Human violence and dictatorships!

[FreeLancer]

Damnit, stop quoting whole posts. How about you use wonderful things called "links" instead?

http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showpost.php?p=101732&postcount=33

Hinckleyforpresident


I moved it here so we can stop trashing the Obama topic.

Look, you keep trying to tell me that if the government tries to take away your weapons they'll somehow start to "control you", but what you don't realize is that they are already doing that! I'm pretty sure most of the people with guns wouldn't have the guts to pull the trigger against thousands of soldiers that would protect the government. I say take away the weapons, take away the military!
Here's a fact: all the countries in the world are building defensive systems. Why bother if no one is going to attack? (everyone on defense no one on assault). Why not just take away all the weapons? Besides I doubt the first thing Obama is going to do is become a dictator, you had your flowers and Bushes things couldn't get any worse.

[-=HeX=-]

Freelancer: the government cant turn on its people if they have guns simply because they know that at least some of the gun owners will fight back. They also, in the case of america, know that the civilians will in some form eight back, and with civilian owned firearms the resistance will have access to many many guns.

The bit about defence mode... Is just pacifist talk.

[Gerbil]

Hex: fight back against what? If you think that you're going to suddenly wake up one day to see the SS marching down the street, you're mistaken.
Dictatorial governments only work if the population support them and carries them into power. The best way to control people is to have them on your side. Therefore, it stands to reason that if the US government does become truly totalitarian, the "gun owners" will be in complete support (and those that aren't will be too frightened or pragmatic to speak out).

Sure, you might get some sort of insurgency or rebellion, but what good are a few people going to do against a nationalised state? The public, who would be conscripted into the army and 'freedom militias', would more or less despise them as traitors and terrorists, and ironically, they might even give the government more power and control. An enemy, especially an internal one, can be used as a scapegoat for problems, a reason for extra measures of control, and something for people to vent their hate and frustration on. Try reading 1984.

Unfortunately, the best way to defend your liberty is to go somewhere that it's respected.

[Hirudinea]

I say take away the weapons, take away the military!
Here's a fact: all the countries in the world are building defensive systems. Why bother if no one is going to attack? (everyone on defense no one on assault). Why not just take away all the weapons?

Noble sentiment, impossibly naive, but noble. People have weapons because its natural, even the most harmless of living things have weapons, skunks have "mace", bees have "knives", plants have "posions", and because without any defences what you have will be taken by those who want what you have, why should people or nations be any different, the second a nation disarms they will be taken over by a nation that didn't, and I kind of like the stuff I got. :)

Unfortunately, the best way to defend your liberty is to go somewhere that it's respected.

But the only place it is respected is one where the people have a culture of liberty, where liberty is integral to the social fabric, and frankly I see that being assulted everywhere in the world, so where can you go?

[3287]

They won't take away guns, if they have two brain cells between them. There's no need to. There is no first-world country that is facing rebellion right now, the societies won't harbor the idea.

http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=1874

[FreeLancer]

skunks have "mace", bees have "knives", plants have "posions"...

Nice so you're living in 1000 BC? What you're saying that we don't have the intelligence to live without weapons? And besides I thought 90% of the people thought we were somehow "above" animals, being able to think and all?
I don't believe that but still, some people do.

Hirudinea (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showpost.php?p=101768&postcount=34) & kepiblanc (http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showpost.php?p=101765&postcount=35)

I live in the central Europe (mighty close to the dangerous eastern Europe you're talking about) and haven't seen anything like that, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

No money no shelter? What is that? I don't blame you for thinking like that, I blame the system. I'm not going to answer that here, it would take to much space just read The Zeitgeist movement (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/DesigningtheFuture.pdf)


kepiblanc I'm not going to even reply to your post, because we've been through that.

[Joxer]

Sure, you might get some sort of insurgency or rebellion, but what good are a few people going to do against a nationalised state?

Then we (I) will die. And so what?
You want to live forever?

Name 1 revolution that was started by a majority.

[Hinckleyforpresident]

@Freelancer

Why are you here? Are you just trolling or something? Almost no one here is going to agree with you, so you're just going to piss people off. Do you think that you will be able to convince people to be pacifists on the explosives and weapons forum?

People who say "Get rid of all weapons, get together in peace, smoke a joint, and play drums" don't really have an accurate view of the world. You see, in theory it may seem wonderful for everyone to just be happy with each other in a violence free world. This however, is fantasy land. In the real world, people are desperate. People will do anything to better their situation. If you don't believe me, go try telling a crackhead that you have lots of money. See what he has to say/do to you :rolleyes:.

And I don't think disarming the world is a very smart thing to do either. There will always be someone who is willing to hurt people to get what he wants. Arms need to be present to eliminate such threats.

Then we get to the legality of arms. Like others have said many times before me, the second amendment was written so that the people could fight the government if it got tyrannical. I don't know how much you know about history, but the American revolution started with irritated farmers fighting what they saw as oppression. More and more people started to side with these "radicals" as the war drove on, and in the end a bunch of peasants defeated one of the best trained and funded armies in the world.

[FreeLancer]

@Freelancer

Why are you here?

I love pyrotechnics.

The second amendment was written by too many paranoid people, that's what I think about it. I mean look at all the times in Europe that the "government" (leaders) wanted to have all the power. And we didn't have the 2. amendment but still freed ourselves didn't we?

[Hinckleyforpresident]

The second amendment was written by too many paranoied people, that's what I think about it.

The founding fathers being paranoid?! Are you fucking nuts? They just fought off an oppressive government, they were trying to make sure tyranny wouldn't come back as easily.

I meen look at all the times in Europe that the "government" (leaders) wanted to have all the power. And we didn't have the 2. amendment but still freed ourselves didn't we?

No, not really. People without guns got their asses kicked. People with guns took out the tyranny. It's people who aren't armed who always seem to be needing the rescuing.

[FreeLancer]

That's not true, People without weapons don't need rescuing, we were holding out just fine.

2 questions.

1.If weapons are there to fight opression, why didn't you guys use them against the patriot act?

2. I doubt very much YOU would have the guts to start shooting your little weapons against the military that would naturally be on the side of the government, or am I wrong?

[Hinckleyforpresident]

That's not true, People without weapons don't need rescuing, we were holding out just fine.

Oh you where? Tell me, how did you like the panzer divisions tearing up your homeland? How was it when Belgrade got the shit bombed out of it?

And please, how did pacifism liberate Yugoslavia from the Nazi's?

It didn't. It required the military defeat of Germany, not just protesting or complaining.


1.If weapons are there to fight opression, why didn't you guys use them against the patriot act?

2. I doubt very much YOU would have the guts to start shooting your little weapons against the military that would naturally be on the side of the government, or am I wrong?

It is a very serious deal to just "start shooting". Hastily rushing into any sort of revolution is just plain retarded.

[Gerbil]

Then we (I) will die. And so what?

Then get off your ass and go shoot up your local barracks. Everyone might die someday, but I'd prefer to live as long as possible.
Dying for a cause should be a last resort. Make your opponents die for theirs.

Name 1 revolution that was started by a majority.

Revolutions aren't "started" by people. They're caused by long periods of discontent, and are finally triggered by a tiny spark. Successful ones also tend to have the support of the military.

Look at what the islamists are doing in Iraq etc at the moment. They're using hit and run tactics similar to what's being described here, and the US hasn't exactly been brought to its knees.
I'm not saying that trying to overthrow an oppressive state is pointless, just that the people who think they're some invincible macho Rambo are living in lala land.

I meen look at all the times in Europe that the "government" (leaders) wanted to have all the power. And we didn't have the 2. amendment but still freed ourselves didn't we?

No, you didn't. If you're talking about WW2, then the Allies freed you.

[Winter Wolf]

No money no shelter? What is that? I don't blame you for thinking like that, I blame the system. I'm not going to answer that here, it would take to much space just read The Zeitgeist movement (http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/DesigningtheFuture.pdf)

Yeah, about that... I watched the Zeitgeist addendum, and I've read the documents you posted by Mr. Fresco. Looks and sounds to me like just another starry eyed dreamer who's head is so far up in the clouds that he's no earthly good. If I recall correctly Plato said much that was similar in preface to his The Republic. Plato said that (and I paraphrase here) that if everyone were a philosopher then no one would be poor or hungry. Well the human species has seen quite a bit of water under the bridge since Plato penned The Republic, and it appears that we are no closer to being a collective of philosophers now than in his day.

Human nature has not apparently changed much, if any, since Plato's day, and I suspect that not much will change any time in the near future. People have needs and desires and want happens because sometimes (contrary to Mr. Jaques Fresco's idea) necessary resources are lacking. How to solve the problem of scarcity of resources? Mr. Fresco's solution, apparently, is that we all just learn to share. Nice idea, and it sounds just lovely; when it's been attempted the results have always been... well, less than spectacular.

[Joxer]

Then get off your ass and go shoot up your local barracks.

Why? They haven't done anything to me or anyone else that I am aware of. Not yet, anyway.

They're using hit and run tactics similar to what's being described here, and the US hasn't exactly been brought to its knees.

We have been "brought to our knees", right now. Have you been paying attention to the markets lately?

I'm not saying that trying to overthrow an oppressive state is pointless, just that the people who think they're some invincible macho Rambo are living in lala land.

I never said I was an "invincible rambo". I am quite mortal, and I really do not like violence. You are making straw man arguments.

Revolutions aren't "started" by people. They're caused by long periods of discontent, and are finally triggered by a tiny spark.

This country is a tinderbox awaiting that spark. That tiny spark is people starting that revolution. And the British army wasn't exactly supportive of our 1st revolution.

[thelasttrueone]

This country is a tinderbox awaiting that spark. That tiny spark is people starting that revolution. And the British army wasn't exactly supportive of our 1st revolution.
You can't be exactly sure of that, their tactics seemed like they wanted us to win, maybe their commanders had a Freudian agreement with the terrorists... I mean freedom fighters:rolleyes:.

But to be serious, I am now addressing freelancer. Anyone who wants to give up their gun rights is insane. When so many evil men are armed, isn't it the duty of the good ones to fight back? Clearly you value life over whatever ideals you may (or may not) have and this is ridiculous, life comes and goes but ideas can survive for eons. I want to add that I think anyone who is questioning why freelancer is here needs to shut their trap, I welcome opposing viewpoints and so should you. Opposing viewpoints allow us to see why the others are so wrong when we shut them down :D .

[Alexires]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

[-=HeX=-]

Some seem to think its pointless grabbing your rifle and starting out. I do not. I see it as extremely fruitful. Here in Ireland one man fired the shot that started the glorious revolution. That man was Dan Breen. When he got his men to assault the local barracks they sparked the tinderbox and all hell broke loose. More barracks were done in, next thing we know its a full scale war. All you Need is fuel, a spark, and enough fuel to keep it going. As the government becomes more brutal the people join you.

[FreeLancer]

Gerbil: Oh yeah? Name the countries on the Allied side!

America? Oh yeah and in the early days of the war, they DIDN'T sell weapons to the nazis? Face it, you boys were there for the money and nothing else, just like now in Iraq. I'm not saying America didn't do anything to help, they did a lot, but you're not the only cause we won the war!

Don't talk about yugoslavia. No one at that time had GUNS and RIFLES in their houses! But we managed to get them to free ourselves from the nazis didn't we!? That's what I'm saying. I never said guns weren't used to free ourselves, just that we were able to get weapons even though we don't and didn't have the second amendment.

Talking about fighting the government with your weapons. Even if you planed a lot I simply don't think most of the Americas finest (eaters, since you do have a lot of those people) are prepared to fire a single shot at ANY time at an army man.

Not that I have anything against overweight people. Well with 26.6% in 2007 people that don't have the ability to do anything too physical and with say 60% that simply wouldn't want to fight you're down to 13.4% of the population ready to fight! Oh but wait how many out of that 100% are army man?

If you've got a shot gun aiming at the military, and they've got tanks, armors, and fully automatic rifles aiming at you, I don't think the fight would last very long, so you're 2. amendment is in fact useless.

[iHME]

I want to derail this thread, as I hate flame wars, yes this is the water cooler.
I would rather not see shit like this on a forum like roguesci, it reminds me of inferior forums and boards.

[Hinckleyforpresident]

I agree with IHME, this thread is turning into crap very quickly.

End of conversation.