Its not like the gun-toting right are the first people to be fine with giving up their rights to the government in the name of national security or in the name of their morality/faith or anything.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48487176]I wouldn't call it totalitarian, but rather; authoritarian[/QUOTE]
Well I'm sure if Sweden put it up to a vote you'd still not have assault rifles.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48487176]I wouldn't call it totalitarian, but rather; authoritarian[/QUOTE]
Also calling Sweden Authoritarian is hilarious, they're rank 23 on economic freedom by the heritage foundation, rank 2 in the democracy index, have a score of 1 (best) in all parts of the freedom house index, Ranked 5th in freedom of the press by reporters without borders, you're delusional if you think Sweden is comparable to ANY authoritarian state on the planet right now because every report by non-government foundation says otherwise.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48487479]Tyranny l m a o
Imagine thinking Sweden is gonna go gung-ho North Korea tommorow, and that your average citizen with a .22 would be able to stop their military[/QUOTE]
It doesn't happen in a day, first they start by removing our freedom and restricting free trade little by little, arguing that it's to protect children, or protect us from terrorists or protect the feelings of marginalized groups, once people feel that giving up rights is okay for some reason (i dont know why anyone wouldn't fucking riot in the streets about lost rights), then they'll strip more rights away, eventually we wont have many rights left, then they start taking our lives.
It's a process that can take a very long time, it doesn't happen overnight.
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48487649]Also calling Sweden Authoritarian is hilarious, they're rank 23 on economic freedom by the heritage foundation, rank 2 in the democracy index, have a score of 1 (best) in all parts of the freedom house index, Ranked 5th in freedom of the press by reporters without borders, you're delusional if you think Sweden is comparable to ANY authoritarian state on the planet right now because every report by non-government foundation says otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Not disagreeing but I'm curious to see the overall list. Can you link me to it?
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48487650]It doesn't happen in a day, first they start by removing our freedom and restricting free trade little by little, arguing that it's to protect children, or protect us from terrorists or protect the feelings of marginalized groups, once people feel that giving up rights is okay for some reason (i dont know why anyone wouldn't fucking riot in the streets about lost rights), then they'll strip more rights away, eventually we wont have many rights left, then they start taking our lives.
It's a process that can take a very long time, it doesn't happen overnight.[/QUOTE]
Read my post above yours, Sweden consistently ranks high in every single freedom index on the planet be it economic, civil liberties or speech. You're delusional.
[editline]18th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48487662]Not disagreeing but I'm curious to see the overall list. Can you link me to it?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://index.rsf.org/#!/[/url] Reporters without Borders ranks on freedom of the press
[url]https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world#.VdOIQpfQMvE[/url] FreedomHouse
[url]http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking[/url] Heritage Foundation ranks of economic freedom
[url]http://www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/Articles/421a313a-d58f-462e-9b24-2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf[/url] Economist Intelligence Unit ranks of democracy
[QUOTE=Aldawolf;48487663]Read my post above yours, Sweden consistently ranks high in every single freedom index on the planet be it economic, civil liberties or speech. You're delusional.[/QUOTE]
They probably aren't ranking it out of a truly free perspective considering our draconic drug laws, our alcohol market being everything but a free market, our freedom of speech having been eradicated (but we still have A LOT of leeway in what is acceptable to say), we get bossed around by a government doing things that most of the population is opposed to, just so they can score morality points as if politics was some sort of video game.
I see gun ownership more as a means of defending from actual incursion rather than a hypothetical devolution into a totalitarian state. Be that an actual foreign invasion as was feared in the second world war, an attempted breakaway state forming as was the case in the American Civil War (secession is basically the Republican party's wet dream right now and I'd rather not be complacent in any serious attempts they could make), or the most likely someone trespassing your property with the intent of causing harm. Keep in mind the second amendment was written specifically to protect hunters and to keep militia forces at ready for border disputes or a potential British counterattack (militia were by no means the most useful forces in the war of independence but you gotta have a first line somewhere).
That and of course going out and plinking for fun or running competitive for sport.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48487406]Yeah if your government suddenly turned into Third Reich 2.0 Mode and noticed resistance I sort of doubt they'd keep your infrastructure online
And seriously, why would they do that, do they want to get hated (even more) by the rest of the world just like how everyone hates russia and north korea?[/QUOTE]
Exactly, they wouldn't do that.
It would be a subtle oppression. "Oh hey, we're stationing military on the streets for 'your protection,' please cooperate."
There would be no shutdown of infrastructure, they would be careful about it. Blatant oppression, putting people in camps, bullshit like that, would spark a complete rebellion. In reality, it would be just like the American Revolution. Most people would sit on the wayside, indifferent about who is in charge. They'd say, "Eh, it isn't so bad, I can do without absolute freedoms. I don't need absolute free speech if I can exercise free speech in specific 'free speech zones,' it isn't worth fighting/dying over." Whereas a small percentage of Americans would actively resist.
Their goal would not be total victory [the resistance], it would be to expose the true nature of the government. A single slip-up, a drone strike on a building full of kids, an execution in the streets, and the people would rally behind the resistance. That would be the endgame, utilize the sharing culture of modern America to blow a single slip-up into something people could rally behind. The endgame for the government would be the same, expose a bad side of the revolution and watch support fall off overnight. It'd be a game of who fucks up first, but the resisting side would need enough firepower to provoke the beast, bolt-action rifles and pistols wouldn't cut it.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48487650]It doesn't happen in a day, first they start by removing our freedom and restricting free trade little by little, arguing that it's to protect children, or protect us from terrorists or protect the feelings of marginalized groups, once people feel that giving up rights is okay for some reason (i dont know why anyone wouldn't fucking riot in the streets about lost rights), then they'll strip more rights away, eventually we wont have many rights left, then they start taking our lives.
It's a process that can take a very long time, it doesn't happen overnight.[/QUOTE]
Probably the slipperiest slope I've ever read.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48487688]They probably aren't ranking it out of a truly free perspective [considering our draconic drug laws, our alcohol market being everything but a free market, [B]our freedom of speech having been eradicated[/B] (but we still have A LOT of leeway in what is acceptable to say), we get bossed around by a government doing things that most of the population is opposed to, just so they can score morality points as if politics was some sort of video game.[/QUOTE]
Last time we concluded that you think there's no such thing as free speech in Sweden because hate speech on the level of proposing violence is illegal
I'm also not sure how our drug laws are "draconic" compared to most states in the U.S, for instance
our politicans are incompetent* and lying* bastards, sure, but most of them are
** = Governing a nation isn't as easy as saying "make it so", who would've thought
[editline]18th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=xamllew;48488206]Probably the slipperiest slope I've ever read.[/QUOTE]
The Swedish government is actually ruled by lizard people
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48487650]It doesn't happen in a day, first they start by removing our freedom and restricting free trade little by little, arguing that it's to protect children, or protect us from terrorists or protect the feelings of marginalized groups, once people feel that giving up rights is okay for some reason (i dont know why anyone wouldn't fucking riot in the streets about lost rights), then they'll strip more rights away, eventually we wont have many rights left, then they start taking our lives.
It's a process that can take a very long time, it doesn't happen overnight.[/QUOTE]
Guns don't protect you from tyranny, it's something more abstract than some chunks of metal.
Courts, a division of powers, free speech, rule of law, democracy, etc. These things existed before (and will exist after) the advent of firearms, and firearms are not necessary for them.
I mean, North Korea is a country that's armed to the teeth, yet it is a totalitarian dictatorship. England has barely any guns, yet its a democratic society that's doing very successfully. The Dutch likewise.
Guns do not protect you from tyranny, it's the institutions of democracies that do.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48489115]Guns don't protect you from tyranny, it's something more abstract than some chunks of metal.
Courts, a division of powers, free speech, rule of law, democracy, etc. These things existed before (and will exist after) the advent of firearms, and firearms are not necessary for them.
I mean, North Korea is a country that's armed to the teeth, yet it is a totalitarian dictatorship. England has barely any guns, yet its a democratic society that's doing very successfully. The Dutch likewise.
Guns do not protect you from tyranny, it's the institutions of democracies that do.[/QUOTE]
Civilians of North Korea don't have guns. That isn't a valid argument. And England has its share of issues, especially economical ones.
[B]Correlation[/B] does not imply [B]Causation[/B].
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48489203]Civilians of North Korea don't have guns. That isn't a valid argument. And England has its share of issues, especially economical ones.[/QUOTE]
Who cares if england has a shitty economy? The point was about the breakdown of democracy into tyranny and why Guns do jack shit to stop that.
[URL="http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/its-our-duty-support-troops-and-second-amendment-c-1929"]I think this article hits the nail on the head[/URL]
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48485903]Like why is Piers in the US trying to change our laws? Go back to fucking Britain if you hate the US.[/QUOTE]
That argument is terrible though.
Have a Jim Jeffries(Australia to US immigrant) quote.
[quote]I CAME HERE LEGALLY, I PAY MY TAXES, I’LL SAY WHATEVER THE FUCK I WANT. YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT MEANS THAT I CAN SAY THE SECOND AMENDMENT SUCKS DICKS.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48489115]Guns don't protect you from tyranny, it's something more abstract than some chunks of metal.
Courts, a division of powers, free speech, rule of law, democracy, etc. These things existed before (and will exist after) the advent of firearms, and firearms are not necessary for them.
I mean, North Korea is a country that's armed to the teeth, yet it is a totalitarian dictatorship. England has barely any guns, yet its a democratic society that's doing very successfully. The Dutch likewise.
Guns do not protect you from tyranny, it's the institutions of democracies that do.[/QUOTE]
The only ones that have guns in north korea are the ones who shoot dissidents between the eyes, the government.
The difference between Piers Morgan and a plastic bag full of dog shit is the bag can be recycled and the dog shit can go in a compost heap so it's actually mildly useful
And when people talk about defending themselves from tyranny it does't have to mean they are only talking about their government. And while the U.S. has a 0% chance of getting invaded by Canada or Mexico, England has no chance of being invaded by France or Germany, other countries are more at risk from foreign tyranny.
See: Ukraine
I'm not saying that the nordic countries are at the exact same risk as Ukraine but Norway wouldn't have compulsory military service and a conscription for no reason. Finland is also similar.
Don't shit on him as if hes some conspiracy theorist.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48489543]And when people talk about defending themselves from tyranny it does't have to mean they are only talking about their government. And while the U.S. has a 0% chance of getting invaded by Canada or Mexico, England has no chance of being invaded by France or Germany, other countries are more at risk from [B]foreign tyranny.[/B][/QUOTE]
Hence Japan halting a land invasion of the US because they knew we were all armed.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48489678]Hence Japan halting a land invasion of the US because they knew we were all armed.[/QUOTE]
Hence Japan halting a land invasion of the US because of the size of the pacific ocean, the fact that all of their armies were spread out across Asia and the sheer size of Americas army.
This romantic idea is silly. The American army is huge and allowing the citizenry to have weapons to match them (in the case of tyranny(?)) is absurd. Its not 1812 and the age of muskets. A bunch of cajuns and Andrew Jackson won't defeat a professional army.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48490191]Hence Japan halting a land invasion of the US because of the size of the pacific ocean, the fact that all of their armies were spread out across Asia and the sheer size of Americas army.
This romantic idea is silly. The American army is huge and allowing the citizenry to have weapons to match them (in the case of tyranny(?)) is absurd. Its not 1812 and the age of muskets. A bunch of cajuns and Andrew Jackson won't defeat a professional army.[/QUOTE]
Japanese forces attempted a bombing campaign of the American west coast and even made limited efforts to land in Canada, they were planning on invading the mainland, they just greatly underestimated the capability of the US Navy, they expected Naval warfare to be winnable for them, thus an eventual invasion being a plausible continuation thereof, neither of which turned out to be true.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48490191]Hence Japan halting a land invasion of the US because of the size of the pacific ocean, the fact that all of their armies were spread out across Asia and the sheer size of Americas army.
This romantic idea is silly. The American army is huge and allowing the citizenry to have weapons to match them (in the case of tyranny(?)) is absurd. Its not 1812 and the age of muskets. A bunch of cajuns and Andrew Jackson won't defeat a professional army.[/QUOTE]
Just stop
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48490191]Hence Japan halting a land invasion of the US because of the size of the pacific ocean, the fact that all of their armies were spread out across Asia and the sheer size of Americas army.
This romantic idea is silly. The American army is huge and allowing the citizenry to have weapons to match them (in the case of tyranny(?)) is absurd. Its not 1812 and the age of muskets. A bunch of cajuns and Andrew Jackson won't defeat a professional army.[/QUOTE]
A bunch of Vietnamese farmers and communists won't defeat a professional army.
A bunch of middle easterners and radicals won't defeat a professional army.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48490191]Hence Japan halting a land invasion of the US because of the size of the pacific ocean, the fact that all of their armies were spread out across Asia and the sheer size of Americas army.
This romantic idea is silly. The American army is huge and allowing the citizenry to have weapons to match them (in the case of tyranny(?)) is absurd. Its not 1812 and the age of muskets. A bunch of cajuns and Andrew Jackson won't defeat a professional army.[/QUOTE]
As I said, it isn't about defeating a professional army in conventional war. It's about fighting a war of attrition, making them stretch and waste their resources over an extremely long and drawn out occupation. Add on top of that the gradual loss of support, akin to what happened during the occupation of the Middle East (we supported it in the beginning, then lost faith as the cost grew too high), it would be extremely difficult for even the American military to occupy our gigantic fucking country for very long. Most of us wouldn't be willing to fight our own people anyways.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48490530]A bunch of Vietnamese farmers and communists won't defeat a professional army.
A bunch of middle easterners and radicals won't defeat a professional army.[/QUOTE]
Vietcong were backed by a very large communist army, Al-queda/Mujahideen were funded and armed by the US, hardly comparable to your average first world gun owner going up against the Japanese army with a bolt action rifle.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48490530]A bunch of Vietnamese farmers and communists won't defeat a professional army.
A bunch of middle easterners and radicals won't defeat a professional army.[/QUOTE]
The Viet Cong aren't a very good example to cite here, not only were they being directed by a professional army, but from an actual military standpoint they were completely destroyed in the Tet offensive, the advent of live reporting just led to the American populace being demoralized and calling to pull back before North Vietnam was dealt with. That's kind of the funny thing about the Vietnam war, when you looked at all the numbers the US was winning, by a sizable margin too, but the media made it look like we were losing, so they convinced us to bail out.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48485903]Like why is Piers in the US trying to change our laws? Go back to fucking Britain if you hate the US.[/QUOTE]
Please don't we don't want him either.
Let the French have him.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48490530]
A bunch of middle easterners and radicals won't defeat a professional army.[/QUOTE]
Well if you want the average american citizen to have access to the latest guns, tanks and aircraft sure....
You realize that the Vietnamese were funded by the USSR/China and that the Afghanistani's were funded the US right? Also Vietnam was lost because of a failure of the US in honoring their commitment to the peace deal that would have created a North Korea situation.
[editline]18th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;48490318]J[B]apanese forces attempted a bombing campaign of the American west coast and even made limited efforts to land in Canada, they were planning on invading the mainland[/B], they just greatly underestimated the capability of the US Navy, they expected Naval warfare to be winnable for them, thus an eventual invasion being a plausible continuation thereof, neither of which turned out to be true.[/QUOTE]
No they weren't planning to invade (although some wanted to take Hawaii), They did bomb Canada/US but with balloons that flew randomly over the country.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48490530]A bunch of Vietnamese farmers and communists won't defeat a professional army.
A bunch of middle easterners and radicals won't defeat a professional army.[/QUOTE]
You're citing incidents with no respect for the context. The unfortunately reality of history is that virtually all rebellions by peasants tend to end up badly.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts[/url]
If the USA became a dictatorship, the most likely outcome wouldn't be patriotic civilians rising up to overthrow them - it would be a long and drawn out bloody civil war killing millions and most likely resulting in the dissolution of the USA itself.
[editline]19th August 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;48489534]The only ones that have guns in north korea are the ones who shoot dissidents between the eyes, the government.[/QUOTE]
The point is that guns aren't protecting you. At the end of the day, it's the institutions which have taken decades or even centuries to develop which are doing the work of good government and advancing the common good. If you gave all of the citizenry of an already undemocratic country (like North Korea) firearms and told them it was to protect them from the government, it would dissolve into civil war almost immediately.
Like if armed militias were what was defending the US from tyranny, how come they are the most dangerous domestic threat in the US right now? Right wing militia types attack police officers, refuse to pay taxes, go on shooting rampages, and other crazy bullshit.
[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48487288]It isn't that not having guns = totalitarian. It means not having guns = the government has free reign to become totalitarian if it wishes. The entire US government system is based on the concept of checks and balances. Each branch balances out the other. The final part of the equation is the people and the government balance out each other. When people get out of line, they get their peepee slapped by the government. When the government gets out of line, it can, in theory, get its peepee slapped by the people due to them being armed.
Removing firearms from the hands of the people eliminates their ability to keep the government in check. However, the absolute removal of firearms would be completely impossible. Instead, a smarter more effective approach would be to employ the frog in boiling water approach, slowly constrict gun laws gradually eliminating certain types of firearms until everyone is left with shitty basic rifles/handguns. I'm not saying that's why our government has consistently restricted firearms more and more over the years, but it's what a smart government looking to expand its power and limit its people's ability to check them would do.
As someone in the military, I want the people I serve to be heavily armed. I want them to be able to fight back if something goes wrong. Because honestly, military people wouldn't be able to help much. Any talk of dissent or desertion would get us locked up somewhere ASAP, in that kind of situation the military would be keeping tight tabs on everyone since they know a vast majority of us have conservative views and/or are from the south (the south has a natural rebellious nature to it). There really wouldn't be that many military defectors who could help, since military defectors would be stomped out extremely fast. It would be up to the people to fight back, and they would be severely handicapped if all they had were bolt action rifles and low capacity handguns.
As for the, "People could never resist a modern military," argument I sometimes hear, it's completely nullified by the fact that completely illiterate motherfuckers who literally just point their guns in a direction and hold down the trigger thinking Allah will guide their bullets to the enemy with no developed infrastructure, barely any electronics, and nothing but masking tape and shoe string to make bombs with, managed to fight a war of attrition with us long enough to make us tired of that shit and pull out. Vietnam was the same case. Guerrilla warfare is a bitch. Guerrilla warfare with people who have access to the internet and a metric buttfuckton of weapons they are trained to use would be an even bigger bitch.[/QUOTE]
good to know that people on this website are as insane as always
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
