Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:17 PM Aug 2012

Are Guns Killing Our Freedom Instead of Defending It?

An intelligent take on guns and the gun culture in the wake of the recent shootings.

Tying guns to freedom is the most twisted interpretation of our fundamental right that I have ever heard of. Freedom is a state of a society and a state of mind, but it has nothing to do with guns. Guns do not protect our freedom because there will always be someone else with an even more powerful gun or more ammunition waiting around the corner to take away our freedom. What will we do then, move on to rocket launchers and grenades? It's an unwinnable battle that violates common sense. The real freedom we need is the freedom to be able to walk around without the fear of our fellow citizens shooting us by design or accident.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/why-the-love-of-guns-is-k_b_1828169.html
199 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Are Guns Killing Our Freedom Instead of Defending It? (Original Post) DanTex Aug 2012 OP
Of course. But the NRA knows how to manipulate and threaten. MotherPetrie Aug 2012 #1
don't forget how the brainwash people into false patriotism and paralizing fear samsingh Aug 2012 #152
RKBA is all about freedom. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #2
If you think your Glock is going to protect you from oppression, you've seen too many B movies. DanTex Aug 2012 #3
As I said, it's not about your neighbor (or me) buying a gun. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #5
Red Dawn fantasies. DanTex Aug 2012 #6
BTW... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #8
That's the best you can do? MercutioATC Aug 2012 #10
And let's not forget glacierbay Aug 2012 #11
Actually, it's true of nearly every conflict it which we've been involved. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #14
Correct. glacierbay Aug 2012 #15
Vietnam is a very good example of "out lasting" the superior force Ya Basta Aug 2012 #187
I've been... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #194
i think he IEDs, suicide bombers, and other hit and run tactics are samsingh Aug 2012 #20
that was such a stupid movie and a farce. samsingh Aug 2012 #22
Gee, OUR military did. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #28
That is because we are fighting under a strict rules of engagement. Waltons_Mtn Aug 2012 #130
drone attacks are not indescriminate gejohnston Aug 2012 #134
Your right, they are not indescriminate. But there sure seems to be more oops, my bad. Waltons_Mtn Aug 2012 #138
your targeting is only as good as your intel gejohnston Aug 2012 #139
The entire region would rally to fight our genocide krispos42 Aug 2012 #174
Hence why we are fighting under such strict Rules of Engagement. Waltons_Mtn Aug 2012 #180
The RoE had more to do with gejohnston Aug 2012 #181
What is your knowledge of modern military tactics and procedures? rDigital Aug 2012 #30
i'm sorry, what is your knowledge in this area? samsingh Aug 2012 #124
This message was self-deleted by its author rDigital Aug 2012 #164
i'm a thoughtful person, who wants lives to be saved, and i've studied samsingh Aug 2012 #165
actually we have gejohnston Aug 2012 #168
i've heard a lot of gun control proponents ask for an end to the drug war samsingh Aug 2012 #172
not at all gejohnston Aug 2012 #176
i couldn't care less how many guns you own or store samsingh Aug 2012 #186
I wasn't talking about you specifically gejohnston Aug 2012 #189
btw samsingh Aug 2012 #166
It means: rDigital Aug 2012 #167
that makes absolutely no sense. samsingh Aug 2012 #173
Hmmm. rDigital Aug 2012 #183
What is your personal experience with guerrilla warfare? glacierbay Aug 2012 #40
"The scenario envisioned in Red Dawn is very real." DanTex Aug 2012 #54
Rather than engage in little insults glacierbay Aug 2012 #59
Don't you know? gejohnston Aug 2012 #70
That brings up a question for you: On what date will Victory in Afghanistan Day be celebrated? friendly_iconoclast Aug 2012 #83
Funny how they chose to remake it this year... ellisonz Aug 2012 #114
Its not the Missycim Aug 2012 #132
Good to see you have such a detailed knowledge. ellisonz Aug 2012 #135
Yes, we know you have a problem with even simple facts. PavePusher Aug 2012 #195
That looks like the same cast from or scenes from the TV show Jericho rl6214 Aug 2012 #145
This message was self-deleted by its author Waltons_Mtn Aug 2012 #131
Wrong, in the end the Russians are defeated. rl6214 Aug 2012 #146
According to IMDB the original ending of Red Dawn was much more ambiguous as to who won Trunk Monkey Aug 2012 #184
Right. A rag-tag handful of partisians tied up several orders of magnitude more troops.... PavePusher Aug 2012 #196
what is your experience in this area? samsingh Aug 2012 #125
Two tours in Vietnam, glacierbay Aug 2012 #127
This message was self-deleted by its author Waltons_Mtn Aug 2012 #133
The ROE's didn't matter one wit glacierbay Aug 2012 #136
This message was self-deleted by its author Waltons_Mtn Aug 2012 #140
The Soviet's tried that in Afghanistan glacierbay Aug 2012 #142
that is what the Viet Cong did gejohnston Aug 2012 #137
i agree with you. samsingh Aug 2012 #149
i certainly didn't go to Viet Nam. Thank you for your service. samsingh Aug 2012 #148
Thank you glacierbay Aug 2012 #153
as do i. I wanted to defer to your service to the country. samsingh Aug 2012 #154
The eternal harassment degrades military operations krispos42 Aug 2012 #175
Other than an outright ban, what's your magical "solution" to what you apparently think is a problem spayneuter Aug 2012 #33
you still have the guns but the mere conversation appears to offend you. you life in a fantasy land, samsingh Aug 2012 #126
Remember all of them die in the end except the two that run away! Waltons_Mtn Aug 2012 #128
The group of kids all died except two but the Russians were eventually defeated. rl6214 Aug 2012 #147
Yes, but it never explains how. Waltons_Mtn Aug 2012 #155
IIRC, it kind of did gejohnston Aug 2012 #156
+1 :) n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #7
not really, when you actually study the history books. The Second Amendment came after the 1776 and samsingh Aug 2012 #24
It doesn't matter WHEN it came... its wording makes CLEAR the right to keep and bear arms cherokeeprogressive Aug 2012 #96
Would you please explain what you meant by this statement? Jenoch Aug 2012 #110
its self evident samsingh Aug 2012 #122
The U.S. Constitution Jenoch Aug 2012 #129
the second amendment was an amendment and it's interpretation samsingh Aug 2012 #150
"...arm everyone with automatic weapons to slaughter civilians." Jenoch Aug 2012 #169
did you miss the news on the Colorado shooting? The Sikh Temple shooting? Every week there has samsingh Aug 2012 #171
In neither of the shootings you mentioned Jenoch Aug 2012 #182
Then no law enforcement agencies should have such weapons. PavePusher Aug 2012 #197
Other side of the coin: If you think my Glock is going to oppress anyone, you've seen to many cherokeeprogressive Aug 2012 #93
it DOESN'T MATTER whether you think it is possible or not. Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #95
A blogger? glacierbay Aug 2012 #4
i think freedom to speak, eat, marry, reproduce - are the greatest freedoms samsingh Aug 2012 #18
For a govt to trust its citizens the means for the possible glacierbay Aug 2012 #31
No shit, Sherlock...that's why it is important. spayneuter Aug 2012 #53
from what i read from gun lover's its love of the gun (sorry gun arsenal) that is paramount. samsingh Aug 2012 #123
Then you are sadly mistaken glacierbay Aug 2012 #177
how many times do i hear crap like anyone who wants some level of gun control wants to samsingh Aug 2012 #185
we do have some level gejohnston Aug 2012 #188
It would have been more intelligent if gejohnston Aug 2012 #9
"As a banker, he is a greater threat to freedom than anyone else." samsingh Aug 2012 #17
need to listen to Thom Hartmann gejohnston Aug 2012 #19
banks have proven themselves to be greedy and inept samsingh Aug 2012 #27
inept? bankers? inept?? hot damn!! that is the funniest thing I have read on here in a long time Tuesday Afternoon Aug 2012 #88
I think our friend wants to ban the Federal Reserve and return to gold coins. DanTex Aug 2012 #21
Government owned central bank gejohnston Aug 2012 #38
I was right! Gold standard too? DanTex Aug 2012 #43
Whats wrong Missycim Aug 2012 #50
I was right again! Anyone else? DanTex Aug 2012 #58
I didn't know Ron Paul was for nationalizing the Fed gejohnston Aug 2012 #66
Gold standard? Yes or no. DanTex Aug 2012 #81
no, so now that gejohnston Aug 2012 #90
OK then. No gold standard. My guess was wrong. It was worth a shot! DanTex Aug 2012 #91
I doubt it gejohnston Aug 2012 #94
Umm... yeah no kidding the gold standard predates Ron Paul. DanTex Aug 2012 #97
If it works as advertized gejohnston Aug 2012 #100
I like this idea. nt rDigital Aug 2012 #103
The blogger in question truly adheres to the "Nirvana Fallacy" rDigital Aug 2012 #12
I love it when you guys talk loony! Tyrannical fascist state! You've got it all worked out! DanTex Aug 2012 #13
So disprove what he has said was wrong. glacierbay Aug 2012 #25
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #29
What difference does it make who armed them glacierbay Aug 2012 #34
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #42
Facts are facts glacierbay Aug 2012 #47
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #49
Until you present facts instead of insults glacierbay Aug 2012 #56
Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #60
Jury results of the alert sent glacierbay Aug 2012 #109
They didn't ban PavePusher and he had like 19 hidden posts at one point. n/t ellisonz Aug 2012 #115
I didn't say anything about banning anyone glacierbay Aug 2012 #121
Sorry to disappoint you. PavePusher Aug 2012 #199
????? bongbong Aug 2012 #57
What is a relgionist (sic)? spayneuter Aug 2012 #63
Too much! bongbong Aug 2012 #64
Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #67
Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #69
"You can throw all the insults and cute little smilies" rl6214 Aug 2012 #151
You are apparently ignorant of the 17 years the Soviets tried unsuccessfully to defeat the Afghanis spayneuter Aug 2012 #45
More laughs bongbong Aug 2012 #48
Dude... ellisonz Aug 2012 #116
do you always get your knowledge of gejohnston Aug 2012 #118
Do you always ignore well-known historical fact? ellisonz Aug 2012 #141
not a fruitless argument at all gejohnston Aug 2012 #143
Some food for thought. Oneka Aug 2012 #112
Last resort, Sweetie. nt rDigital Aug 2012 #35
Serious question: Why do you think it can't happen here? PavePusher Aug 2012 #198
absolutely - and most people can't even see the implications of the behavior this has caused in all samsingh Aug 2012 #16
No. Any more questions? shadowrider Aug 2012 #23
It's never been about "freedom" bongbong Aug 2012 #26
I agree. The whole 'protecting our freedom' is so COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #36
Cool straw man, bro. rDigital Aug 2012 #52
Reality is so frightening for gun-relgioinists bongbong Aug 2012 #72
It's just another straw man, bro. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you must provide proof rDigital Aug 2012 #101
Are you sitting there anticipating the day when COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #157
Speaking for myself glacierbay Aug 2012 #158
My point exactly. Either that or it's a convenient COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #161
This message was self-deleted by its author glacierbay Aug 2012 #163
Really? I'm merely illustrating the purpose of the 2A. Nice try though. rDigital Aug 2012 #159
Perhaps valid in 1777. Hardly valid today. COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #160
Start a movement to repeal it then. Let us know how that goes. rDigital Aug 2012 #162
Is that really the best argument you can make? COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #170
Wrong on so many levels. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #37
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #41
If its such logical fail glacierbay Aug 2012 #44
Proving a negative bongbong Aug 2012 #73
Just as I thought glacierbay Aug 2012 #74
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #76
One is reminded ... Straw Man Aug 2012 #190
No, do you? MercutioATC Aug 2012 #55
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #62
You refuted my claim about gun owners. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #65
Funny bongbong Aug 2012 #75
You're the one who claimed that the motivation behind gun ownership was a desire to shoot people. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #78
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #79
Machine guns and blowing stuff up ARE fun. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #84
"Do you know every gun owner in the USA?" 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #82
Let's assume that you are correct and a high percentage of gun owners wish to shoot thugs. ... spin Aug 2012 #98
Whereas it is all so much nobler to submit to the tender mercies of the thugs. spayneuter Aug 2012 #46
Even MORE laughs! bongbong Aug 2012 #51
It sure doesn't take much to amuse you. Look down there vvvvvv spayneuter Aug 2012 #61
... ellisonz Aug 2012 #117
It has always been about freedom bad sofa king Aug 2012 #120
Intelligent take? Clames Aug 2012 #32
This article is full of fail rDigital Aug 2012 #39
Send better trolls bongbong Aug 2012 #68
Brady must be really strapped for cash, gejohnston Aug 2012 #71
Good copy bongbong Aug 2012 #77
It's clever that you refer to all effective arguments against more gun control as "talking points". rDigital Aug 2012 #119
No. Next question. 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #80
Are Guns Killing Our Freedom Instead of Defending It? No, Some of us are readily Tuesday Afternoon Aug 2012 #85
When Our Forefathers oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #86
The principle is the same. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #89
Funny oldsarge54 Aug 2012 #99
Yawn... Apparently some specially approved blogs are ok as sources. TPaine7 Aug 2012 #87
Answer: Nnnnnnnope. cherokeeprogressive Aug 2012 #92
Some asshole with a blog said... rrneck Aug 2012 #102
Just some of my favorites: discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #178
Ain't it the truth! nt rrneck Aug 2012 #179
Question wolfman24 Aug 2012 #191
If you mean the very bottom... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #193
This OP reminds me to ask what ever happened to that ex-pat in Italy antigun blogger? aikoaiko Aug 2012 #104
No. However RegieRocker Aug 2012 #105
LOL. "Far left". DanTex Aug 2012 #106
Regie's too diplomatic to say the word, so I will. MercutioATC Aug 2012 #108
"no intended offense to the bird" Simo 1939_1940 Aug 2012 #111
Yes Magoo48 Aug 2012 #107
the trick is to have more people with guns that value freedom, than people who do not AtheistCrusader Aug 2012 #113
I wonder what kind of security Huff Post has at the front doors? Remmah2 Aug 2012 #144
other view wolfman24 Aug 2012 #192
 

MotherPetrie

(3,145 posts)
1. Of course. But the NRA knows how to manipulate and threaten.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:20 PM
Aug 2012

Their self-promoting premise that lowly human life takes a backseat to glorious deadly weapon possession is now the accepted one, now that their obscene bullshit has preyed on so many weak-minded people.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
152. don't forget how the brainwash people into false patriotism and paralizing fear
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:25 PM
Aug 2012

there is never talk about how to deal with reducing gun deaths only that if anything is done to affect gun proliferation, things would be worse. Oh, and, of course, there is the catch all of a constitutional interpretation that is bought and paid for by the NRA and their henchman in the courts (the ones who ironically deride judicial activism themselves).

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
2. RKBA is all about freedom.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:21 PM
Aug 2012

Not the simple freedom to own firearms, but protecting the populace from oppression.

It's not about your neighbor buying a handgun, it's about our freedom as a SOCIETY.

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
5. As I said, it's not about your neighbor (or me) buying a gun.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:29 PM
Aug 2012

It's about an entire populace that's free and able to take up arms.

My Glock (and I do own one) plus all of the other firearms owned by our society give us the ability to resist opression, whether foreign or domestic. That's exactly what the founding fathers intended.

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
10. That's the best you can do?
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:41 PM
Aug 2012

...but let's play along for a moment...

How effective have our trillions of dollars worth of military equipment been at actually controlling people (Iraq and Afghanistan immediately come to mind)? An armed populace is the absolute best protection against oppression.

The founding fathers had this figured out over 200 years ago. Why is it such a difficult concept for you?

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
14. Actually, it's true of nearly every conflict it which we've been involved.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:51 PM
Aug 2012

...and true of ALL of the conflicts involving an armed populace.

 

Ya Basta

(391 posts)
187. Vietnam is a very good example of "out lasting" the superior force
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 05:48 PM
Aug 2012

There are so many examples of this all throughout history. That alone should illustrate to the clueless posting in this thread that size is not the only factor in the outcome of warfare.

Not you glacierbay, but to the others posting in this thread. The ones who obviously don't know what they're talking about. Might I suggest starting with the classic Sun Tzu The Art of War. Maybe you'll learn something and see how your anti-gun prejudice is making you look ignorant on this topic.


samsingh

(17,571 posts)
20. i think he IEDs, suicide bombers, and other hit and run tactics are
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:59 PM
Aug 2012

the problem. i'm not hearing about too many gun battles that our soldiers are losing.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
22. that was such a stupid movie and a farce.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:00 PM
Aug 2012

i don't think any military powerful enough to invade the mainland is going to have to worry about the guns in people's houses.

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
28. Gee, OUR military did.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:04 PM
Aug 2012

We have, by far, the mightiest military force on the planet and WE have not ever been able to subdue a local population with the will and the means to resist.

Waltons_Mtn

(345 posts)
130. That is because we are fighting under a strict rules of engagement.
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:32 PM
Aug 2012

The fact that the local population have guns has no real effect at all. If the government would remove the rules of engagement and we could kill indiscriminately the local population could not resist at all. We would simply use our bigger guns to wipe any resistance off the face of the earth and repopulate with NASCAR fans. IMO that is what the drone attacks are all about. Change the rules a bit. Allow for a bit of indistrimate killing.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
134. drone attacks are not indescriminate
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:52 PM
Aug 2012

sometimes based on false information, but not indiscriminate. Examples of indiscriminate bombing would be the firebombing during WW2.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
139. your targeting is only as good as your intel
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:10 PM
Aug 2012

and you know what they say about military and intelligence.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
174. The entire region would rally to fight our genocide
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:19 AM
Aug 2012

The oil would stop. The officers and soldiers would desert. The American population would not volunteer to replace them. Anti-war riots would rise, as well as political opposition.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
181. The RoE had more to do with
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 12:47 PM
Aug 2012

accidently hitting Soviet flagged freighters in Hanoi harbors, Soviet military advisers etc. by aircraft. The idea was to avoid bringing the Soviets into an active role, turning it into World War Three.
What you are talking about are war crimes under the law of armed conflict. I don't know about the Army at that time, but in the Air Force during my 20 years, JAGs and commanders give periodic speeches telling us to disobey and report any unlawful orders, including killing civilians.

Response to samsingh (Reply #124)

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
165. i'm a thoughtful person, who wants lives to be saved, and i've studied
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 06:45 PM
Aug 2012

history at University.

funny - i'm one of the 1%ers but i'd rather pay higher tax for the benefit of others. I don't see gun supporters offering any ideas to curb gun violence. They only speak about credentials, present opinions like they are facts, and then accuse others of doing the same thing.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
168. actually we have
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 06:59 PM
Aug 2012

first and foremost, end the drug war and improve infrastructure in the inner cities.
We do present a lot of facts.

I don't see anti gun folks offering any ideas that actually work. Most of them are culture warriors.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
172. i've heard a lot of gun control proponents ask for an end to the drug war
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:07 AM
Aug 2012

you'd have to actually have an open mind to understand what the gun control proponents are suggesting. Funny to call 'gun control proponent' culture WARRIORS. Does the irony escape you?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
176. not at all
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:35 AM
Aug 2012

and I do have an open mind, not so sure about yours.
Not at all. Reading posts from gun control advocates in the US, Australia, and Canada, there is a tinge of anti ruralism and a lot of regional bigotry. There is even a peer reviewed study to go with it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

Many scholars have suggested that Americans' positions on gun control are the product of culture conflicts. This assertion has been largely based on associations of gun control opinion with membership in social groups believed to be hostile, or favorable, towards gun ownership, rather than with direct measures of the cultural traits thought to mediate the effects of group membership on gun control opinion. Data from a 2005 national telephone survey were analyzed to test competing theories of why people support handgun bans. Instrumental explanations, which stress belief in a policy's likely effectiveness, accounted for less than 25 percent of the variation in support. The results supported the culture conflict perspective. Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners, and who did not believe in the need to defend their own homes against crime (versus relying on the police) were more likely to support handgun bans.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
186. i couldn't care less how many guns you own or store
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 05:44 PM
Aug 2012

i only care that innocent people are being shot with guns - lots of people because of the technical capability of guns that are available today (centuries after the second amendment was written). I am looking for solutions to stop people from getting killed.

that's it. no bigitory. no hatred of guns (i personally really like guns), and certainly nothing against rural residents as i have been one myself.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
189. I wasn't talking about you specifically
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 06:20 PM
Aug 2012

I was speaking in general terms. Ideally both sides work together to find:
what works in current regulation and fix holes and problems (like states doing a half assed job in reporting data to NICS, which was the major factor in Cho at VT) and ditch what is simply theater.
I think informed discussions without the usual buzz words would actually be worth it. Wanting to return fail ideas like the AWB for no logical reason does nothing other than electing a plutocrat who happens to have Robert Bork as one of his advisers. If you have have people with no technical knowledge of a technical subject, you get the AWB, that banned nothing and you get this Canadian regulation:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/bulletins/bus-ent/20110323-72-eng.htm

This explains sections four and five


Of course everyone is looking for solutions, I prefer to deal with the actual issues and not distractions.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
166. btw
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 06:47 PM
Aug 2012

"I've trained in small unit tactics with local police & SWAT teams as well as being a student of military history".

you asked me first about my qualifications. I'm not sure what the above means in terms of credibility.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
173. that makes absolutely no sense.
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:09 AM
Aug 2012

but if you're trying to imply i'm not smart - i have a measured genius level IQ.

 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
183. Hmmm.
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 03:02 PM
Aug 2012

My 2nd grade teacher used to draw stars on my tests with grape scented (artificially) purple marker. I'd say that puts us on even footing.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
40. What is your personal experience with guerrilla warfare?
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:17 PM
Aug 2012

You ever been on the receiving end of it?
The scenario envisioned in Red Dawn is very real. That's how we were defeated in Vietnam, they enemy wore us down politically and with an endless supply of manpower and willingness to take the causalities.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
59. Rather than engage in little insults
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:31 PM
Aug 2012

try proving what I said wrong.

You ever been on the receiving end of guerrilla warfare?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
70. Don't you know?
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:43 PM
Aug 2012

Patronizing "you're too uneducated to understand", insults, and pretending to know more than he really does is the height of civil and intellectual discourse.

ellisonz

(27,709 posts)
114. Funny how they chose to remake it this year...
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:13 AM
Aug 2012


I hope our gun-loving friends are practicing their Mandarin.

Response to DanTex (Reply #54)

 

Trunk Monkey

(950 posts)
184. According to IMDB the original ending of Red Dawn was much more ambiguous as to who won
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 03:14 PM
Aug 2012

The voice over at the end was put in at the insistance of the studio

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
196. Right. A rag-tag handful of partisians tied up several orders of magnitude more troops....
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 12:04 PM
Aug 2012

much more heavily equiped and trained, sapping untold amounts of resources.. and they "lost"?

Any guerilla movement in history would be overjoyed to "suffer" such a "loss".

Hell, they'd have parades to it.

A tip: This is D.U. We're really not supposed to be proud to display ignorance here.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
127. Two tours in Vietnam,
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 11:55 AM
Aug 2012

One of my thesis was the effects of guerrilla warfare on an occupying force. What's yours?

Response to glacierbay (Reply #127)

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
136. The ROE's didn't matter one wit
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:53 PM
Aug 2012

Even when we did burn vils, drop bombs indiscriminately, machine gun non combatants, all we did was make the enemy more determined to defeat us.
We were defeated politically, morally, and the North had an endless supply of manpower and were more than willing to suffer the casualties.

Tell me, what's your experience with guerrilla warfare?

Response to glacierbay (Reply #136)

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
142. The Soviet's tried that in Afghanistan
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:21 PM
Aug 2012

and it didn't work out to well for them did it?
When you have a fanatical, determined enemy, fighting on their own soil, willing to absorb the casualities, then it doesn't matter how bigger or better armed you are or what the ROE's are, eventually you're going to lose.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
153. Thank you
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:33 PM
Aug 2012

and I hope you didn't take my question to you as a slight.
I know that we are on opposite sides of this issue but you'll notice that I don't engage in insults or name calling, I prefer a civil, honest debate and I do appreciate the other sides views even if I disagree with it.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
154. as do i. I wanted to defer to your service to the country.
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:51 PM
Aug 2012

Very few have the courage to go fight in battle and i admire those that have fought for our freedom.

krispos42

(49,445 posts)
175. The eternal harassment degrades military operations
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:29 AM
Aug 2012

The constant stress is very hard on the occupying troops. They crack under the strain of not being able to relax and escape the constant fear. They lose professionalism, they refuse to serve, they go back to their home country a mess, no longer a productive member of society. They do not fully complete missions, but merely "say" they do. Their equipment decays due to constant use and sabotage and lack of spare parts. Supplies don't get through. Occupying troop movements and other intelligence information is constantly being leaked. Military leaders are assassinated selectively, with the competent and loved killed and the incompetent and hated promoted into their place. Small units are routinely destroyed by ambush, resulting in occupying soldiers only patrolling in larger units, thus patrolling fewer areas and losing control over large swaths of the area to local warlords and leaders.

The free movement of people and supplies suffers, guaranteeing inefficiency and lost production of the occupied lands. It becomes a giant money pit.

All that nifty stuff, that high-explosive ultra-accurate stuff, is useless if you don't have a target to point it at.

 

spayneuter

(134 posts)
33. Other than an outright ban, what's your magical "solution" to what you apparently think is a problem
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:09 PM
Aug 2012

are you proceeding through life harboring some weird fantasy that Americans are going to sacrifice their rights to insure your fragile psyche isn't offended?

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
126. you still have the guns but the mere conversation appears to offend you. you life in a fantasy land,
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 11:39 AM
Aug 2012

not me.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
156. IIRC, it kind of did
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 03:10 PM
Aug 2012

The last scene said something about non occupied part of the US regrouped.

My guess is that NATO allies helped by providing troops and interdicting freight ships and cargo aircraft, cutting their supply lines. Without spare parts for their aircraft, mission capable rates would drop to the point of being lawn art.
and I doubt the "Wolverines" were the only insurgent group. Warsaw Pact and Cuban troops would be spread thin in such a large area as half the US, making them and their logistical infrastructure more vulnerable to partisans. That would stop their tanks.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
24. not really, when you actually study the history books. The Second Amendment came after the 1776 and
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:01 PM
Aug 2012

was not part of the orginal package.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
96. It doesn't matter WHEN it came... its wording makes CLEAR the right to keep and bear arms
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:00 PM
Aug 2012

PREDATED it.

I'll post it here for you so you can read it over and over... then get back to me when you find the part that actually GRANTS the right. I'll give you a hint... it identifies a PRE-EXISTING right that shall not be infringed upon by the federal government. When will people learn to read and comprehend?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Get back to me when you find the part that says "the federal government, empowered by the states, does hereby grant the right to..."

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
110. Would you please explain what you meant by this statement?
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 11:57 PM
Aug 2012

"The Second Amendment came after the 1776 and was not part of the orginal package."

I don't understand your point. The 2nd Amendment certainly did come after 1776. So did the U.S. Constitution to which the Bill of Rights were attached. What was your point again?

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
129. The U.S. Constitution
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:27 PM
Aug 2012

was ratified in 1787 and the Bill of Rights in 1789, well after 1776, the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. All documents were created by our "Founding Fathers". You apparently did not have a point.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
150. the second amendment was an amendment and it's interpretation
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:20 PM
Aug 2012

has been bought by interest groups.
why don't you do some research on what the Founding Fathers were intending to do. I have, and it wasn't to arm everyone with automatic weapons to slaughter civilians.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
169. "...arm everyone with automatic weapons to slaughter civilians."
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 12:44 AM
Aug 2012

Wow! Where is THIS happening??? I'm hooked up to the interweb and I have not seen ANYTHING about people with automatic weapons slaughtering civilians. Is it Sudan? What could our founding fathers have done to arm anyone in Africa?

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
171. did you miss the news on the Colorado shooting? The Sikh Temple shooting? Every week there has
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:05 AM
Aug 2012

been something.

Do these people's lives don't count?

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
182. In neither of the shootings you mentioned
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 01:28 PM
Aug 2012

did the shooter use an automatic weapon. The last criminal use of automatic weapons in the U.S. (that got reported in the media anyway) that I can recall was the infamous North Hollywood Bank shootout in February 1997.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
93. Other side of the coin: If you think my Glock is going to oppress anyone, you've seen to many
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:52 PM
Aug 2012

B movies.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
95. it DOESN'T MATTER whether you think it is possible or not.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:57 PM
Aug 2012

Look, it does not matter whether or not armed revolution is possible or not.

What matters is what the Constitution says.

The Constitution says that the people are supposed to keep and bear arms suitable for infantry use. Period.

Whether or not the people will make a suitable military force today is irrelevant.

The Constitution gives them the right to keep the tools that allow them to try.

That is all that matters.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
4. A blogger?
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:28 PM
Aug 2012

Why should I give two cents on a bloggers opinion? He also blames the Empire State shooter for the wounding of innocent people when in reality, it was the NYPD.

Violent crime, including those involving firearms, has been decreasing for the last 20 years, that is fact according to the FBI's UCR.
Guns aren't killing our freedom, whether you want to accept it or not, private ownership of firearms is one of the greatest freedoms a citizen can have.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
18. i think freedom to speak, eat, marry, reproduce - are the greatest freedoms
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:57 PM
Aug 2012

at best, a gun would be arguably an enabler of these other freedoms.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
31. For a govt to trust its citizens the means for the possible
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:07 PM
Aug 2012

destruction of the govt. is one of the greatest freedoms a citizen can have.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
177. Then you are sadly mistaken
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:37 AM
Aug 2012

I have no love for my firearms and I don't know anyone who has love of their firearms, what I do love is the sport of target shooting or competition shooting. You really should stop with the stereotyping of gun owners.

I also love the fact that I live in a country that I have the right to own firearms and I live in a state that I have the right to carry a firearm, open or concealed, although I rarely do.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
185. how many times do i hear crap like anyone who wants some level of gun control wants to
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 05:40 PM
Aug 2012

- ban all guns
- doesn't have any useful ideas
- doesn't think in facts

and yet hypocritically, we're asked to not make stereotypes of the pro-gun group.

btw - target shooting is really cool

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
188. we do have some level
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 05:54 PM
Aug 2012

always have since the founding. While prohibitionists are rare, the other extreme is nonexistent, unless you know someone that actually thinks a ten year old should be able to order an FN P90, full auto, off of Amazon.

So, let's discuss the "degree that works" that everyone will be happy or at least equally pissed off about.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
9. It would have been more intelligent if
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:35 PM
Aug 2012

he stayed away from the cliches about cowboys, which has nothing to do with it, and rocket launchers. Going to a shooting range once makes him an expert on the "gun culture"? That is like claiming to be a world traveler after going to Epcot. At best he projected his reaction to millions of people.

As a banker, he is a greater threat to freedom than anyone else.

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
27. banks have proven themselves to be greedy and inept
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:03 PM
Aug 2012

but they are not a threat to freedom, any more than the other billionaires that are trying to eliminate the middle class. Walmart scions come to mind.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
88. inept? bankers? inept?? hot damn!! that is the funniest thing I have read on here in a long time
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:30 PM
Aug 2012

a very, very long time. omg. funny!







DanTex

(20,709 posts)
21. I think our friend wants to ban the Federal Reserve and return to gold coins.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:00 PM
Aug 2012

We're in the gungeon here, loony ideas are the norm...

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
38. Government owned central bank
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:14 PM
Aug 2012

with transparency and oversight, rather than the privately owned Fed.
Auditing the Fed was one of the few things Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders agree on. Unless you are saying Bernie Sanders and Thom Hartmann are closet "conspiracy nuts"............................................................................................

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
66. I didn't know Ron Paul was for nationalizing the Fed
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:37 PM
Aug 2012

Last I heard, he was against nationalizing anything and for privatizing everything. Since most of my "education" or propaganda on this issue is from the left end of the scale, you are not really the progressive you think you are. Are you accusing Bernie Sanders and Thom Hartmann of being Ron Paul nuts? Are you admitting being to the right of me?
In essence you are accusing a self described socialist, Bernie Sanders, of being a libertarian, you might want to think before you post.
Can you show me an example of nationalizing the Fed=gold standard? Most people would call me a socialist (which I do believe in a mixed economy). Might want to give up on trying to paint us as being a bunch of right wing radicals, that straw just slipped out of your hand.
http://www.monetary.org/

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
90. no, so now that
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:40 PM
Aug 2012

straw is completely out of your reach. I'm guessing Thom Hartmann and Bernie Sanders isn't either.
Just in case we are clear: I said nationalize the Fed and create a government owned central bank similar to Bank of Canada.

na·tion·al·ize/ˈnaSHənəˌlīz/
Verb:
Transfer (a major branch of industry or commerce) from private to state ownership or control.
Make distinctively national; give a national character to.

Now can you show me were anyone supporting the gold standard is for the government taking over the fed and creating a central bank? Last I checked, they would call that socialism.
So, do you have any other false accusations to make?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
91. OK then. No gold standard. My guess was wrong. It was worth a shot!
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:46 PM
Aug 2012

I'm guessing there are more than a few Ron Paul gold standard advocates among the pro-gunners in here though.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
94. I doubt it
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:56 PM
Aug 2012

but the gold standard thing predates Ron Paul. I'm surprised I had to actually explain it to you, when I said nationalize the fed or have a government owned national bank. I would be surprised if Ron Paul actually supports government owned anything.
I'm guessing you saw "down with the Fed" and "bankster" and assumed it equaled Ron Paul? That exposes shallowness on your part.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
97. Umm... yeah no kidding the gold standard predates Ron Paul.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:00 PM
Aug 2012

I was just wondering it you were into some loony economic theory. Looks like you are leaning towards MMT, which is a bit loony, but you are right, not right wing. It's nice to see you're not a gold nut.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
100. If it works as advertized
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:29 PM
Aug 2012

it is not loony. It has nothing to do with any economic theory and everything to do with the belief that some functions should not be in corporate hands. Control of the money supply is one of them.

 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
12. The blogger in question truly adheres to the "Nirvana Fallacy"
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:46 PM
Aug 2012

Gun vs bigger gun? Guns aren't a magic talisman with a 100% perfect characteristics, but that doesn't mean they aren't effective for defense of self and from tyranny. Guns are VERY effective against home invasions especially.

Asymmetric warfare silly (guerilla). Do you really think EVERY USA military service member would stick with a tyrannical fascist state in a civil war? No defections? Get real. England said the same nonsense in the late 1700's, now they're our little buddies. Freedom always prevails in the end.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
25. So disprove what he has said was wrong.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:02 PM
Aug 2012

there is ample proof of guerrilla warfare helping to defeat a much bigger and better armed foe. Vietnam comes to mind, first the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, then our defeat. We can't seem to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan even though we clearly hold the technological edge.

Can you say for certain that sometime it the future that this country won't fall under a tyrannical govt.?

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
29. LOL
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:06 PM
Aug 2012

> there is ample proof of guerrilla warfare helping to defeat a much bigger and better armed foe.

HILARIOUS! The cited cases (Nam & Afghanistan) only happened the way they did because there were huge powers funneling weapons & money to the guerrilla forces.

Gun-religionists MUST ignore reality & logic to keep their NRA-approved Talking Points in one piece.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
34. What difference does it make who armed them
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:10 PM
Aug 2012

the fact remains that a guerilla force is capable of defeating a bigger and better armed foe.
Laugh all you want, but the facts are the facts.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
42. LOL
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:19 PM
Aug 2012

> What difference does it make who armed them

You're so clueless you think this is actually an argument. SUPER HILARIOUS!!!

to the google power!

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
47. Facts are facts
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:25 PM
Aug 2012

I know it was a long time ago, but I don't remember seeing any Russians or Chinese shooting at me.
You can throw all the insults and cute little smilies you want, don't mean a thing when it comes to facts. I suggest you try posting facts instead of insults.
Have a good day

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
49. LOL
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:26 PM
Aug 2012

You haven't presented any facts, just lies.

Enjoy your delusions. If it keeps you from shooting your guns at innocent people, I'm all for it!

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
56. Until you present facts instead of insults
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:30 PM
Aug 2012

I won't engage in a conversation with you.
You have a good life.

Response to glacierbay (Reply #56)

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
109. Jury results of the alert sent
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 10:39 PM
Aug 2012





AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

Mail Message
At Mon Aug 27, 2012, 04:33 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

?????
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=66011

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

insulting a fellow DU'er w/o provocation

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Aug 27, 2012, 04:49 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I agree with the alerter, although I'm no fan of guns.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Hidden for being disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive ... and for being a douchebag.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Another alert by someone losing the argument and grasping to find something to shut him down. The seemingly outrageous comment objected to is actually a with pretty benign comment, even in the real world.

Alerter, get a life.



Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: This comment violates Community Standards

Thank you.

Amazing, ain't it.
 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
121. I didn't say anything about banning anyone
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 07:51 AM
Aug 2012

Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2012, 09:58 AM - Edit history (2)

I meant that it was amazing that his post was allowed to stand, and Juror #5's comment was, well, just nutty.
I just won't respond to Bongbong anymore.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
57. ?????
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:30 PM
Aug 2012

> I don't remember seeing any Russians or Chinese shooting at me.

What the HELL are you talking about? Get a grip, gun-relgionist. Methinks you've stroked your Precious one too many times!

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
64. Too much!
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:36 PM
Aug 2012

> And how does one pronounce it?

It's the sound that occurs when a person shoves one of their guns down their throat.

Response to bongbong (Reply #64)

Response to Post removed (Reply #67)

 

spayneuter

(134 posts)
45. You are apparently ignorant of the 17 years the Soviets tried unsuccessfully to defeat the Afghanis
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:23 PM
Aug 2012

who were right next door. Are you still on summer vacation from jr. high?

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
48. More laughs
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:25 PM
Aug 2012

> You are apparently ignorant of the 17 years the Soviets tried unsuccessfully to defeat the Afghanis

You are apparently ignorant of the billions given to the Afghanis by the USA.

Are you still on summer vacation from Pre-school?

ellisonz

(27,709 posts)
116. Dude...
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:19 AM
Aug 2012

...the Afghans were getting slaughtered until we armed them with more advanced weaponry including Stinger missiles. Did you sleep through Charlie Wilson's War or something?

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
118. do you always get your knowledge of
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 02:44 AM
Aug 2012

military history from movies? We were hardly the only ones giving them aid. That said, the Afghans' biggest problem was lacking command structure, doctrine, and training. They did not pay enough attention to logistics and securing rear areas. Important thing to remember, arm chair generals and mall ninjas talk about tactics and tactical cool, professionals talk about logistics.

http://edocs.nps.edu/AR/org/CSRC/csrc_jan_02.pdf

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
143. not a fruitless argument at all
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:33 PM
Aug 2012

simply pointing out the problems were more complex than any one weapons system. Granted Soviet air superiority was a problem for the Afghans, and that was the only major advantage the USSR had. Depending on there the gunships were based, they could have attacked the airfields where they were based by targeting the tank farm (fuel storage) and POL infrastructure. Destroying the craft themselves would have been gravy. Want to piss of a fighter pilot? Remind him or her of this: NKAWTG.

Oneka

(653 posts)
112. Some food for thought.
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:43 AM
Aug 2012

Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2012, 06:30 AM - Edit history (1)

HILARIOUS! The cited cases (Nam & Afghanistan) only happened the way they did because there were huge powers funneling weapons & money to the guerrilla forces.


In the USA we have over 100,000,000 gun owners, an estimated 200,000,000+ small arms, countless Billions of rounds of small arms ammo. Those "huge powers" you mentioned above? Yeah thats us, genius. If american gun owners were to ever become
a guerrilla force, we wouldn't need "huge powers" we ARE, huge power.
Gun-religionists MUST ignore reality & logic

Heh, reality and logic, seem to be lost on you.
 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
198. Serious question: Why do you think it can't happen here?
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 12:13 PM
Aug 2012

Around the time President Obama was elected, there was rampant speculation here on D.U. about the possibility that President Bush would refuse to relinquish his office. There is constant talk about Conserviatives wanting to implement such a tyranny.

So, why do you think it can't/won't/wouldn/t occur, either right- or left-wing derived?

samsingh

(17,571 posts)
16. absolutely - and most people can't even see the implications of the behavior this has caused in all
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:55 PM
Aug 2012

aspects of life

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
26. It's never been about "freedom"
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:03 PM
Aug 2012

For gun-religionists, it's about fear, and being able to shoot thugs (wink, wink) whenever you want to.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
36. I agree. The whole 'protecting our freedom' is so
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:10 PM
Aug 2012

much eyewash, intended to somehow justify the otherwise unjustifiable need to go around armed 'just in case' that has pervaded much of our culture. Red Dawn, indeed. Sounds more like the pot-bellied overaged idiots that dress in camos and prance through the Michigan (or Georgia) woods in practice 'search and destroy' missions designed to take out the commie-socialist-pinko-n----er-lovers who want to 'take over our country'. Remember Sharon Angle's "Second Amendment remedies".

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
72. Reality is so frightening for gun-relgioinists
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:45 PM
Aug 2012

> Cool straw man

Oh, so all the documented history of modern-day militias, some of which have documented connections to Klan and other hate groups, is all a fantasy?

I'm relieved!

 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
101. It's just another straw man, bro. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you must provide proof
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:30 PM
Aug 2012

a few fringe idiots is proof of nothing.

Sadly, it seems you are not interested in civil discourse and wish to make every conversation adversarial and offensive. I think you're trying to bait posters into getting posts hidden or worse. I'm not sure why you do it, but it doesn't help your cause when all you're doing is griefing.

I wish you well on your adventures, but there's a better way. Take care, friend.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
157. Are you sitting there anticipating the day when
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 03:43 PM
Aug 2012

some future government becomes so tyrannical that U.S. citizens are going to have to take up arms against it? Really?

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
158. Speaking for myself
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 03:56 PM
Aug 2012

NO, and I doubt many do, except the most fanatical and they have a way of thinning their own herd.

Anyone who wishes for a future govt. to become tyrannical so they can go off to fight is, in my opinion, a fucking idiot who has no idea what real warfare is.
They usually are just a bunch of chickenhawks who would shit themselves at the first shot fired, IOW, RW assholes.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
161. My point exactly. Either that or it's a convenient
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 06:23 PM
Aug 2012

'patriotic' window-dressing to go around carrying a gun, 'just in case'.

Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #161)

 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
162. Start a movement to repeal it then. Let us know how that goes.
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 06:29 PM
Aug 2012

Crowing about it and harassing people in the Gungeon isn't going to change anything.

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
37. Wrong on so many levels.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:11 PM
Aug 2012

I've read your posts and you approach this issue from an emotional standpoint. I don't know a single gun owner who wants to "be able to shoot thugs (or anybody else) whenever they want".

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
41. LOL
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:17 PM
Aug 2012

> I don't know a single gun owner who wants to "be able to shoot thugs (or anybody else) whenever they want".

Aren't you special! I bet you're working from a huge sample size. Do you know every gun owner in the USA?



More logic FAIL from the gun-relgionists. Same as always!

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
73. Proving a negative
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:46 PM
Aug 2012

OK, newbie-troll, this is my only lesson to you:

Try to use logic in your arguments, not NRA Talking Points, lies, and logical fallacies.

Do you burn the water a lot when you try to boil it?

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
76. LOL
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:52 PM
Aug 2012

Let me know when you find somebody that can prove a negative!

You'll make history, since you'll be the first guy to ever do it!



Such children! Amazingly stupid trolls the NRA is sending over these days!

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
190. One is reminded ...
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 11:27 PM
Aug 2012

... of the admonition against wrestling with a pig. You'll only get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

Don't waste your time on the mythological little fellows that live under bridges.

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
55. No, do you?
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:30 PM
Aug 2012

With my background and circle of friends, I'll wager that I know more gun owners than you.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
62. LOL
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:33 PM
Aug 2012

> ith my background and circle of friends, I'll wager that I know more gun owners than you.

Ohhh, a bet! Is it for $10,000 like R-money's bet?



This is so hilarious on so many levels! What are you, 8 years old?

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
65. You refuted my claim about gun owners.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:36 PM
Aug 2012

I'm stating that I believe I have a larger base of experience with gun owners.

How is that funny?

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
75. Funny
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:49 PM
Aug 2012

> How is that funny?

Because it has nothing to do with anything.

What are you, 10 years old? Use a "high-tech" search engine like www.google.com to find all about "the perils of anecdotal & hearsay evidence".

This lesson in "Grade School Argumentation" is free from me, but future lessons in the basics of thought will cost you money.

When you learn some more junior-high school concepts about debate, let me know. Then we can start working on 9th grade stuff.

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
78. You're the one who claimed that the motivation behind gun ownership was a desire to shoot people.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:55 PM
Aug 2012

If you have empirical evidence to prove this, I'm willing to view it. Otherwise, your claim is based in anecdote.

I, at least, have relationships with many actual gun owners. In the absence of proof of their motivations, I believe that I have a better insight into the issue than you.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
79. LOL
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:01 PM
Aug 2012

> You're the one who claimed that the motivation behind gun ownership was a desire to shoot people.

I never said that was the only motivation. If you think that there isn't a single gun-owner out of the millions who hasn't fantasized about shooting "thugs" (wink wink), I have a bridge to sell you. All the gun-porn on youtube - these are "sane" gun-nuts, right? Machine-gun fests, blowing up stuff - that's all just a bunch of fun, right?

About that bridge - I own it, but I'll sell it to you, and you can collect tolls. You'll get rich....

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
84. Machine guns and blowing stuff up ARE fun.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:09 PM
Aug 2012

...and if nobody gets injured, who are you (or anybody) to find fault with people who are so inclined enjoying that?


Most priests have good intentions. The rare few want to molest little boys.

Most parents love their children and want to care for them. The rare few drown them in the bathtub.


Of COURSE there are some people who buy guns for purposes or with motivations that most of us would consider harmful to society. That wasn't the gist of your claim, however. I contend that the vast majority of gun owners have no desire to shoot people...even "bad" people.

spin

(17,493 posts)
98. Let's assume that you are correct and a high percentage of gun owners wish to shoot thugs. ...
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:04 PM
Aug 2012

If so it would be logical to assume that those gun owners who have concealed carry permits would also wish to do the same. They probably would go looking for trouble so they could enjoy blowing someone away and in fact they would be vigilantes.

Currently there are over 800,000 people in Florida who have valid concealed weapons permits. Florida also has a victim rights law called "Stand Your Ground."

Why then do we not see far more incidents in which a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit provoked an attack from a street thug in hopes of killing him? After the Trayvon Martin shooting the Tampa Bay TImes analyzed all the homicides it could find in Florida since the "Stand Your Ground" law passed seven years ago where this law was used as a defense.

The Tampa Bay Times could only find 200 such cases or an average of 28.6 per year.


In the most comprehensive effort of its kind, the Tampa Bay Times has identified nearly 200 "stand your ground'' cases and their outcomes. The Times identified cases through media reports, court records and dozens of interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece


Now surely if your theory that many gun owners are looking for a chance to kill a thug, we would see far more of these cases. If only 25% of those who legally carry a firearm in Florida or 200,000 were hoping to have the chance to use it, surely in seven years we would see at least a thousand if not tens of thousands of incidents in which a legally armed civilian shot an attacker. It's not that hard to be a vigilante and attract the attention of a criminal if you are foolish enough to wish to do so.

My father once told me of a man in Pittsburgh in the 1940s who enjoyed fighting and would walk into a bar or store in the Hill District and flash a large wad of bills. He would then leave and walk down dark streets. He was a very mean character.





 

spayneuter

(134 posts)
46. Whereas it is all so much nobler to submit to the tender mercies of the thugs.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:24 PM
Aug 2012

Thanks a lot, appeaser.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
51. Even MORE laughs!
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:28 PM
Aug 2012

> Whereas it is all so much nobler to submit to the tender mercies of the thugs.

Or you could just spend your time building Strawman "arguments", one of the only hobbies gun-relgionists have (besides stroking their Precious)

 

bad sofa king

(55 posts)
120. It has always been about freedom
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 07:29 AM
Aug 2012

freedom from government oppression and the freedom to protect oneself from the criminal element. Both threats are very real, more so for some than others of course.

 

Clames

(2,038 posts)
32. Intelligent take?
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:09 PM
Aug 2012

No. Not even close. Doesn't even have the basic facts right:


This morning, a gunman killed a former co-worker and injured eight others outside the Empire State Building in New York City


A gunman killed the former co-worker. The NYC police injured the rest.

No surprise you'd latch onto this article. This quote is interesting though.

Most self-styled anarchists are not committed to any greater cause than their own imagined fears and a desperate need for control...


Replace "anarchists" with "anti-gun extremists" and that pretty much wraps up that article very nicely.
 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
39. This article is full of fail
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:15 PM
Aug 2012

You can't ride in on the fail boat and then tell everyone else they're "sunk". The article is chock full of strawmen and falsehoods.

Oh, and the comments after the article are a real hoot too. No one is falling for this schtick anymore. Blog away, Sweetie.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
68. Send better trolls
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:40 PM
Aug 2012

The trolls sent over today are really pathetic quality.

Is the NRA strapped for funds or something?

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
77. Good copy
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 06:54 PM
Aug 2012

I love how the gun-relgionists' brains start sputtering when they try any sort of rebuttal that isn't an NRA approved Talking Point.

All they end up with is a variant of "I'm rubber, you're glue". That's the problem with going off-script when you're an NRA-trained parrot.

 

rDigital

(2,239 posts)
119. It's clever that you refer to all effective arguments against more gun control as "talking points".
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 03:07 AM
Aug 2012

As if talking points are a bad thing.

What it shows is that is you, and others, are effectively ceding the argument to your opponents.

Tuesday Afternoon

(56,912 posts)
85. Are Guns Killing Our Freedom Instead of Defending It? No, Some of us are readily
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:19 PM
Aug 2012

handing over that freedom because they are afraid and scared and don't realize that THEY are The Very Government that They want to have all the guns. Uniforms can have them but civilians can not.

What kind of sense does that make?

None.

The real freedom(?) you are advocating will be a Facist Regime.

oldsarge54

(582 posts)
86. When Our Forefathers
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:27 PM
Aug 2012

When our forefathers talked about fear of a standing army, they were talking as Englishmen, not Americans. The Brits have not had a large standing army since the English Civil War, and Cromwell's New Model Army. Remember that the Brits had to hire mercenaries to field an army in the colonies. This is the basis for fear of a standing army. As such, everybody wanted to use a militia instead. Now, it is true that everybody (except minister, quakers and judges) had to be in the militia. THEY WERE ALSO FINED IF THEY FAILED TO SHOW UP TO DRILL. This was no everyman for himself militia, these were mandatory formations. In my opinion, the NRA has perverted the 2nd Amendment.

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
89. The principle is the same.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:32 PM
Aug 2012

An armed populace has a better ability to resist oppression (foreign or domestic) than an unarmed populace.

I'm not an NRA member, but I believe that those who created the framework for this country saw the real benefit of an armed citizenry and wrote it into law.

oldsarge54

(582 posts)
99. Funny
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 08:28 PM
Aug 2012

FUnny, ever comepare our murder rate to England? Hell, our own cops can hit a target without collateral damage. In lieu of a standing military, they set up a militia. NRA perverted that concept.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
87. Yawn... Apparently some specially approved blogs are ok as sources.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 07:29 PM
Aug 2012

This from a guy who whined on and on about "blogs" while having a Supreme Court ruling, a Yale professor, a CalTech professor and former clerk to Sandra Day O'Conner, Alan Dershowitz and a Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment cited as sources.

I guess it would be a waste of time to look for anything approaching principle to explain why some blogs are ok; apparently it has something to do with whether they support the agenda.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
178. Just some of my favorites:
Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:39 AM
Aug 2012

All the news that fits.
It's only news if it fits.
Not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
193. If you mean the very bottom...
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:29 AM
Aug 2012

...that would be the 'signature line'. It's a quote I came across from Allan David Bloom. If you mean the last of the three in the body of the post, that's a movie quote from Three Days of the Condor.

You have a good day.
Thanks

aikoaiko

(34,127 posts)
104. This OP reminds me to ask what ever happened to that ex-pat in Italy antigun blogger?
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 09:15 PM
Aug 2012

Mike what's his name? That was some weird Gungeon trolling.

 

RegieRocker

(4,226 posts)
105. No. However
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 09:27 PM
Aug 2012

Posts and far left talk like this are an attack on our freedoms. It also hurts the Democratic party.

 

MercutioATC

(28,470 posts)
108. Regie's too diplomatic to say the word, so I will.
Mon Aug 27, 2012, 09:51 PM
Aug 2012

Loons

People who get all emotional and irrational about a position that THEIR OWN PARTY doesn't support. People who take a position based on dimestore tabloid emotion and not fact. Loons (no intended offense to the bird).

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
113. the trick is to have more people with guns that value freedom, than people who do not
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:34 AM
Aug 2012

and also happen to have guns.

That way, attrition ensures the right party wins.

 

Remmah2

(3,291 posts)
144. I wonder what kind of security Huff Post has at the front doors?
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:36 PM
Aug 2012

Be interesting to see if they do as they say.

 

wolfman24

(17 posts)
192. other view
Fri Aug 31, 2012, 09:12 AM
Aug 2012


Hello

I am not sure I agree with your premise, but after talking with a good number of people here in the "bible belt" I do believe that more and more people are afraid to open up their mouths or even beep their car horn for fear that the person they are talking to or are next to them is "packing" and might take offense. Regardless of what the NRA or its members say, not everyone who has a CW should have them. Too many people allow their emotions to get away with them or are easily angered. As recent history has shown, some of these people feel that instead of dealing with their issues or discussing it its easier just to blow the "problem" away. I am not saying this is the majority but since no one knows who these people are it makes it a very scary proposition.

I personally don't know anybody who isn't scared. In the current climate I am not sure there is a solution. Repealing the use of CW's is public places as most people seem to want is a good idea but not the answer because there are just too many guns out there. But I think it might give people a better sense of securing even if it is not real.


Wolfman 24
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Are Guns Killing Our Free...