Guns as "protection". (From the Government)

The BBQ Pit
141

“… and many gays, and Democrats, and ACLU members, and… well, and you know who else drank water? Hitler drank water! And Stalin! I’ll do you the courtesy of not saying that you’re like Hitler or Stalin, but don’t expect me to be any more courteous, you filthy water drinker.”

Don’t mean to interrupt your guilt by association though.

Interesting. I see you totally skip over the fact that you were bullshitting and Keegan’s own words show that he believes an insurrection can defeat a military superpower.

So your nitpick is that 6.3 isn’t almost 10, and it was actually a greater percent in that individual theater than 6.3 in any case. Alright.

Shit, nobody proved it to you? And as you’ve already bullshited once on what Keegan actually believes, you’re an accurate source for what’s been proven to him?

Something tells me that Keegan isn’t as ignorant as you paint him to be, and he’s well aware that, for instance, Operation Neptune was made possible by BIGOT, which was in turn made possible in large part by intel gathered by the French.

Mmm hmmm. So whether or not we had access to vital intel, provided by the French, which allowed the invasion to be successful is immaterial to whether or not the invasion could have happened. A Frenchman stole the blueprints for the Nazi’s Atlantic Wall and gave them to the allies? Ah well.

I guess you have a point. Instead of the invasion of Normandy, we could now be referring to it as the failed invasion of Normandy. Proving that Normandy would have been invaded anyways and the difference between success and failure is immaterial. :rolleyes:

Ah, goalposts are movin’ fast here.
Now having an armed populace no longer counts if they’ve imported their weapons. And an insurrection doesn’t count if some of its members are foreign.

Of course, the vast majority of fighters in Iraq aren’t foreign and most US claims about direct Iranian governmental involvement (or even non-governmental transfers of Iranian weaponry) have been dubious or incorrect. But that doesn’t matter. We can throw Iraq out as an example, even though the guy you’re using to support your case… points out that Iraqi insurgents have the potential to defeat the US military which was supported by Iraq’s’ government to boot.

Or half-starved Jews armed mostly with pistols and molotovs can make crack Nazi troops falter for almost a month without any outside aid, trying up valuable resources and troops and boosting the morale of the Poles enough that they launched an uprising that took months for the Nazis to crush and which was only crushed via total war.

Certainly, if many cities, to say nothing of every city that the Nazis occupied rose up, the Nazis would have maintained control, logistical supply lines and most importantly their troops’ morale and their citizenry’s will to fight.
Certainly.

So the only military super power on Earth falls to a military coup, and a civil war is started, and the other global powers don’t take covert action?

The US dictatorship would somehow be able to apply enough force to crush the resistance without destroying their own industrial base and creating more opponents with every bomb and every bullet? The dictatorship could, even conceivably, field enough forces to wage an effective counterinsurgency campaign or fight a traditional, set-piece series of pitched battles with guerrilla forces?

Roger.

How soon after we started taking losses were American politicians demanding a withdrawal of our troops in Iraq? How soon after taking losses did public confidence and support start dropping?

You’ve been ignoring them by avoiding the meat of my argument, each time, in order to raise points which are tangential at best. When faced with the fact that, for instance, the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto managed to seriously hinder Nazi military operations and had enough of an impact on morale that they helped another uprising happen soon after, you discount the fact that this shows us the power of even isolated instances of resistance by people in poor physical condition and armed with substandard small arms.

You’ve also totally ignored the effects of both morale and logistics on any group’s ability to project force. And the WGU had a definite impact on the morale and logistical ability of both the Nazis, and the people they were occupying.

You can keep repeating that, but it won’t make it true.
We could look at Caesar’s act of crossing the Rubicon. We could look at 1985’s coup in Nigeria (which followed 1983’s coup), and which in turn saw another attempted coup against Babangida which was not successful and a 1993 coup which was. Or South Korea’s 1961 coup which survived for a while on the pretense of democracy but once the regime began cracking down on dissent, the country’s feelings were ultimately inflamed and Park himself was assassinated by the director of his own security forces, or…

142

Dude, you’re undermining your whole case here. The 2nd amendment gun advocate arguments rest on the meaning of the terms “right to keep and bear arms” at the time the constitution was drafted, not 2009.

143

You really don’t know that even during the post-war period, racist gun laws were enacted in order to keep blacks disarmed? That there is, in fact, a long history of gun control enacted specifically to oppress blacks? That this pattern continued during Jim Crow?

Or that, in fact, blacks being able to arm themselves proved to be an effective deterrent against the KKK, for example?

So, ironically, all the folks in this thread who’ve been arguing in a guilt-by-association manner… history shows that racists in general and Klanners in specific supported “gun control” in order to keep guns out of the hands of blacks, so that blacks couldn’t defend themselves from racist who had guns.

144

But gun control doesn’t work, so blacks must still have had guns. In fact gun control makes things worse, right?

145

I think that I’ll take a cue from a previous poster and simply point out:

Of course “gun control” is never 100% and some blacks were able to arm themselves. But the system was set up in order to prevent them for arming themselves and it was difficult enough that many were lynched and entire communities were terrorized without any recourse to effective self defense. And that, in fact, when blacks were able to arm themselves, the KKK could no longer kill, mutilate and terrorize with impunity.

And you knew that already.

146

OK, so now we have a bunch of blacks with guns (the opposite of what you said before), so who should they have shot first back in the 1950s to escape the tyranny of Jim Crow? I’m assuming that Jim Crow is as bad as anything you imagine the govt doing to you before you take up your guns and revolt.

147

Not that there’s much point in debating with you as you’ve shown that you’re debating dishonestly, but I do have to point out a few things. First off:

I never said any such thing, you’re inventing things.

I pointed out that gun control was designed to keep blacks from owning guns for a long, long time. Centuries, in fact. From before the war, to after the war with the Black Codes, to Jim Crow, to segregation.

I pointed out that when blacks were able to arm themselves, they were able to defend themselves from the KKK, which they had been unable to do before. Heroes like Robert F. Williams and the Deacons for Defense did more to protect the civil rights (and lives) of the oppressed than all the guilt-by-association babblers in this thread, put together, have ever done.

W. E. B. Dubois pointed out:

There were numerous examples where racist white’s in power disarmed blacks while allowing whites to keep their weapons.

I’d also point out that you’re dancing with a man made of straw, and I’ve already pointed out how the mere presence of armed blacks was enough to guarantee their safety in many cases. And, of course, you’ve invented a position where I’m claiming that blacks should have begun shooting people.
You’ve already suggested that random white people might have been acceptable targets for those of us who recognize that an armed black man was a much less tempting target for the KKK than an unarmed black man.

And, has already been pointed out to you, the correct course of action was soapbox, ballot box and then the cartridge box. And that’s exactly what happened. The civil rights movement achieved legislated equality eventually while life and liberty was protected against monsters like the Klan by arming blacks.

Again, you already knew that, because you specifically responded to it with an ignorance-based strawman that you vomited up about how gun control makes things worse, and since there was racist “gun control” directed against blacks, they must have magically had more guns.

I’d point out, again, that I’ve already pointed out that I neither own guns nor plan on taking up arms in any revolt.

But again, you already knew that.

148

I’m still trying to follow the logic here. The 2nd ammendment gun “advocates” (I avoided the use of the “n” word) say that people have the right to own guns to fight government tyranny. It’s hard to imagine worst tyranny in Amercia than that faced by blacks pre 1955. So we have established that they had access to guns, and that they faced govt tyranny for years, but you are saying that they were right to use the power of the soap box and ballot box rather than armed revolt.

Yet don’t 2nd ammendment types see it as not only their right, but their responsibility, to fight tyranny with the use of arms? Black people put up with tyranny from 1776 to well into the 1950s. Is that how long the armed American citizens are going to wait before taking up arms? If so, it makes no sense to keep guns because you will be dead before it’s time to use them.

Shouldn’t Rosa Parks have said “fuck you, bus guy” and pulled out a gun? Wasn’t it her responsibility to do so? Or are you suggesting that non-violent, direct action was a better means of fighting against govt tyranny?

149

I’ll field this one.

Certain kinds of tyranny, while still unquestionably tyranny, are best fought with nonviolent means. Legal segregation in a nation that believes that all men are created equal is best fought with consciousness-raising and appeals to the commonality of all mankind. A group of klansmen coming in the night to lynch you is best fought from cover, with your automatic weapon of choice (provided you were unable to bring in sniper support and install landmines previously, which is generally the case).

I’ll also go ahead and say that pre-Civil War, blacks in America were morally justified in using lethal force to escape slavery.

Just my opinions based on my own moral values.

150

Yep, if you’re enslaved you can kill your “owner”. If you’re attacked you can defend yourself. If a process exists for redress of grievances that can eventually lead you to legislative equality without resorting to bloodshed, then there’s no need for bloodshed.

Guns are not the solution to every problem, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t the solution to any problem. Blather was already told that, and has conveniently forgotten. Just as he’s constructed a Der Trihs level-absurd strawman of 2nd amendment supporters, and then feigned shock that the real 2nd amendment supporters didn’t act like his make-believe ones.

151

I said

You replied:

There’s no way to have any kind of conversation with you if you if you don’t remember what you put in your own posts. Right now I’ll chalk it up to stupidity on your part rather than intellectual dishonesty.

152

So if the pro 2nd ammendment gun toters were faced with a decades long situation in which they themselves were relegated to 2nd class schools, segregated waiting rooms and water fountains, a biased judicial system, and little access to the ballot box, then this would not represent govt tyranny sufficient for them to use their guns in armed revolt.

I’m starting to think that they do not really believe the RTKABA is based on fighting govt tyranny. Maybe they want to own guns because shooting and collecting them are fun recreational activities.

153

It means the same thing now as it did then. Right to bear arms, especially in the event of despotic or tyrannical behavior on the part of the government. Comparing the plight of African Americans in a bygone era to what most of us are assuming the term “government tyrrany” to mean is apples and oranges.

I think you’re just intentionally being contrary for argument’s sake.

154

I don’t think a violent campaign to oppose Jim Crow would have been morally objectionable per se. I think it might have been tactically unadvisable, but it could certainly have been justified.

155

Blather loves to troll gun threads.

156

I have no idea where your quotes above represent a place where I forgot what I had posted.

Here is my point in short words so you can understand: you say on the one hand that gun prohibition does not, and can not work. And that the by-product of banning guns is that the people the banners don’t want to have guns would get them anyway.

Then on the other hand you say that banning guns to certain classes of individuals resulted in that group having less guns; i.e., that gun control was at least partially effective.

157

Let’s make sure I understand. You don’t think that Jim Crow laws represented govt tyranny, or at least not at a level that would justify armed revolt. So your theshold of tyranny before you pick up arms is what, exactly?

158

I do think that was a form of governmental tyranny, the problem was, at that time, amongst many people, it was accepted behavior. This of course doesn’t make it any less abhorrent nor does it mean that black people wouldn’t have been justified in resorting to an armed uprising (from a modern point of view of course…I don’t think that Southern courts at that time would have taken a very fond view of captured black “revolutionaries”).

I am merely stating that I think this thread has drifted away from what I thought we were talking about…armed opposition to the federal government in the event that the federal government, for whatever hypothetical reason, sicced the military on the general populace. That scenario is far different in scope and size than the Jim Crow laws that you introduced into this topic. Although both are forms of government-sponsored tyranny, yes.

159

Let’s make sure I understand. You don’t think that Jim Crow laws represented govt tyranny, or at least not at a level that would justify armed revolt. So your theshold of tyranny before you pick up arms is what, exactly?

Missed edit window: So are you saying that we can’t look back to Jim Crow as an example of govt tyranny because it’s not the kind that we would face today, but we can look further back to the words of the 2nd ammendment to figure out what the framers meant by “the security of a free State”.

160

You’re jumping through your own asshole here trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you said. While it is amusing to watch you squirm, I’ve had enough of feeding the troll in this thread. You and gonzomax are a matched pair of disingenous assholes.