Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !)

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Mussolini
Castro
All of these people required that their citizens relinquish their fire arms for the safety of all.(these are just the ones that come off the top my head for the 20th century.)

These men all salute you sir.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Hitler did not require citizens to relinquish firearms. Prior to Hitler's reign, Germany had already enacted gun registration laws -- and those already exist in the US. The only gun-restrictive measure that took effect while Hitler was in power dealt with Jews and non-citizens. Plenty of citizens owned legally-registered guns under Hitler.

I don't know specifics about the other names on your list, but if you're going to botch the most infamous, I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the rest. Equally importantly, by your apparent definition of 'requiring citizens to relinquish their fire arms', every politician in recent world history that has passed any form of gun-restrictive measure (anything from registration to limitations on weaponry) would qualify for the list. The fact that you selectively choose the worst doesn't prove any actual point for people that realize what you're doing. Here's a list of people with brown hair:

Hitler
Stalin
Mussolini
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
Osama bin Laden

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only gun-restrictive measure that took effect while Hitler was in power dealt with Jews and non-citizens.

So how did that work out for them?

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So how did that work out for them?

If the jews had guns they totally would have been able to defend themsleves from the waffen SS, amirite? Just like how if every American was packing a glock we'd totally be able to counter a monopoly of force by the single most powerful military machine in human history. Most American civilians are overweight or obese.

[Turp]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If the jews had guns they totally would have been able to defend themsleves from the waffen SS, amirite? Just like how if every American was packing a glock we'd totally be able to counter a monopoly of force by the single most powerful military machine in human history. Most American civilians are overweight or obese.

Ok do you not remember this "single most powerful military machine" vs the people of vietnam? Was not that long ago and the Vietnamese were not highly trained or highly armed, and they gave us one hell of a run for our money, there are plenty other examples of this but its not even worth wasting time trying to explain to a brick wall... The jews could of easily fought back if they were all armed an not scared, like in 1776 we fought yet another single most powerful military machine at the time, The British empire with 4-6% of our population in the current colonies, and we won.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok do you not remember this "single most powerful military machine" vs the people of vietnam? Was not that long ago and the Vietnamese were not highly trained or highly armed, and they gave us one hell of a run for our money, there are plenty other examples of this but its not even worth wasting time trying to explain to a brick wall... The jews could of easily fought back if they were all armed an not scared, like in 1776 we fought yet another single most powerful military machine at the time, The British empire with 4-6% of our population in the current colonies, and we won.

They didn't give us a run for our money, we mowed them down like grass. Tactical victory, after tactical victory. The Viet Cong had 10x as many combat deaths as the USA. Ultimately it was an unwinnable conflict in the strategic sense, because the rules of engagement prevented NATO from mistreating civilians, or routing enemy forces in their havens in neighboring countries without black ops. Similar to our current conflict in Afghanistan, we have complete force superiority. We, at this moment, have the power to round up every Afghan man, woman, and child, and kill them. That would end the conflict. The issue of win vs. no-win lies in the rules of engagement, not in the power of our military machine.

Similarly, the American revolution was a battle more against British willpower than British military might. We made it an expensive war on an already debt-laden empire. It just wasn't worth it for them to try and lock down what was only a marginally profitable set of colonies compared to their holdings in India and elsewhere.

Nazi Germany? No, the Jews would have gone against the ~entirety~ of the Nazi war machine, who had no rules of engagement precluding the massacre of men, women and children. No amount of assault rifles or Jewish survivalist rednecks would have changed that outcome, sorry.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They didn't give us a run for our money, we mowed them down like grass. Tactical victory, after tactical victory. The Viet Cong had 10x as many combat deaths as the USA. Ultimately it was an unwinnable conflict in the strategic sense, because the rules of engagement prevented NATO from mistreating civilians, or routing enemy forces in their havens in neighboring countries without black ops. Similar to our current conflict in Afghanistan, we have complete force superiority. We, at this moment, have the power to round up every Afghan man, woman, and child, and kill them. That would end the conflict. The issue of win vs. no-win lies in the rules of engagement, not in the power of our military machine.

Similarly, the American revolution was a battle more against British willpower than British military might. We made it an expensive war on an already debt-laden empire. It just wasn't worth it for them to try and lock down what was only a marginally profitable set of colonies compared to their holdings in India and elsewhere.

Nazi Germany? No, the Jews would have gone against the ~entirety~ of the Nazi war machine, who had no rules of engagement precluding the massacre of men, women and children. No amount of assault rifles or Jewish survivalist rednecks would have changed that outcome, sorry.

You shut your mouth. George Washington rode his unicorn of justice straight to the throne of King Hitler and snatched America away from those dirty Viet Cong.

[Turp]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ultimately it was an unwinnable conflict in the strategic sense, because the rules of engagement prevented NATO from mistreating civilians,Similar to our current conflict in Afghanistan, we have complete force superiority. We, at this moment, have the power to round up every Afghan man, woman, and child, and kill them. That would end the conflict. The issue of win vs. no-win lies in the rules of engagement, not in the power of our military machine.

Exactly lol , No shit we can nuclear bomb Afghanistan an kill everyone and "win" in your eyes, do you not think those rules of engagement would apply to American citizens? hell with the way shits going probably not so you may be right[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] They never could round us up but with your logic yes they could win any battle technically with 1 bomb. Its true they were not aloud to use Nukes, so they packed up and went home after months of getting shot at by random people, you can never win without a nuke, you could never round up every single citizen unless they were dead or you had some insanely huge prison, that is exactly what would happen in America. TBH i do not think they cared about civil rights of the viet congo we took airforce etc over there and really fucked them up but it was vs farmers with guns and we had to back out.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Similarly, the American revolution was a battle more against British willpower than British military might. We made it an expensive war on an already debt-laden empire. It just wasn't worth it for them to try and lock down what was only a marginally profitable set of colonies compared to their holdings in India and elsewhere.

Okay lets look at the war of 1812. England was feeling mighty powerful. They had just destroyed Napoleon. And they leveled their eyes on America and decided it was time to bring our seditious nation back into the fold.

And when they landed the steamrolled us. Burned the white house, cities and villages up and down the Mississippi were burning from Native American tribes that had been bought for the English cause. We were out numbered, out gunned, and the English forces were clearly more veteran from their extremely recent war in Europe.

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nazi Germany? No, the Jews would have gone against the ~entirety~ of the Nazi war machine, who had no rules of engagement precluding the massacre of men, women and children. No amount of assault rifles or Jewish survivalist rednecks would have changed that outcome, sorry.

In the spring of 1967, following close to a decade of relative calm, Israel found itself poised for war against four of its Arab neighbors.

According to all the military analysts and pundits, it was to be a lopsided match. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) consisted of 275,000 troops, compared to the 456,000 soldiers of the combined Iraqi, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian armies. The united Arab forces also had a decided edge with regards to weaponry and military equipment: they boasted more than double the amount of tanks, and close to four times the amount of combat aircraft. The three-week period preceding the Six-Day War was one of dread, shock and fright for the residents of the Holy Land.

With close to two and a half million Jews living in the tiny country, it had the highest concentration of Jews since pre-Holocaust Eastern Europe. So pessimistic was the outlook that the nation’s cemeteries and national parks were marked to become gravesites for the many who would surely perish in the course of the war.

However, despite all the prognostications, by the time the war ended, the territory under Israeli control had tripled in size. Jews returned to sites where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years, sites from which waves of terror were launched against them for so many years. The casualties and losses were painful, but minimal in comparison to all projections. The Jewish nation was miraculously victorious in the face of unbelievable odds.

History books speak of the “Hundred Years’ War,” the “Thirty Years’ War,” and many other long-fought battles. Here, in a matter of six short days, a nation managed to utterly rout not one, but four powerful enemies!

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The jews could of easily fought back if they were all armed an not scared

Don't go off topic, this was the point of contention.

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you can never win without a nuke, you could never round up every single citizen unless they were dead or you had some insanely huge prison

Oh shit, I think you just described the holocaust.

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

had some insanely huge prison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz

The point is, you don't need to nuke a population to systematically exterminate them. It doesn't matter how many guns you have, you're not going to out-gun a modern, well-trained military like ours. Red Dawn was just a movie.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So how did that work out for them?

Pretty much the same as it would've worked out for them if that law never was passed, seeing as how they had started building concentration camps in 1933, revoked Jewish citizenship in 1935, banned Jews from professional labor in 1936, instigated forced segregation in 1936 and 1937, and didn't pass the gun laws until 1938.

Try another door.