Please stop! :)

Remove all ads!

I know this is off topic but I had to reply to this.
Juggalo exactly how does thinking German citizens would be aware of the Nazis make me a racist.I would be troubled if world war II was not taught in germany how could you ignore such a huge event in history.
By the way I have many friends of variouse colors and nationalities.

 

*sigh*

(I had a fairly lengthy rant in here, but decided to just nix it as I tend to rant on issues such as this>

 

Dorion Blackstar,
are you aware you're talking terrible rubbish? Since you seem to insist on that foolish nazi-gun crap I think I have to point out a few things before you make me puke.

Well, I am german and this is probably the reason why you had the brilliant idea to bring up the nazi-firearm bulls***. I am very well aware of the Nazis, actually most germans are, and it doesn't need you to remind me or them. Nor do I need to justify myself for WW-II or the Holocaust. I'm young, that's history for me - my only responsibility deriving from that time is to ensure that will not happen again and fortunately I can tell you that, in germany, that is highly unlikely.

Your nazi-firearms parallell is misleading, ignorant, naive and foolish. You seriously think that widespread gun-ownership (iirc that was your thought) could have prevented Nazi dictatorship or mass murder? I strongly doubt that and to tell you why I'll bring up another, more actual, parallel:
Have a look at Zimbabwe (ex-Rhodesia) - every farmer (usually white) is armed there yet they don't resist the local dictator Mugabe (black) who wants to take their farms away - why? The do have the firepower - doesn't that confuse you? Are they just cowards? Maybe they are cowards for a reason ....

Have you ever even wasted a single, brief, confused thought on how it might be to live under a the rule of a dictator?
Do you seriously think that in a dictatorship the use of firearms against the authorities will have no consequences, that you can win in a direct confrontation? Without a price to pay? Since dictatorships generally rely on force to control/ opress the population, what do you think will happen when you challenge their main instrument of power? People under a dictatorship have little illusions about that:
It will not be much unlike what will happen to you today in the US, when you shoot on a cop - SWAT will come and get you. The Farmers in Zimbabwe know that too - and are well aware that, when they resist, their farms will be burned down, they will be put in jail, leave their family and loyal farm workers unprotected from Mobutu's mob and that they will not get any legal protection from courts.
Shooting a nazi before or in WW-II would have clearly meant beeing interrogated by the Gestapo, or more clearly beeing tortured, and sentenced (in a swift and completely unfair trial) and then hanged or deheaded for murder.

But of course: Had the jewish kept their guns, things would have been different and most certainly, in the land of the free and the brave etc. things would be totally different too .... Only utter morons can believe in the equality *citizen firepower = guarantee of freedom*. And as an exponent of that argument that's evidently just what you are.

PS: Ack, you made me post again ... anyway, your fault

[ October 17, 2002, 12:55: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ah, yes. You kids never quite get it through your heads that private ownership of guns is what won America her freedom. Might have something to do with why we value the right so much.

Ragusa, what gives a dictator his power? Stunning good looks? Nope. Guns. How do you defeat a dictator?

C'mon... I know you can think of a way. And it doesn't start with "surrender all weapons to him."

 

There are two ways to get rid of a dictator, Shralp:
(a) peaceful uprising, only sometimes this grats success indeed, but look at chile - eventually they got rid of Pinochet - without civil war - or at germany, we managed that too in 1989, without guns albeit with russian support. Quite interesting that in the revolutions following the fall of the iron curtain the signal for uprising was the declared end of russian support for the local communist governments - only when the people knew the russians wouldn't crush them as they did in Berlin, Budapest and Prague they dared to resist - and only very few people got killed. How do you explain that? Lack of guns? Or just the end of fear?

(b) militant uprising - maybe even assassination of the dictator. The latter option usually replaces one dictator with another one, and it is a risky business too - assassins usually die during their deed or right after. More successful revolutions usually have had help from outside, living and operating in a dictators country bears some ... risks - therefor the unfortunate and destabilizing tendency of civil wars to cross borders since the weaker side also needs to have a safeheaven somewhere (sidenote: the other destabilizing factor are the refugees). How many countries do you know who got rid of a dictator in a civil war without support from the outside? Look what happened to the Iraqis who started to fight Saddam before the US stopped supporting them. They were obviously not victorious. How can that be? I mean, didn't they have guns?
Look at South Africa - the ANC had led a long, successless and bloody guerrilla war with the South African government - and who won the war? A man in prison, with massive international support.

You seem to have a revolution-clichè problem Shralp, barricades, bruning tires, tear gas and stuff ... and guns.
Beeing alone (and considering the popularity of denounciation in dictatorships you usually are) inside a dictators country usually means that you have lost already, sad but true. Help from outside is essential and way more important than guns. You're knitting the connection between guns and freedom a little loose, Shralp.

[ October 18, 2002, 13:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Your past two posts were excellent Ragusa, my complements!

 

So tell me, Ragusa - which of the examples you cite include the characteristic of an actual armed population?

I'm not talking about guerilla warfare where a small resistance (or ray-zis-taunce, as the frogs might put it), but widespread firearm ownership?

I don't think Shralp made a great point, but I think there's a point to be made - only an armed population can effectively resist the rise of a dictator, and only an unarmed population can be subdued by such a power - certainly easily.

I just can't believe you could be so obtuse to NOT acknowledge that an armed citizenry is an obstacle to tyranny. We can talk about other consequences of that, and other benefits, too. (see my earlier posts..one in head, two in chest)

And sure, it would be easy to sit back and whine about needing international support to deal with internal issues...but then again, I suppose that's Europe's modus operandi.

(oh, one more point)

Ragusa - still want to use Zimbabwe as an example? The farmers there were armed - until their guns were taken away piecemeal and wholesale.
-----------------------------------

Senior Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) officers have clandestinely released firearms from the police armoury to independence war veterans…to unleash violence and terror on white-owned commercial farms and against members of the opposition."

On April 18, 2000, the London Telegraph reported that "Zimbabwe's white farmers came under renewed pressure yesterday as squads of up to 20 police searched at least 200 properties for illegal weapons…. Chen Chimutengwende, the Information Minister, confirmed that police had orders to scour all 4,000 white-owned farms for unlicensed firearms [and] ammunition."

House-to-house searches by government agents with lists — as were carried out by Adolf Hitler's thugs — is a common pre-genocidal tactic. Said one farmer about such an incident on a nearby farm, "Every single square inch of the farmhouse was searched. They even looked under the knickers." The story noted that "the police retreated looking 'disappointed' after failing to find any illegal weapons."

[ October 17, 2002, 17:00: Message edited by: Ritwngr ]

 

You can be well armed but that doesn't help you much when you live in fear and when you can't really trust anyone due to common denounciation. Sure, arms may be an obstacle but an obstacle that can be dealt with, for example by intimidation. Guess why our dear Saddam used gas on the rebellish (yes, armed) kurds in northern iraq?

Edit: And guess why Mugabe ordered the widespread searches? - to find a reason to increase pressure on the farmers. He could have just as well have created a law that forbids whites to have life stock/ cars/ cigarettes and to repeat the trick. The guns are just an excuse to harass the farmers. You still don't get it.

Edit #2: There is a reason why dictators tend to be so keen on justifying their measures to opress people. Of course, Mobutu could just go to the farmers and let his mob collect the weapons. However, he decides to make a law about it. That takes care that pressure from outside of the country can be rejected with the argument that everything is strictly legal. Why these efforts? The population in the country knows what's going on, so this can hardly fool them. Maybe because of fearing pressure from outside?
Of course, positive side-effect for Mobutu is that he now can throw whites in jail for a reason, maybe take their farms away, when they haven't delivered their guns - strictly legal - eventually they haven't obeyed to the law! Watch closely - in Mobutu you can indeed see a Hitler at work. And yes, you don't get it, the first step for a dictator is to occupy and eventually to pervert law.

Edit #3:The zimbabwian law about gun confiscation is just an excuse to illegalize the opponents, in this case the white farmers. Considering the lists mentioned in your article I don't think that the Zimbabwe police has been searching the homes of black citizens too. That is a subtle but important difference.
The guns are exchangeable, for example with drugs or ... fake money: Then every house search of a white farmer would include the accusation that he has drugs and fake money. Or how about a fictious law about a white farmer loosing his zimbabwian nationality for rape, murder and theft? This is just as perfidious: Because white farmers do these things Mobutu *had* to make a special law to counter them ... get it now? In Zimbabwe gun confiscation is about discrimination, not about guns.

Edit #4: Ritwngr, one last thing - disarmament is not the conditio sine qua non for genocide. History shows that it can be done and that it has been done to well armed peoples in various ways: Food denial, water denial (yes, you cannot eat and drink guns), or by gassing them as saddam did (and you cannot breathe guns too) - the methods are unlimited. Having a gun is pretty worth- and pointless sometimes.

[ October 18, 2002, 13:20: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

My God, man... I don't get it?

The reason the searches were done was to TAKE AWAY THE GUNS. Why? Because the dictator had, at the same time, ARMED his thugs and henchmen - specifically to terrorize the farmers.

In the 20th century, every government that has perpetrated genocide has disarmed its victims first. This suggests that — although disarmament does not cause genocide — disarmament is the sine qua non of genocide.

Edit: But we digress. You can keep your views, misguided as they may be. And we'll keep ours, locked and loaded. And when you need our help - we'll be there. (man, i've got to get me one of the "Send a gun to save a British home posters")Again. And Again. And Again.

[ October 17, 2002, 17:09: Message edited by: Ritwngr ]

 

The UK is perfectly capable of defending itself against against any aggressor, yes even the US. It all involves nukes these days...

 

No, Herr Ragusa, you are zee one missing zee point.

You keep sayink "fear zis, fear zat," but you are missink vat zese people fear. Zey fear superior firepower.

No one said that "if you are armed you will win." But if you are not armed you definitely lose.

You realize that Mandela was the leader of the ANC, right? Your argument contradicts itself.

So there are two ways to fight a dictator: peaceful, which you admit rarely works, and militant.

Nice try at the psychoanalysis there, studmonkey. Except that I didn't say anything about barricades, burning tires, tear gas, etc. in war. I only asked you what you thought. You made the rest up yourself. Lovely debate tactic in that it attempts to put me on the defensive, but really it's intellectually dishonest to ascribe views to me that I haven't stated.

 

Isolated in jail Mandela had little influence on the militant arm of the ANC - leader or not. And actually he has always promoted peaceful resistance. I thought I made clear that militant works not as good as peaceful resistance, you must have misunderstood me Shralp.

Besides, my apologies for the revolution clichè, I was mocking ... I thought you'll get that too You have noticed you don't bring up many arguments, don't you? On the other hand, just claiming I'm wrong is admittedly way easier ...

[ October 17, 2002, 17:29: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

So Shralp and rightwinger, do you so fear your own goverment that you think you need to arm yourselves against them? Your whole line of reasoning suggest that you fear that your beloved president and his goverment whom you youself elected will start to suppress you more than you can take. Where is that line? Ashcrofts implemention of citizen spying ala KGB? Or does it need to be harsher?

I also want to ask why noone replied to my thought that it perhaps is something disturbingly wrong when a nations citizens feel the need to have a magnun 44 in their bedroom to feel safe? Isnt that the big problem?

 

With all due respect (seriously) to Shralp and Ritwngr - Ragusa is making some decent points, even if you don't agree, don't resort to insulting him. If you're mature enough to properly handle guns, I'd think you could handle a debate about them.

BTA, you don't think it would be easier to kill someone by pointing and pulling a trigger, rather than bludgeoning or stabbing someone to death, without losing your nerve? I disagree.

Besides, by the logic of, "They're just as dead", why not legalize flamethrowers? When you immolate someone they're "just as dead" and heck, if they didn't have that flamethrower, well they'd just do the crime anyway with a knife, right?

Edit for BTA's follow up: Yeah, I missed that in the chaos, my mistake. However his point wasn't that hitting someone with a bat was less murderous, more to the point of, there are other ways to defend yourself, like (heh) with a baseball bat... which I'm not sure I entirely agree with - I don't play baseball, but I have a hockey stick! Ok, nevermind, consider the point dropped.

[ October 17, 2002, 18:07: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

Jaoquin,

Is it a bad thing to feel that need? I'm not sure - I tend to think it's a realistic acknowledgement.

I've not owned a gun for very long, a little over a year. I've always appreciated that I've had a right to own one, however.

Violent crime happens everywhere - even in beloved socialist "utopias" like Sweden. I very much enjoy (or appreciate, there's really no glee in it) that I don't have to rely on the government to protect me 100%.

No matter how glib I may sound, I've never taken the notion of defending myself lightly. This isn't counterstrike or half-life or any other trivial game. The very idea of killing another human being is a terrifyingly grave act. I can't even imagine what the personal consequences might be if it ever happened.

But then I think of the family I have and the family of my own I hope to have - and I realize that whatever grief or attack of conscience I might experience afterwards will pale in comparison to the idea that if I didn't defend them, I'd live with that as well.

There are bad people and good people. Firearms in the hands of good people provide a needed counterbalance to the weapons in the hands of thugs.

 

In most countries the armed force of the police is enough to provide this counterballance. Just a thought, could it be that there are ... maybe too many weapons around already? Or is it just that the US police is so utterly incompetent the citizens just need to be armed?

 

Wow, here I am actually taking the right wing perspective here... (Icky)

They never said they, or we, need to be armed. They're arguing that we need the freedom to be armed. Its a matter of choice.

I honestly can't speak with any expertise on the effectiveness of our police, or of how many weapons are already circulating, legally or illegally, in our country.

I'm sure Shralp and ritwngr will have something to say about that though

 

Sure I could, but I don't know that mounds of data or statistics really turn the tide in this case.

But a few snippets:
---------
Switzerland vs. Japan.

Similar (low) crime rates.

One bans guns, one requires citizens to own fully automatic, military weaponry.
---------
In just about every country I can find data for, crime rates went UP after stringent gun-control measures were enacted. (England and Australia jump to the forefront)
---------
If you eliminate the high-crime inner cities of the US (where crime is committed by ILLEGAL guns, not legally owned weapons in private hands), the US violent crime rate is lower than Germany. Not a specific statistic, just interesting.
---------
In 60 years of issuing Concealed Carry Permits here in this country, there has not been ONE single, solitary case of a permit holder using a firearm in any conflict with a law enforcement officer. However, over the same period, there have been more than 1100 instances where the same population of permit-holders have actually used their firearm to ASSIST law enforcement.
---------
Hey, I'm all for throwing wackos in the klink if they use guns to commit crime. Prosecute aggressively, like our Project Exile which began in Richmond where I went to college. Caught with an illegal gun in the commission of a crime (even if you don't use it thusly)? 5 years in federal prison. In three years, the murder rate in Richmond dropped 65%. It's a different city.

Just don't rob me of the right to defend my life and property.

 

Perhaps I'm mistaken here, but one of the issues for gun control that people face is their own survival. What I mean is that the basic human instinct for self-preservation is in all of us to some degree or other.
Here's my thought: maybe some people feel that their self-preservation is being threatened by people who would say "let's control firearms in the United States." I know it's a bit off topic (I think) but it's just a thought.
What do you guys think? is this perhaps relevant in this debate?