Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !)

[Kraftwerk]

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

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well? I suppose they all also wore shoes. That makes about as much sense as your shitty analogy, and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

I would call you out for straw manning it, but you even failed at that. You just sound like an idiot. Refute his point head on (Despots demanding relinquish guns prior to atrocities committed) not make a stupid analogy about wearing shoes.

[Ephirith]

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

I would call you out for straw manning it, but you even failed at that. You just sound like an idiot. Refute his point head on (Despots demanding relinquish guns prior to atrocities committed) not make a stupid analogy about wearing shoes.

Aw shit I got called out for strawmanning a stupid analogy for quoting...... a strawmanned stupid analogy.

Are you seriously implying our current political culture has ANY relevance to those authoritarian regimes? The argument at hand is: "Constitutional Republic with a cultural heritage of respect for the common law tradition placing restrictions on gun ownership", it's not some link in a chain leading to to a police state you fucking survivalist moron.

[Kraftwerk]

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

Aw shit I got called out for strawmanning a stupid analogy for quoting...... a strawmanned stupid analogy.

Are you seriously implying our current political culture has ANY relevance to those authoritarian regimes? The argument at hand is: "Constitutional Republic with a cultural heritage of respect for the common law tradition placing restrictions on gun ownership", it's not some link in a chain leading to to a police state you fucking survivalist moron.

You sound slightly mad. Are you mad?

[Turp]

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

Aw shit I got called out for strawmanning a stupid analogy for quoting...... a strawmanned stupid analogy.

Are you seriously implying our current political culture has ANY relevance to those authoritarian regimes? The argument at hand is: "Constitutional Republic with a cultural heritage of respect for the common law tradition placing restrictions on gun ownership", it's not some link in a chain leading to to a police state you fucking survivalist moron.

In your eyes what is a police state? we have military and police roaming the streets (end of posse commentatus and what Hitler one of those regimes did), Free speech zones where you can only protest in these certain zones , NDAA bill passed which is a bill that is like wiping your ass with the constitution and ending due process in court if they say so ( Hitler / China / North korea all just do this and not put it into law like we have done), Attorney general of the United States Eric Holder on TV saying we need to brain wash the public into gun control ( Again they also did this ), Bills like SOPA / CISPA to censor the internet ( Same shit in those regimes censoring the TV) , We have Fluoride in our water ( Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile ) and the list goes on and on, stay in denial all you want , but tyranny is abroad and denial just makes you part of the problem.

[Ephirith]

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

In your eyes what is a police state? we have military and police roaming the streets (end of posse commentatus and what Hitler one of those regimes did), Free speech zones where you can only protest in these certain zones , NDAA bill passed which is a bill that is like wiping your ass with the constitution and ending due process in court if they say so ( Hitler / China / North korea all just do this and not put it into law like we have done), Attorney general of the United States Eric Holder on TV saying we need to brain wash the public into gun control ( Again they also did this ), Bills like SOPA / CISPA to censor the internet ( Same shit in those regimes censoring the TV) , We have Fluoride in our water ( Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile ) and the list goes on and on, stay in denial all you want , but tyranny is abroad and denial just makes you part of the problem.

Quit trying to imply the United States is a police state. We are a constitutional republic, considerably more conservative even than other republics in Europe who don't suffer the "police state" baggage. We have an apparatus for enforcing the rule of law, a police force whose reach is severely limited. Do they occasionally abuse their power? Yes. Are they human? Yes. Should that completely de-legitimize the entire concept of policing? No.

What would it take for you to be happy with governmental authority? Would you like anarchy? Do you want things here to be like they are in Somalia, where there is no rule of law or legitimate centralized government? Why do you obsessively fear one end of the extreme, totalitarianism, but neglect the other, anarchy?

Why is it that even the most minor act of government, like water fluoridation, or the passing of laws meant more to protect the profits of media enterprises than facilitate propaganda, are steps toward Nazi-on-Earth, but deregulation and reductions in governmental authority aren't steps toward Somalian anarchy?

Try to see outside of black-and-white thinking and acknowledge that political thought exists on a spectrum, where we ideally tend toward the middle. It's so incredibly outlandish for you to associate our behaviors with descent into a fascist police state, for so many reasons, it just boggles my mind how you can possibly think this.

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

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!

Are you seriously comparing the potency of the Israeli military machine to jewish civilians living scattered among Europe? What the fuck is this retarded source? The arabs had a numerical advantage but their tanks were old and outdated. Their troops were poorly trained and undisciplined, often running at the first sign of combat. Israel had complete and total air superiority, which is essential in modern conflict. Again, the Arabs had more aircraft but of inferior design, and lacked the command and control apparatus to effectively coordinate an air campaign.

They were decisively defeated by a far superior Israeli military, heavily funded by Western nations and provided with top of the line, sophisticated equipment and modern command doctrine and signals intelligence.

I can't believe you are seriously trying to argue that civilian jews, even if armed, could have defended themselves from the Nazi regime, and that you'd cite a conflict involving one of the most well-trained, well-equipped militaries in the world to support that argument.

[Harmonium]

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

Are you seriously comparing the potency of the Israeli military machine to jewish civilians living scattered among Europe?

Not like your implying. You really have a knack for taking a concept and running into absurdity for the sake of your arguments don't you?

You also have this strange notion that I think that armed jewish civilians would have defeated Hitler on the field of battle. I think that an armed Jewish peoples scattered in Europe would have had many more survivors, that is many would have been able to succeed in escaping. Those that failed to escape would have incurred losses for the Nazi's. Apparently you think their best bet was to just... give in, roll over? Rhetorical question mind you, this debate has grown quite stale.

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

They were decisively defeated by a far superior Israeli military, heavily funded by Western nations and provided with top of the line, sophisticated equipment and modern command doctrine and signals intelligence.

MYTH

“The United States helped Israel defeat the Arabs in six days.”

FACT

The United States tried to prevent the war through negotiations, but it could not persuade Nasser or the other Arab states to cease their belligerent statements and actions. Still, right before the war, President Johnson warned: “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone.” 16 Then, when the war began, the State Department announced: “Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed.”

Moreover, while the Arabs were falsely accusing the United States of airlifting supplies to Israel, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on the region (France, Israel’s other main arms supplier, also embargoed arms to Israel).

By contrast, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. Simultaneously, the armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.

[Ephirith]

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

Not like your implying. You really have a knack for taking a concept and running into absurdity for the sake of your arguments don't you?

You also have this strange notion that I think that armed jewish civilians would have defeated Hitler on the field of battle. I think that an armed Jewish peoples scattered in Europe would have had many more survivors, that is many would have been able to succeed in escaping. Those that failed to escape would have incurred losses for the Nazi's. Apparently you think their best bet was to just... give in, roll over? Rhetorical question mind you, this debate has grown quite stale.

The contention was that arming the populace would prevent a government from asserting a monopoly of force, all I was arguing was "No". Whether they would escape or rates of survival would be irrelevant to the topic.

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

MYTH

“The United States helped Israel defeat the Arabs in six days.”

FACT

The United States tried to prevent the war through negotiations, but it could not persuade Nasser or the other Arab states to cease their belligerent statements and actions. Still, right before the war, President Johnson warned: “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone.” 16 Then, when the war began, the State Department announced: “Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed.”

Moreover, while the Arabs were falsely accusing the United States of airlifting supplies to Israel, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on the region (France, Israel’s other main arms supplier, also embargoed arms to Israel).

By contrast, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. Simultaneously, the armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.

The Israelis were driving American made tanks, flying European made aircraft, using NATO small arms, wielded by troops trained in part by NATO advisors. Their military system including signals intelligence, radar technology, and combat doctrine were all bolstered by American aid.

Claiming Israel didn't have American help simply because American troops weren't on the ground ignores much of the reality of the situation.

“Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed.”

Do you honestly, sincerely think the American position was neutral? They may have said that on the international stage, but in reality, the situation was very different.