more destructive it will be for the people of the country. More guns means the option to escalate to a much more lethal behavior is readily at hand. More guns means, statistically, more will be stolen or otherwise diverted to crime. More guns in society stokes the atmosphere of fear, and reinforces the sense of alienation and every man for himself ethos that is already rather disturbing in America.

 

I don’t want to get in to a pissing contest over statistics, but allow me to explain my original figures. The Tunisia situation has been going on for four weeks. That country has a population of about ten million, versus the eight and a half million in the survey area of NY. And the homicide rate was .06 per thousand, meaning a death toll of about forty during that four week period in NY. These were the latest figures I could find during a quick google. My point here is that a gun death rate that would be considered an emergency, or at least a dire event that will call for study, debate, and political change in much of the world, is taken as normal life in the US. This is not a healthy situation.



Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 03:39
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

For starters, I am generally pro-right to bear arms.
At the end of the day, an armed populace does protect you from invasion, but considerations must be made for general law & order.
 
For the majority of this post however, I want to debunk DrG's ridiculous implication that without guns, people would just kill people with knives. While it is true that a homocidal operator of a gun probably would try to kill people with a knife if he couldn't get a gun. It must be remembered that a gun makes killing far more efficient.
 
Try going on a killing spree with a knife. A knife in a school may be serious but it's no school shooting. If the Arizona assassin only had a knife, he would never have been able to kill 9 people.
 

an armed populace does protect you from invasion

 

This is utter nonsense. If anyone here really believes that, then we need to get Colonel lirelou back in to give a few basic lessons on military tactics.



Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 05:56
Dear Captain, the USA is currently following the Soviet Union into a defeat at the hands of well armed civilians in Afghanistan. The civilians are using weapons made in owner-operated workshops, they have no airforce, no armour, limited artillery, and only the intelligence that they can get with nothing more than a computer with a net connection and sandals.
 
So don't tell me that an armed populace doesn't protect you from invasion. Sure, you need know how, determination, paitence, good tactics and a helping of terrain, but so does a well equiped army.
 
To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.
 
Why Americans needs to be able to access weapons of that calibre (ok, RPGs are not permitted in America while they are in Pak) is a completely different question, because they aren't under constant threat from invasion by everyone.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 06:04
Quote To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.



I remain baffled. Whom is the US in danger of being invaded from that civic firearm ownership will prevent>


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 11:36
I remember when USA and UN invaded Somalia one of the aimes was to disarm the gangs as it was expressed. Perhaps the Americans should also devote themselves to disarm their own gangs.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 14:26
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Dear Captain, the USA is currently following the Soviet Union into a defeat at the hands of well armed civilians in Afghanistan. The civilians are using weapons made in owner-operated workshops, they have no airforce, no armour, limited artillery, and only the intelligence that they can get with nothing more than a computer with a net connection and sandals.
 
So don't tell me that an armed populace doesn't protect you from invasion. Sure, you need know how, determination, paitence, good tactics and a helping of terrain, but so does a well equiped army.
 
To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.
 
Why Americans needs to be able to access weapons of that calibre (ok, RPGs are not permitted in America while they are in Pak) is a completely different question, because they aren't under constant threat from invasion by everyone.
 
Popular resistance is a media manufactured myth. If a country is hell bent on destroying it it will happen no matter how fierce it is or how well armed is the population.
 
Russia won the war in Afghanistan up until they decided to trust the locals with security in 83 and 84. They crushed the Chechen resistance and the Sri Lankan government crushed the Tamils and both are much much more fearsome and bloody than the Talibs and the Iraqi resistance.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 15:10
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Last time I checked most DC suburbs are in Virginia and in Virginia a baby could buy a gun without any background checks.
 
Anyway most people advocating gun control advocate laws that are sensible, ban on semi automatics, ban on open or concealed carriage and restriction on cartridge size and how many guns one can own. I mean why the hell are pro-gun people so up and arms against such measures?
 
Al-Jassas
 
Er, Al, when one says Washington DC they are not talking Arlington nor Fairfax. They mean the bounds set by Maryland's perimeters and the Potomac. Are you suggesting that the DC crime rate is the fault of Virginia? And hey, are you questioning Virginia's honor by saying "babies" can buy guns...oh the calumny, oh the misrepresentation, oh the untruth: The law:
 
It is a crime for any person to sell, give or otherwise furnish a handgun to a minor if he has reason to believe that the buyer or recipient is under 18 years of age, unless such transfer is made between family members or for the purpose of engaging in a sporting event or activity. 

Now excuse me while I go make sure the nursery is armed.

The 'unless' in that law you quote rather undermines your position about babies. The way I read it it says quite plainly that I can sell, give or otherwise a handgun to my six-moth-old baby son if I feel like it. Or any other child if I am providing it for a sporting event or activity.
 
Nothing there to stop Ma Barker giving her children some early practice.
 
@Pikeshott Introducing the second amendment is merely an emotive red herring. The question is not whether gun control laws would be unconstitutional. The question is whether they should be enforced by amending the constitution. The US Constitution has an admirable process for being amended, so there's no point in going on about anything being impossible because it is 'unconstitutional'.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 15:19
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

  Of course, not all of these loons can be as creative as McVeigh nor have the patience of detailed planning, but then are you questioning the actual statistics from the NYPD as presented in the NYTimes?
Mentioning McVeigh reminds me. Manufacturing - or even reading about how to manufacture - bombs is highly illegal in the US, so that you can even be held without habeas corpus if suspected of it. So why not similar laws against guns? Granted on the other hand the US suffers more from bombings iirc than any other country even including the middle east despite the laws.
 
So laws are not all that effective, but still there's an irony buried there somewhere. Why is a bomb not an arm as covered by the second amendment? After all, well-regulated militias and resistance movements in general can make effective use of bombs, can't they?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 15:23
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.
 
Nonsense. A state where the people need guns is a tyranny.
 
The US is far more of a police state nowadays than any country in Europe, just as it is more militaristic, and the situation has been getting worse for the last decade or so.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 15:29
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Dear Captain, the USA is currently following the Soviet Union into a defeat at the hands of well armed civilians in Afghanistan. The civilians are using weapons made in owner-operated workshops, they have no airforce, no armour, limited artillery, and only the intelligence that they can get with nothing more than a computer with a net connection and sandals.
 
So don't tell me that an armed populace doesn't protect you from invasion. Sure, you need know how, determination, paitence, good tactics and a helping of terrain, but so does a well equiped army.
You just finished saying that they aren't a well-equipped army. Yes a guerilla army can ensure an occupying army has to be continually on alert. But it can't eject such an occupying army. Even the Spanish guerillas couldn't get rid of the French: the British had to take the lead. The Yugoslav guerillas counldn't get rid of the Germans alone, even allowing tem weapons shipped in from abroad. The Spanish Republicans were helpless in face of the Falangists. and so on and so on.
Importantly though, your guerilla army doesn't stop you being invaded and occupied.
Quote
To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.
 
Why Americans needs to be able to access weapons of that calibre (ok, RPGs are not permitted in America while they are in Pak) is a completely different question, because they aren't under constant threat from invasion by everyone.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 15:32
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.
 
Nonsense. A state where the people need guns is a tyranny.
 
The US is far more of a police state nowadays than any country in Europe, just as it is more militaristic, and the situation has been getting worse for the last decade or so.


You are the one writing nonsense in that first sentence. 

In your opinion (for the six years I have been on AE), the United States is a combination of the Kingdom of Prussia and a first edition of 1984.

That is, and has been, hyperbolic nonsense as well, and you know it.  Wink




Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 22:12
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


Certainly. Because Americans are more easily fooled. You play the Yankee Doodle and all Americans dance to the tune. Just imagine a people chosing an idiot like George Bush Confused

need of dictators there, giving the fact that people is already controlled quite well. Only rebelious people had dictators.


The above statements are asinine!


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 22:37
The problem here is that peoples panicky morals are getting in the way of the more responsible in a society, US society in this instance. We might as well be exploring the repeal of Roe versus Wade, and then we all can watch the real fire works light up the US!

Life is a risk the moment we are born. Legislation as useful as it can be in establishing laws, is not an insurance policy to a longer life free from the violence dealt from the gun,. If somebody is so hell bent on storming and dieing within a heavily populated area with assault weapons, all the moralizing on legislation in the world will not stop them. Everybody in this world is only a headline away from the next tragic story of the crazy local yahoo determined for their few moments of fame.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 22:48

I wish the Americans would contribute to this thread with more than just ridicule and incredulousness. It is one of the areas where there is a major cultural and ideological different between America and most of the rest of the world, especially the developed part.
It always has to be assumed that the majority non-Americans in this subject of discussion genuninely don't understand where Americans are coming from. As far as I can tell, its a values and cultural thing, not a logical thing.

Originally posted by AJ AJ wrote:

Popular resistance is a media manufactured myth. If a country is hell bent on destroying it it will happen no matter how fierce it is or how well armed is the population.
 
Russia won the war in Afghanistan up until they decided to trust the locals with security in 83 and 84. They crushed the Chechen resistance and the Sri Lankan government crushed the Tamils and both are much much more fearsome and bloody than the Talibs and the Iraqi resistance.

However successful popular resistance may be it is certainly not a media manufactured myth.

The war in Sri Lanka is a civil war, which are caused not prevented by arms proliferation.
Russia cannot have 'won' a war in '83 if it lost the same war in '89, but I accept your point that if you wish, and have the capability, of being exceedingly brutal you can suppress just about anyone. If you can get away with deporting the majority of the population to Siberia (chechenia) or killing anyone near someone who resisted, then you can win pretty much every war.
But in most wars you cannot do that.

Originally posted by gcle gcle wrote:

You just finished saying that they aren't a well-equipped army. Yes a guerilla army can ensure an occupying army has to be continually on alert. But it can't eject such an occupying army. Even the Spanish guerillas couldn't get rid of the French: the British had to take the lead. The Yugoslav guerillas counldn't get rid of the Germans alone, even allowing tem weapons shipped in from abroad. The Spanish Republicans were helpless in face of the Falangists. and so on and so on.
Importantly though, your guerilla army doesn't stop you being invaded and occupied.

I agree. Guerillas can only drain the enemy until they decide it's not worth it.
However having an armed population does mean that you don't have a regular army as well. Examples could be the Russian irregulars in WW2, or even the American war of independence.



Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 23:15
The thread is beginning to heat up so much so that I fear some crazed fanatic will soon spray the lot us with a hail of ethereal bullets--no not the little missile from the Derringer Carcharadon interrupted with earlier--when in actuality the sense of the 2nd Amendment can be explained simply under the old Common Law [i.e. a man's home is his castle and he holds the right to defend this particular domain with all the wherewithall at hand]. The notion that gun regulation does not exist in the United States is but fiction since in almost any urban setting the discharge of a firearm is prohibited save in the instance of fear-for-life. Any idiot celebrating by discharging a gun ino the air commits a criminal act and is subject to prosecution. Heck, you can be arrested for failure to secure a firearm from access by minors! So the posit that there are no gun restriction at law in the United States is a fiction. States for long periods of time could and did ban varying degrees of weaponry and the controversy now arising stems directly from the 20th century USSC interpretation of the Constitution, which applied the Bill of Rights not only to the Federal government but to the states as well. That point was brought home recently when local jurisdictions such as the city of Chicago and the District of Columbia had their statutes voided under national constitutional premises!
 
Now when Gcle introduced the subject of bombs and noticed how stiff restriction apply (he might just as easily have mention dynamite, which too is strictly controlled and regulated), I believe he did not realize he had touched upon a crucial distinction. A gun for the purpose of defense is a right, but no weapon that carries the implication for indiscriminate agression extending beyond the realm of the personal is entertained as "a right to bear arms". Yes, it is sort of out-of-date to view your hunting rifle as essential to a "well armed militia", but it is not that far-fetched to envision a Seven Days in May scenario or a Red October connundrum--heck if Hollywood imagines it who's to say it can not happen.
 
OK you can relese a few chuckles, but just as the Pinguin has taken his Mestizo Mystique to the heights of fancy under the guise of national identity, so too a similar process is in operation in the American dialogue over the bearing of arms and the distrust of an overweaning authority turning the issue as a fixed verity at law akin to sanctity of the old Twelve Tablets in the Roman Republic! Personally, given the level of contemporary intelligence I am scared as hell over the thought that the dweeb down the street has a gun and not trusting government to do what is correct at the exact time needed, I had well have my trusty blunderbuss at hand to "give it" to that wascally wabbit the minute he trespasses! Call it the Social Security of the Old West...and it doesn't bankrupt the country eitherEvil Smile.
 
 
See it's as simple as that despite the heavy hand of Ricky Gervais-like humor.


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:10
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 
So don't tell me that an armed populace doesn't protect you from invasion. Sure, you need know how, determination, paitence, good tactics and a helping of terrain, but so does a well equiped army.

The U.S. is not precisely a good place for guerrilla fighting. Just imagine a guerrilla band hidding in the great planes from helicopter gunfire LOL...

Even more, American trainned militaries maybe some of the best in the world in tranning, but the common folk are just coach potatoes. Can you imagine Americans fighting a guerrilla war? Without MTV? Burgers? I don't see how.






Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:16
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 
So don't tell me that an armed populace doesn't protect you from invasion. Sure, you need know how, determination, paitence, good tactics and a helping of terrain, but so does a well equiped army.

The U.S. is not precisely a good place for guerrilla fighting. Just imagine a guerrilla band hidding in the great planes from helicopter gunfire LOL...

Even more, American trainned militaries maybe some of the best in the world in tranning, but the common folk are just coach potatoes. Can you imagine Americans fighting a guerrilla war? Without MTV? Burgers? I don't see how.




 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:18
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

OK you can relese a few chuckles, but just as the Pinguin has taken his Mestizo Mystique to the heights of fancy under the guise of national identity,..

Better Mestizo than pure Gallego Wink... Anyways, genetics shows I tell the truth. But don't get envious, you Iberian guys are mixed also: Cro-Magnon+Neanderthal. Perhaps you could build your own identity around that. LOL


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:19
This whole thread/issue is being over analyzed.  IT IS A CULTURAL ISSUE!

What pertains where others live may not pertain here.  So???  Let it go.

The pretensions of some to moral superiority sound much like the flushing of toilets in the morning. LOL 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:26
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:29
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

The pretensions of some to moral superiority sound much like the flushing of toilets in the morning. LOL 


The point is simple: everywhere people know that the solution for those random killings, that often happen in the U.S., is gun control. Foreigners simply can't understand why Americans are so blind.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:31
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?



Why is that our problem?  You fight wars when it is to your advantage.  You fight wars on the other guy's territory to make him pay a disproportionate price for the war.  Sometimes it works; sometimes not.  Whatever, YOU don't bear so much of the cost.

 


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:35
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

The pretensions of some to moral superiority sound much like the flushing of toilets in the morning. LOL 


The point is simple: everywhere people know that the solution for those random killings, that often happen in the U.S., is gun control. Foreigners simply can't understand why Americans are so blind.


It is not simple (as you so often think).  It is complex, and what foreigners can't understand is their problem, not ours.

If foreigners cannot see, it is because they are blind, not we.




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 00:59
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


Why is that our problem?  You fight wars when it is to your advantage.  You fight wars on the other guy's territory to make him pay a disproportionate price for the war.  Sometimes it works; sometimes not.  Whatever, YOU don't bear so much of the cost.


Indeed. But in the case of a coup well done, the American people would be in disadvantage with respect to the American army. I doubt the American people, with all its toy guns, could stand a week against a really bloody dictator.

That's why I said the American people hasn't fight in disadvantage since 1812, at the very least. So, I doubt theirs precious guns stored at home could serve for much.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 01:02
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

...
It is not simple (as you so often think).  It is complex, and what foreigners can't understand is their problem, not ours.

If foreigners cannot see, it is because they are blind, not we.


It would be easier if authomatic and advanced guns would be less available to the public, to the criminals, unstable individuals, etc.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 01:13
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


Why is that our problem?  You fight wars when it is to your advantage.  You fight wars on the other guy's territory to make him pay a disproportionate price for the war.  Sometimes it works; sometimes not.  Whatever, YOU don't bear so much of the cost.


Indeed. But in the case of a coup well done, the American people would be in disadvantage with respect to the American army. I doubt the American people, with all its toy guns, could stand a week against a really bloody dictator.

That's why I said the American people hasn't fight in disadvantage since 1812, at the very least. So, I doubt theirs precious guns stored at home could serve for much.


Historically, "bloody dictators" have been a Chilean problem, not a US problem. 

"Would be; could be" - doesn't mean anything here.




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 01:19
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


Historically, "bloody dictators" have been a Chilean problem, not a US problem. 

"Would be; could be" - doesn't mean anything here.


That's why you aren't prepared. And also, why owning machine guns and storing them under the bed doesn't make sense.

You prove my point. Thanks.Wink


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 01:28
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


Historically, "bloody dictators" have been a Chilean problem, not a US problem. 

"Would be; could be" - doesn't mean anything here.


That's why you aren't prepared. And also, why owning machine guns and storing them under the bed doesn't make sense.

You prove my point. Thanks.Wink


Your post means, and proves, nothing.  LOL  My posts obliterate your "points."  LOL  Case closed. LOL





 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 01:29
Follow the line of reasoning. It is called logic. If you do, you will notice I cough you in a trap.

Bye


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 01:35
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Follow the line of reasoning. It is called logic. If you do, you will notice I cough you in a trap.

Bye


You just "flounced off".....which means you lost.  LOL

You "cough me in a trap."  LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL




Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 01:40
OK. Given you don't have time to reason (Lord: this generation of Mario Bros. lacks patience), I will explain it to you.

YOU: Historically, "bloody dictators" have been a Chilean problem, not a US problem. 

So, you confirm bloody dictators aren't an US problem. Let's agree on this point.

Now, if dictators aren't a problem to the US, then THERE ISN'T A NEED for guns at the hand of civilians. Why they should have guns when there is no dictator around?

Did you followed it? It is not so hard. Well, it will consume a little bit of time to understand it, but it is not the Rubrick cube at all. Don't be lazy.




Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 01:48
Whatever......




Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 02:30
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


Why is that our problem?  You fight wars when it is to your advantage.  You fight wars on the other guy's territory to make him pay a disproportionate price for the war.  Sometimes it works; sometimes not.  Whatever, YOU don't bear so much of the cost.


Indeed. But in the case of a coup well done, the American people would be in disadvantage with respect to the American army. I doubt the American people, with all its toy guns, could stand a week against a really bloody dictator.

That's why I said the American people hasn't fight in disadvantage since 1812, at the very least. So, I doubt theirs precious guns stored at home could serve for much.
You realise the American army is made up of American people.
 
And yes, I can imagine stiff public resistance if anyone invaded the US. It's the whole national ethos.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 02:39
He guys...you've got to excuse the old bird--
 


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 13:02
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

You realise the American army is made up of American people.


Yes. What's the difference with any other army?
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


And yes, I can imagine stiff public resistance if anyone invaded the US. It's the whole national ethos.


If invaded, of course. But if theirs own military oppress the people matters would be different.


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 15:20
If invaded, of course. But if theirs own military oppress the people matters would be different.
 



-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 15:58
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


For now.


Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 16:22
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?

 
I don't know. Patrick Swayze and his crew of Wolverines looked pretty desperate, as far as I can remember. 
 
Sorry; just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. Wink
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 16:24
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

If invaded, of course. But if theirs own military oppress the people matters would be different.
 



I think he meant if the US military were used to enforce martial law domestically.


-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 17:35
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?

 
I don't know. Patrick Swayze and his crew of Wolverines looked pretty desperate, as far as I can remember. 
 
Sorry; just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
 
Weren't the democrats the reason why them ruskies managed to find the brave gun owning Americans and round them in concentration camps?
 
Al-Jassas
 
 


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 17:53
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Dear Captain, the USA is currently following the Soviet Union into a defeat at the hands of well armed civilians in Afghanistan. The civilians are using weapons made in owner-operated workshops, they have no airforce, no armour, limited artillery, and only the intelligence that they can get with nothing more than a computer with a net connection and sandals.
 
So don't tell me that an armed populace doesn't protect you from invasion. Sure, you need know how, determination, paitence, good tactics and a helping of terrain, but so does a well equiped army.
 
To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.
 
Why Americans needs to be able to access weapons of that calibre (ok, RPGs are not permitted in America while they are in Pak) is a completely different question, because they aren't under constant threat from invasion by everyone.
 
 

I agree with you Omar, in that I think the US (and the rest of NATO) will pull out of Afghanistan. But I don’t think this will constitute a military defeat in the usual sense of the term. It doesn’t take much in the way of resources or intellect to plant a bomb somewhere, or take a few shots at someone, and then run away. This is pretty much the case in many of these types of conflicts. What then occurs is a contest of wills- who has the most motivation and assuredness of purpose. As has been stated above, some proponents have had more strength of purpose in the past. Britain for example did moderately well in Malaya and in Northern Ireland. The US eventually gave up on Vietnam, for pretty much the same reason it will give up on Afghanistan. The original reasoning for entering these conflicts was murky and not well thought out, and some years down the road they looked even less rational. Insurgents of this type cannot possibly win a military conflict, but they can indeed test the will of opponents who do not have a verifiable sense of purpose.

 

In regard to the US, all this is hypothetical to the point of absurdity. What possible force would attempt to storm the beaches of California in their teeming millions, after presumably conscripting every ship and aircraft on the planet to get there, overwhelm US regular forces, the National Guard, and one would presume NATO forces as well (as they would be required to help)? After this event you raise the bizarre vision of NRA gun nuts with homemade bullets, picture of Charlton Heston in their wallets, rolling back this massive army with the aid of sporting rifles, handguns, and the odd M-14. This is great material for a comic book, but has little relevance in real life.

 

What is real and has no comic value whatsoever is the high number of Americans killed every year due to the adolescent attitudes towards guns and gun control in the US. Guns may be exciting in the movies, but at the end of the day, actors go home and crack open a brew and relax. Real life is much more gritty, and those that interact with guns find themselves maimed or dead, and being the good guy is no protection at all from harm.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 18:01
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:


I think he meant if the US military were used to enforce martial law domestically.


Exactly. I was thinking in a coup. Americans are very naive believing that couldn't happened there.


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 18:55
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 But I don’t think this will constitute a military defeat in the usual sense of the term.


Then you haven't been keeping up with terrorist literature have you? Terrorizing any populace too their will is what they do.

Quote
 What then occurs is a contest of wills- who has the most motivation and assuredness of purpose. As has been stated above, some proponents have had more strength of purpose in the past. Britain for example did moderately well in Malaya and in Northern Ireland. The US eventually gave up on Vietnam, for pretty much the same reason it will give up on Afghanistan. The original reasoning for entering these conflicts was murky and not well thought out, and some years down the road they looked even less rational. Insurgents of this type cannot possibly win a military conflict, but they can indeed test the will of opponents who do not have a verifiable sense of purpose.


No purpose? Less rational? 9-11 wasn't a good enough final reason? Iraq in hindsight for lack of WMD, sure, but Afghanistan? No if anything that has confused the purpose then i would say it has been the muddled thinking and many conspiracy theories from within international & domestic academia!Angry

 




Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 19:59
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.
 
Nonsense. A state where the people need guns is a tyranny.
 
The US is far more of a police state nowadays than any country in Europe, just as it is more militaristic, and the situation has been getting worse for the last decade or so.


You are the one writing nonsense in that first sentence. 

In your opinion (for the six years I have been on AE), the United States is a combination of the Kingdom of Prussia and a first edition of 1984.

That is, and has been, hyperbolic nonsense as well, and you know it.  Wink
That would be hyperbolic nonsense, and I've never implied it. The US is certainly more militaristic than any current European country - i.e. it doesn't oonlx spend way more on its military, much of it for show rather than actual defence, but it id filled with rituatlistic, almost religious, attitudes towardrs the military. (This was not true when I was younger: it only really seems to have emerged in the last 20 years or so.)
 
In what iother country do you see soldiers habitually wearing uniforms? In what orther country would the army be permitted to simply take over airlines' check-in desks at civilian airports for use for their own deployments? No Europeans genuflect before their military as much as Americans have done in the 21st century. Catch-22, Brandywine's War, and M*A*S*H were a long time ago.
 
No European country has the Patriot Act. There may be one or two where habeas corpus no longer holds sway, but the equivalent does in any country I know anything about.

In any case, what I said was nonsense was the assertion that "A state where the people need guns is a tyranny." My counter-assertion waas designed to show the nonsensical nature of both statements.
 


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 20:07
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

[QUOTE=pinguin] [QUOTE=Akolouthos] 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn
 
-Akolouthos

Weren't the democrats the reason why them ruskies managed to find the brave gun owning Americans and round them in concentration camps?
 
Al-Jassas
 
I don't think there's a party political issue in this. In Sinclair Lewis's 'blueprint' for the subjugation of the US to dictatorship, 'It Can't Happen Here', it's worth noting it is a Democratic populist who uses the 'well regulated militia' to enforce his takeover. Anyone else found with a gun was imprisoned. Or shot out of hand.
 
After all, the SS and the SA were well regulated militias.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 20:51
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?

 
I don't know. Patrick Swayze and his crew of Wolverines looked pretty desperate, as far as I can remember. 
 
Sorry; just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. Wink
 
-Akolouthos


WHAT? Red Dawn was pure fiction? Well, i declare...


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 20:58
Just change the russians for american soldiers killing their own people, and you'll get an idea what is a coup.

God keep prosperous the U.S.... Otherwise, who knows?


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 22:28
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

No purpose? Less rational? 9-11 wasn't a good enough final reason? Iraq in hindsight for lack of WMD, sure, but Afghanistan? No if anything that has confused the purpose then i would say it has been the muddled thinking and many conspiracy theories from within international & domestic academia

No, 911 was not a good enough reason.
I mean, I would never have expected the US to act any differently, but it was an invasion of rage against a country that wasn't quick enough to avoid it. A rational response to 911 would have been more careful, planned, and pushed diplomacy first. Even if it did result in an invasion it would never have resulted in occupation.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 22:33
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


Certainly. Because Americans are more easily fooled. You play the Yankee Doodle and all Americans dance to the tune. Just imagine a people chosing an idiot like George Bush Confused

So, there is no need of dictators there, giving the fact that people is already controlled quite well. Only rebelious people had dictators.
 
 

Although I am sure the penguin intended this as a handy and rather superficial shot, I think if we examine the statement in greater detail, it will be of bearing here.

 

One of the great fears in the US, one that almost seems embedded in the culture, and extending back to the days of the revolution, is the angst around a powerful, malevolent central government that will ride roughshod over individual rights. It has certainly been a favorite theme in recent years, and many politicians have made a nice living off of it.

 

It is one of the prime justifications for gun ownership- the rather fanciful notion of righteous citizens driving off power grabbing, money sucking, left leaning government bureaucrats at rifle point. As long as there is a gun in every household, those folks in Washington will have to keep their act together, and behave in a reasonable and democratic way, so the reasoning goes.

 

Yet in recent years, we have seen, in the full glare of the media, a very privileged and well connected, if very small, portion of America drain a disproportionate share of the wealth into their own (sometime offshore) accounts. Government has been subverted to its will to the extent that the president is sent, cap in hand, to try and sell more treasury bills to China, while at the same time this group’s personal representatives in Washington engineer yet another tax break for themselves, further increasing an already shocking polarization of wealth in a country previously proud of its large middle class.

 

I am not saying this is a coup d’etat, or a conspiracy driven takeover, but I am saying that in a roundabout fashion, those fearful historical dreams have come true. The power of government has indeed been usurped by a power hungry caste, to a large extent. But it is not the communists, the UN, those colored folk, or a fascist dictatorship that are threatening the well being of average, everyday, working Americans, but simply the most affluent and influential in the land.

 

My point: How much use was individual gun ownership in all of this? What did it, or will it prevent? One of the central fears of the gun advocates may well come to pass, indeed is about two thirds there already, and so far all those guns are for naught. In a large, complex, and technical society, media manipulation and high power spin have proven to be more destructive than depleted uranium bullets.



Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 18 Jan 2011 at 22:40
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Apparently you haven't seen the following documentary:
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dawn
 
-Akolouthos


Think about it: When was the last time Americans fought a war in disadvantage?

 
I don't know. Patrick Swayze and his crew of Wolverines looked pretty desperate, as far as I can remember. 
 
Sorry; just trying to lighten up the mood a bit. Wink
 
-Akolouthos
 
Weren't the democrats the reason why them ruskies managed to find the brave gun owning Americans and round them in concentration camps?
 
Al-Jassas
 
 
 
Quite possibly, although first-hand accounts differ. It was a dark and trying time for our nation, and there was precious little time to keep records.
 
-Akolouthos


Posted By: Joe
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 00:17
Every thread like this is always personal opinion. Though if you think about it; a hunter who uses an AK 47 and "unnecessary" amount of rounds isn't going to have the same abilities and skills as a soldier and even if they do form a "militia" thats all they have is that group while governments have unlimited resources and even if one group is rampaging unchecked like Spartacus and his slaves they aren't going to have the discipline to openly confront lets say the US rangers or the Marines; nor the survival skills or the warrior training of even though your hungry, tired or thirsty you fight on. I honestly think the only way a "revolution" or something of this nature would come about would be through sheer force of will and large numbers of military men leaving the military to rebel. Not just some ragtag BS guys with hunters or whackjobs who buy a hundred guns for no reason. Though America was founded by hunters and skirmishers so to speak and many hunters have extremely specialized weapons like comparable to a Porsche while the army just gets the Volkswagen. I know a guy with a AK-47 with a foregrip about ten pre ban magazines and a holographic scope and for hunting he has a .300 winchester magnum rifle. The idea that the leaders of the revolution were anything other than extraordinary is insane James madison was a lawyer who knew greek and latin, ben franklin was a scientific genius, George washington an able military general and inspirational leader and ETC..

Though I agree with Vancouver about the ridiculousness of the rich in this nation and their control of washington and that is the flaw in the capitalist system. Unrestrained riches is the route of all evil and time and time again through out history the rich always wanna become richer and maintain their "social status" today being rich is associated with being famous and the rich promote an illusory trash culture in which people are famous for their image and rich for no reason. Like IE The situation guy from the jersey shore apparently he made ten million dollars in 2010 off of his illusory image and trash culture of look how women i bang and how jacked I am and how tan my pecks are oh i'm the man. The rich and famous are a scourge of America.

The republican party has extended the tax cuts for the rich in the trickle down BS that failed during Reagan. Now I agree with cutting social spending and less government but tax cuts for the rich is the enemy. I agree with stephen colberts view on it; I'll drink the beer and then piss in your mouth.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 02:23
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 But I don’t think this will constitute a military defeat in the usual sense of the term.


Then you haven't been keeping up with terrorist literature have you? Terrorizing any populace too their will is what they do.

Quote
 What then occurs is a contest of wills- who has the most motivation and assuredness of purpose. As has been stated above, some proponents have had more strength of purpose in the past. Britain for example did moderately well in Malaya and in Northern Ireland. The US eventually gave up on Vietnam, for pretty much the same reason it will give up on Afghanistan. The original reasoning for entering these conflicts was murky and not well thought out, and some years down the road they looked even less rational. Insurgents of this type cannot possibly win a military conflict, but they can indeed test the will of opponents who do not have a verifiable sense of purpose.


No purpose? Less rational? 9-11 wasn't a good enough final reason? Iraq in hindsight for lack of WMD, sure, but Afghanistan? No if anything that has confused the purpose then i would say it has been the muddled thinking and many conspiracy theories from within international & domestic academia!Angry

 


 
 

After the 9/11 attack, American sentiment called for nothing less than a significant pyrotechnical display. And frankly, who can blame them? Afghanistan was the target simply because it was available at low cost. The US could hit there with little blowback, other than the incitement of a few more terrorists. The claim is made that the country contained terrorist training bases, which of course is pretty much irrelevant. Terrorists can, and do, train anywhere and everywhere, in fact the more submerged in a reasonably civilized urban environment, the better. In the case of 9/11, the culprits trained in religious schools in Saudi Arabia, hotel rooms in Hamburg, and flight schools in the US. None of those places are appropriate targets for cruise missiles, for a number of reasons. Ultimately, this was an intelligence/law enforcement issue, but emotions at the time would not allow for this.

 

And so Afghanistan it was. It was a reprehensible place anyway, so no one would be upset over some remote camps inhabited by intellectually stunted radicals and murderers being incinerated. Honor was served.

 

Al Qaeda has long since left, and taken up residence in Pakistan, so that is not much of an issue any more. But in accordance with what is becoming an American tradition, the US soldiers on, mission uncertain. There is a tribally based civil war, a corrupt government, a healthy opium crop, and all of these things are seemingly unable to be contained. And aside from the opium crop, they are of little importance on the world stage. Well meaning people there are attempting to drag Afghanistan, kicking and screaming, into the twenty-first century. But this is a dubious prospect, in the short term anyway. In a sense it is a replay of Vietnam, in that to simply withdraw would look foolish and weak, and make a number of politicians look like idiots. It would also make all those deaths since 2001 all the more tragic and indefensible. And so on it goes, with priorities shifting every few months, in an effort to find a face-saving end. Murky and not well thought out? I think those terms apply.



Posted By: Joe
Date Posted: 19 Jan 2011 at 03:35
Yeah but all al queda groups aren't centralized its more they just carry the banner in name. Like the leader of the Iraqi al queda who did those beheading videos and was killed with a predator drone. He wasn't with osama planning the down fall of america more just a banner leading his band in iraq to establish his own control. Its been a decade we've failed with Al queda.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2012 at 10:46
I thought I'd start this thread after seeing a documentary about the recent cinema shooting in Colorado.  I'm still groggy, so apologies for any poor writing.

It is practically electoral suicide for the majority of US political candidates to propose any form of gun control in the US (not least because of the power of the NRA), even in the wake of the horrific atrocities commited by mentally unstable characters such as James Holmes.  Conversely, rather than a reduction of guns in circulation amongst civilians, there has been increased proliferation with many gun outlets reporting a tripling in sales in the wake of the Cinema shooting; increased numbers seeking firearms training; and a massive increase in applications for concealed carry licenses.

At face value, this seems completely counter intuitive, illogical and ultra paranoid.  Rather than calling for better restrictions on gun purchases, or at least serious enforcement of existing restrictions - people arm themselves to the teeth.

The idea that civilians (or the milita have the right to bear arms) is fine, I have nothing against it, it is a big part of being American - but one of the ludicrous arguments for it is this thing about being able to overthrow an oppressive government by everyone owning a rifle or a handgun.  It wouldn't work in this day and age, maybe 200 years ago, but not today. Remember Waco, Texas?

If someone says America to me, one of the first things I think of is gun (not in a bad way) - it is just such an intrinsic part of American culture and if I lived in America I would probably own one too.  But what bothers me though is that there is practically no intellectual or political debate in the US about the gun problem there - which as consistently demonstrated over the last 15 years is still very real.

How for example would carrying a hand gun have helped in the cinema when some nutjob jumps in with a shotgun, handgun and semi automatic rifle on a premeditated rampage?  If you didn't happen to duck/run for cover in fear of your life and had the presence of mind to unleash your piece (1) wouldn't you make an obvious target for the gunman (2) wouldn't you have a tiny bit of a problem identifying who the gunman was in the dark (3) what if someone else also pulled out their gun and he mistook you for the gunman or vice versa (4) what if you shot and killed innocents fleeing for their lives in the confusion?

Surely the answer rather than proliferating guns further is assessing the mental stability of those wanting to buy such things as automatic or semi-automatic rifles and other high power/performance firearms?  It wouldn't be fool proof, but nutters like holmes could have relatively easily been identified and perhaps hundreds and thousands would have been saved from tragedy?

Another thing that I find frightening about concealed firearms is what if someone's having a bad day and you get into some sort of confrontation with them over a traffic incident or something?  I've had it and I am most others have also where the other party comes across as somewhat psychopathic and actually tries to physically harm you, but nothing serious comes of it - but what if they were carrying a gun?  Would we still be here?

Anyway - the thing that bothers me is the lack of intelligent conversation about the issue in the US, rather than gun ownership - because like I said, I would probably own one or a few myself if I lived there.


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2012 at 11:23
My thoughts on carrying a concealed piece is that it is good for limited self defense away from home and maybe gives a false sense of security in a larger setting as you had elaborated in your post. Like trying to counter a 150mm howitzer with a pea shooter.


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2012 at 21:17
Never thought i would say it, but here is an honest thief that needs to be commended, not punished.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/florida-man-learns-lesson-stolen-weapons-returned-message-190158697.html" rel="nofollow -

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/florida-man-learns-lesson-stolen-weapons-returned-message-190158697.html" rel="nofollow - Florida man learns lesson when stolen gun returned with a message


With power & rights comes a heightened sense of a greater responsibility. Especially with all the shootings in the news lately. Kudos to the thief.


Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2012 at 15:14
Can't say I agree with that view at all on concealed firearms.  Anyway, news has just reached about yet another incident in the US, this time in NY at the Empire State Building.

-------------
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 03:16
I've made my thoughts about the American "Gun Culture" known on other threads.
 
Imo, there is absolutely no justification at all for the population to have so easy access to such a range of weapons as in the USA.
 
The country, on hearing of a new mass shooting tragedy says a collective, "Oh dear, how sad? We must do something," and then forgets about it until the next mass murder.
 
The NRA has intentionally misquoted the American Constitution in relation to the entitlement to own weapons as meaning every individual, when in my mind it refers to "a well armed Militia" a Reserve Army able to be called upon in times of National Emergency.
 
No need to mention that arms manufacturing is big business in the USA.
 
It's all MADNESS!!!


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 03:23
I know this is an old thread, but there are so many similar threads, and they reoccur fairly often.
 
Do Mods or Admin consider that perhaps they should be consolidated under one thread, it would make keeping up with posts easier.
 
Thumbs Up


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 03:26
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Quote To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.
 
[QUOTE]

I remain baffled. Whom is the US in danger of being invaded from that civic firearm ownership will prevent>
ClapClapClap


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 07 Mar 2014 at 11:59
I have merged the Guns II thread into this one - the posts from the other thread begins with Zagros post of 23 Aug 2012..

We have at least one other interesting thread related to this issue " http://www.worldhistoria.com/the-culture-of-the-gun_topic127473_post75141.html#75141" rel="nofollow - The Culture of the Gun

~ North


-------------
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)


Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 09 Mar 2014 at 12:27
Quote the USA is currently following the Soviet Union into a defeat at the hands of well armed civilians in Afghanistan.

Most Afghan civilians aren't involved in fighting foreigners (though as you might expect they would rather they went away). neither was the USA - or its allies - defeated at their hands. far from it. The withdrawal of British forces taking place this year has been made possible by a policy of training native forces to follow on and maintain security for themselves. Since the western forces were not there to 'invade', the defeat must therefore be connected with their stated objectives, which they have largely succeeded with.


-------------
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2014 at 02:26
caldrail:
Slightly off thread, but I don't agree with you.
 
Afghanistan has it's own "gun culture", people carrying AK47's openly in public and using them as and when they feel like it-as they always have done.
 
It's far too early, imo, to say that Allied Forces have succeeded in their mission, which, by the way is War on Terrorism.
 
Five or ten years after all foreign forces have left Afghanistan will show whether or not the mission has been accomplished.
 
Personally, I think all that has gone will return, Afghan tribes will go to war against each other again, and the country will return to the days before the Russians and the Americans. 


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2014 at 03:36
We have already laid to rest the image of Charlton Heston aficionados facing off with Russian paratroops within these pages. This sort of thing makes great Hollywood scripts, and of course is staple fodder for low brow TV entertainments, such as Fox News, and similar.

In real life, NRA members who get stoked on Rambo movies, and go down to Wal Mart and stock up on guns, do not make an army. Sorry about any crushed egos, but this is a fact. What they would make is target practice for any competent, professional force that happened to invade.

Places like Afghanistan or Syria are not good examples for what is proposed here re the US. For one thing, insurgents in those countries are armed with military grade weapons, have received training on them, and crucially, they have a supply train in place . When rebels there fire off ten thousand rounds in a firefight, another ten thousand is in the pipeline, which is why these things drag out.

In the fantasical vision of some invasion of North America that the NRA and fellow travellers like to promote, where is that supply train going to come from? It's a cinch they won't let Charlton Heston back into Wal Mart in order to re-stock.

For another thing, much of the violent edge to the conflict in Afghanistan, certainly, and other places to a degree, is that the fighters in question have a very limited education and world view. They believe that they are not really going to die if  shot, but just float up to somewhere nicer. This sort of thing can complicate armistice talks. How many Charlton Hestons (in real life) are going to commit suicide for Allah?

A slight case could be made that an untrained, or semi-trained militia with rifles was a match for a professional military, if we go back a couple of centuries. There are only so many tactics to learn with a flintlock. In today's technology driven military, there is no comparison between armed civilians, and a modern military.

These crazed statements about citizen armies tend to be just a cover for the various needs or fantasies of individuals


Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2014 at 03:49
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 It's far too early, imo, to say that Allied Forces have succeeded in their mission, which, by the way is War on Terrorism.
 


It seems to be like a pendulum really. In the very beginning, it was reported that no matter what was happening, the allies failed, except they  didn't. Now it is being said that we succeeded, except when it seems that the allies have fumbled the political football for many a reason. However it goes, i do agree it's too darn early to write the history for what is occurring in a factual sense when all we seem to have are working hypothesis.

Quote
Five or ten years after all foreign forces have left Afghanistan will show whether or not the mission has been accomplished.
 


Ten years seem the surer bet.

Quote
Personally, I think all that has gone will return, Afghan tribes will go to war against each other again, and the country will return to the days before the Russians and the Americans. 


Maybe it will happen again. Or maybe they will surprise the hell out of us and succeed as a country. Or perhaps the Pashtun south and the Afghan north will go their separate ways and everybody in present Afghanistan is happy with this solution. Or perhaps regional and world powers will continue like they always have done and continue in interfering in this unhappy country's affairs until the sun dies itself.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 10 Mar 2014 at 06:35
Panther wrote, "........until the sun dies itself."
 
Is there something you're not telling me?Ermm


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Arlington
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 04:57
The WOT has failed. The Taliban will regain supremacy. The pittance of US primarily allied troops that will be left after the Obama withdrawal and surrender. Will probably be forced to evacuate through a hostile Pakistan or a hostile Russian Air space.

The concessions to facilitate that..will be even more harsh and detrimental to the US; than the recent freeing of 5 major Taliban terrorists for the deserter Bergdahl.


The Iranians will continue to enrich to obtain nuclear capabilities thereby causing a major arms region in the region.

The Russians and Chinese, as well as the Iranians, will continue to foster, support and foment unrest in the Israeli-Lebanon-Syria-Jordan regions. To fracture any remaining alliance to the US and or NATO.

The Egyptians remain where they were...back on the fence. The Turks as well.

All that's left is regional conflict and protection by the participants.
Especially those with borders aligned with the fanatics.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 05:18
Arlington: I totally agree. But the USA surely can't be expected to shoulder the burden of interceding in all of these areas to attempt to establish peace. It's not sustainable as the $US14.3 billion bill for Afghanistan is showing.
 
I've often said that I believe that the UN should have a standing Army of Peacemakers, consisting of contributions from all member states. Different members have scoffed at the idea, but what's the alternative. Perhaps where American lives, property and interests are not directly threatened, they should be permitted to fight it out among themselves.
 
US involvement in foreign adventures over the past fifty years haven't gone all that well:-
 
  • Viet Nam=Loss;
  • Central America=Loss;
  • Drug Cartels=Losing/Lost;
  • Drug smuggling=Lost;
  • Arms Trade=Loss;
  • Iraq= 50-50; and
  • Afghanistan=50-50 so far, with guaranteed downgrading of security when last foreign troops leave.

All of these cross border actions really need ongoing assistance from other countries which will be committed to resolution of the problem, not the USA every time.

Perhaps it would be better for the US government to prioritise its hierarchy of overseas interests and allocate troops and other assistance accordingly.
 
Let's face it, there are plenty of areas in the USA where spending a few billion dollars would be greatfully received.
 
 


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Arlington
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 09:38
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Arlington: I totally agree. But the USA surely can't be expected to shoulder the burden of interceding in all of these areas to attempt to establish peace. It's not sustainable as the $US14.3 billion bill for Afghanistan is showing.
 

I've often said that I believe that the UN should have a standing Army of Peacemakers, consisting of contributions from all member states. Different members have scoffed at the idea, but what's the alternative. Perhaps where American lives, property and interests are not directly threatened, they should be permitted to fight it out among themselves.

 

US involvement in foreign adventures over the past fifty years haven't gone all that well:-

 


  • Viet Nam=Loss;

  • Central America=Loss;

  • Drug Cartels=Losing/Lost;

  • Drug smuggling=Lost;

  • Arms Trade=Loss;

  • Iraq= 50-50; and

  • Afghanistan=50-50 so far, with guaranteed downgrading of security when last foreign troops leave.

All of these cross border actions really need ongoing assistance from other countries which will be committed to resolution of the problem, not the USA every time.



Perhaps it would be better for the US government to prioritise its hierarchy of overseas interests and allocate troops and other assistance accordingly.
 

Let's face it, there are plenty of areas in the USA where spending a few billion dollars would be greatfully received.

 

 


No they should not have had to bear an unreasonable burden in treasure or blood. The fact they did, merely corroborates the disingenuous actions, with some caveats noted, and policies considered and implemented within the region. And the competing foreign market interests and trade policies between varying European states and the terrorist regimes dating back to 1979. If not earlier.

Couple this to the reemergence of a 'soviet style block state' in current Russia..

(viz economic ties and dependencies and their ongoing efforts to regain a supremacy in Europe)(not to mention the reemergence of distinct anti-American policies reminiscent of the cold war)


(The emergence and competition between the PRC and the Americans in the Pacific rim and now in Africa)

(The attempts and efforts to redesignate a world currency)

(A reemergence of latent nationalism in Europe and elsewhere)


..the multiplication factor of allied reluctance increases dramatically.




''All of these cross border actions really need ongoing assistance from other countries which will be committed to resolution of the problem, not the USA every time''



Agree with this.. but it's not the reality of the geo-political development of the World since the close of 1945. Since then, for various reasons, with numerous failings in American foreign policy, under varying administrations..the reality is: that no one short of the Americans were in a position to claim a world leadership role.

Certainly no one in Europe or Russia or elsewhere at the time.

The carry over effect of this well intended world policing role was as much hubris as honest intentions.

Bad combinations. While many Americans balk at a throwback to isolationism policies; more and more, for all the reasons you have cited, are beginning to view and advocate a more stricter view for commitment.


The problem with that however, lies in the acceptance of a 'concept' of a secondary world role. Which vary few, other than the liberals and socialist, advocate. Iow. It's been a historical tradition for the US to lead. Rightly or wrongly. Ever since the " greatest generation". Resetting the mind will not be easy for many; considering the losses and gallant efforts of many fine Americans and their allies.


We did not lose the WOT due to a lack of gallantry on American or allied efforts-parts militarily.


We lost the WOT because of the inconsistency of US administration foreign polices since 1992. Tied to nationalistic foreign policy conflicts-competitive interests (particularly trade relations) between ourselves and our allies and those, they and we, do business with.

As for the UN that will never happen simply because of policy and trade and sovereignty issues.

best.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 11:32
Originally posted by Arlington Arlington wrote:

The WOT has failed. The Taliban will regain supremacy. The pittance of US primarily allied troops that will be left after the Obama withdrawal and surrender. Will probably be forced to evacuate through a hostile Pakistan or a hostile Russian Air space.

I thought Osama bin Laden was dead and Pakistan was a long and historic ally.
Quote
The Egyptians remain where they were...back on the fence. The Turks as well.

Turkey is part of NATO and Egypt a stauch ally of America. That's hardly on the fence.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2014 at 19:45
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Arlington: I totally agree. But the USA surely can't be expected to shoulder the burden of interceding in all of these areas to attempt to establish peace. It's not sustainable as the $US14.3 billion bill for Afghanistan is showing.
 
I've often said that I believe that the UN should have a standing Army of Peacemakers, consisting of contributions from all member states. Different members have scoffed at the idea, but what's the alternative. Perhaps where American lives, property and interests are not directly threatened, they should be permitted to fight it out among themselves.
 
US involvement in foreign adventures over the past fifty years haven't gone all that well:-
 
  • Viet Nam=Loss;
  • Central America=Loss;
  • Drug Cartels=Losing/Lost;
  • Drug smuggling=Lost;
  • Arms Trade=Loss;
  • Iraq= 50-50; and
  • Afghanistan=50-50 so far, with guaranteed downgrading of security when last foreign troops leave.

All of these cross border actions really need ongoing assistance from other countries which will be committed to resolution of the problem, not the USA every time.

Perhaps it would be better for the US government to prioritise its hierarchy of overseas interests and allocate troops and other assistance accordingly.
 
Let's face it, there are plenty of areas in the USA where spending a few billion dollars would be greatfully received.
 
 

The US, like all other major world powers before in history, have made decisions on military actions based on their own strategic interests, in the overwhelming majority of cases. Those that have looked more like a moral/legal police action have, for the most part, been those incidents that were easily dealt with due to asymmetric force, or at least the perception of it, and significant goals, at least a small portion of which could be considered a geopolitical gain for the "policeman". True altruism has been rare in history, at least from political leadership.

Afghanistan can hardly be described as a police action. The terrorists that attacked on 9/11 had no fixed base- they trained in the US and other countries. Afghanistan was a modest target, housing some very basic training facilities, and sheltering some criminal elements. However, after the outrage of 9/11, something had to be done. Urging the CIA and Interpol to do their best was not enough, given the emotional turmoil at that time. A target was needed, and Afghanistan was as good as any: they had housed terrorists and criminals, they were run by a bunch of wackos, it was a violent and seedy backwater, and above all, it was easy. There was nothing to stop the cruise missiles, and no awkward fallout from hitting a more important part of the world (Saudi Arabia, for example). In short, a fine place for a cathartic light show. Which of course did nothing. The training camps were empty by then, and Bin Laden was on his way to Pakistan.

It was only later, when the futility of the mission started to become apparent, that the mission changed to "nation building". Again, as in Vietnam and Iraq, academics that had a broader view of the world urged caution, as the surmised that an entrenched society was not going to change 180 degrees within a few short years, and at the barrel of a gun. They were correct. Now the US is pulling out, a decade or so being judged enough to save honor, and claim a victory of some convoluted sense.

We can rest assured that the US will continue to do what it deems in its own best interest, whatever the cost. Sometimes this might coincide with the rule of law and higher purpose. History shows us that sometimes it might not. It depends on the circumstances.

A UN military force would be a good idea, but unfortunately the mentality out there is still rather tribal, and each nation supports only what is considered to be in their own interest, which very much complicates any coordinated action.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 02:35
Captain:
I wasn't implying that all of the activities listed were "police actions", obviously they weren't.
 
The underlying point I was trying to make that it's unfair for the rest of the world to sit on its hands and watch while the US does the international cleaning up.
 
I understand that the international tribalism would probably prevent the UN from setting up a Ready Response Force, but the US can't be expected to carry the load forever, it's simply not sustainable.


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.


Posted By: Captain Vancouver
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2014 at 16:43
I don't think it is a matter of the rest of the world sitting on their hands. In cases where a legitimate international cause is seen, many will step up to the plate. The international naval force off Somalia, NATO intervention in Libya, Australia in E Timor, etc., are examples. Many of the US military expeditions in recent decades have arguably created as much mess as they have cleaned up. Vietnam, Iraq II, Afghanistan, and a number of smaller outings were all based primarily on the needs of US foreign policy, and to some degree domestic perception, and not on any sort of altruistic "cleaning up" of world problems. In those three major cases, the US did not achieve what it wanted, and had to walk away after leaving considerable "mess"" behind. In some cases in fact the US has defied world opinion in taking on these campaigns.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to heap scorn on the US here, but merely pointing out that world politics can be a pretty cool and calculating game, and historically, altruism has taken a back seat in the planning rooms of world powers. There have been a few exceptions, such as British anti-slavery efforts in the mid 19th century for example, but overall it has been a case of self-interest.

If the US is cleaning up, it is a very selective janitor.


Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11 Jun 2014 at 08:04
Another Mass Shooting in the USA.
 
This is about the fifth such incident in the past two weeks, and is the 74th incident since the Sandy Hook School massacre in 2012.
 
Are you people all mad in the USA?
 
How many more innocents must die before you shuck off the Wild West mentality, and start doing something towards Gun Control. 
 
 


-------------
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net