Conquer Club

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
Aside from clearcut Godwin's Law violations, Hitler had many different government and economic politics, some of them effective ones. We can't just ignore a policy because some toolbox used it. Let's say he had supported gun freedom should we have said "Oh no guys, Hitler was a gun nut, let's ban them?

Effective, I agree. Six million dead Jews can't all be wrong. That's just in Jews, add the millions more who died in places like Dachau and Aushwitz. Add still many more millions who died fighting the Wehrmacht from 1939 to 1945. Oh yes, he was a very effective leader.

So, yeah, we can ignore a policy on the grounds of it's intended use. Hitler used gun control to further his control of the German people and the peoples of Europe in the nations he conquered; What assurance do I have that the government would not, shortly after seizing all guns or at least radically limiting them, then decide elections and independant press are too much of a burden? None, that's what.

If the government had the support of the army and the desire to oppress us, it wouldn't matter how many guns we'd have. Their technology outclasses any petty weapons we might have on hand, and that's still ignoring the lack of coordination and leadership any sort of resistance we might put up would have. The only purpose automatic and semi-automatic weapons have is to kill people, not protect us from an actual army.

Frigidus wrote:
If the government had the support of the army and the desire to oppress us, it wouldn't matter how many guns we'd have. Their technology outclasses any petty weapons we might have on hand, and that's still ignoring the lack of coordination and leadership any sort of resistance we might put up would have. The only purpose automatic and semi-automatic weapons have is to kill people, not protect us from an actual army.

Tell that to the boots in Iraq, those muj have done quite a bit of damage with IEDs, AKs and second-rate Soviet-era surplus.

Tell that to the veterans of Vietnam, same situations.

And harkening back to the 1770's, the Brittish and Hessian troops under General Cornwall.

In each case, superior numbers and technology was meaningless in the face of a determined foe. Rarely is the conventional force able to stomp gurellias decisively. However, resistance movements have only been effective as the capablity of weapons increases, hence why we see the revolts of the Roman period being suppressed brutally but the revolts of the 1770's and onwards having greater success. The only way to beat a gurrellia is to in essence become one, this has rarely been done. In the end, maintaince of the second amendment is the only sure way to insure the rights of the people, the Founding Fathers knew what they were going when they put that in there.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
Aside from clearcut Godwin's Law violations, Hitler had many different government and economic politics, some of them effective ones. We can't just ignore a policy because some toolbox used it. Let's say he had supported gun freedom should we have said "Oh no guys, Hitler was a gun nut, let's ban them?

Effective, I agree. Six million dead Jews can't all be wrong. That's just in Jews, add the millions more who died in places like Dachau and Aushwitz. Add still many more millions who died fighting the Wehrmacht from 1939 to 1945. Oh yes, he was a very effective leader.

So, yeah, we can ignore a policy on the grounds of it's intended use. Hitler used gun control to further his control of the German people and the peoples of Europe in the nations he conquered; What assurance do I have that the government would not, shortly after seizing all guns or at least radically limiting them, then decide elections and independant press are too much of a burden? None, that's what.

The fact that the current US isn't a ruthless fasist state, maybe?
While the US will probably become more and more Authoritarian as their economy collapses, unless you're a conspiracy nut, I think you'll agree that that's quite a way off.
Also, I would like to present Australia as a good example of gun-control-that-didn't-automatically-lead-to-fasism.

Hell, no-one here (or at least no-one serious) is proposing the complete elimination of all guns. Revolvers, rifles and the like are more than enough for any likely situation. There are no situations, outside of the hugely unlikely ("What if I'm attacked by a small army!?") where semi-automatic or automatic weaponry is needed.
That includes some hypothetical "The US government spontaneously becomes fasist and attempts to ruthlessly oppress everyone in the finest traditions of fasist states the world over" scenario too. Considering the sheer numbers of Army deserters resistance movements will be getting, gaining possession of excessively heavy weaponry certainly won't be a problem.

Jenos Ridan wrote:Tell that to the boots in Iraq, those muj have done quite a bit of damage with IEDs, AKs and second-rate Soviet-era surplus.

Iraqi casualty's are monumentally higher than American, and they'd probably be quaking in fear if they weren't s religiously devoted. Can you see an American blowing themselves up in a marketplace for freedom?

Jenos Ridan wrote:Tell that to the veterans of Vietnam, same situations.

It's a lot easier when you're in a dense jungle and have the home field advantage.

Jenos Ridan wrote:And harkening back to the 1770's, the Brittish and Hessian troops under General Cornwall.

Entirely different time period, Cornwall couldn't snipe people from a mile out, and they certainly didn't have tanks or helicopters.

I say again, America would ave a 0% chance against the government. If the army decided to take over we'd be screwed.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
If the government had the support of the army and the desire to oppress us, it wouldn't matter how many guns we'd have. Their technology outclasses any petty weapons we might have on hand, and that's still ignoring the lack of coordination and leadership any sort of resistance we might put up would have. The only purpose automatic and semi-automatic weapons have is to kill people, not protect us from an actual army.

Tell that to the boots in Iraq, those muj have done quite a bit of damage with IEDs, AKs and second-rate Soviet-era surplus.

Tell that to the veterans of Vietnam, same situations.

And harkening back to the 1770's, the Brittish and Hessian troops under General Cornwall.

In each case, superior numbers and technology was meaningless in the face of a determined foe. Rarely is the conventional force able to stomp gurellias decisively. However, resistance movements have only been effective as the capablity of weapons increases, hence why we see the revolts of the Roman period being suppressed brutally but the revolts of the 1770's and onwards having greater success. The only way to beat a gurrellia is to in essence become one, this has rarely been done. In the end, maintaince of the second amendment is the only sure way to insure the rights of the people, the Founding Fathers knew what they were going when they put that in there.

I don't see the insurgents of Iraq pushing us out. The way I've heard it is that the war in western Iraq is pretty much over.

As for Vietnam, the NVA was well trained and very well coordinated and assisted the VC in any way possible, so your argument there is bunk.

And as for the American Revolution, there were many officers that were veterans of the Seven Years War and while the militias were horrendously undisciplined, the Continental Army was very well disciplined under the leadership of Washington and von Steuben.


And as for wanting to see a successful non-violent revolution? I suggest you actually pick up a history book and read about Mahatmas Ghandi and then look at a modern map and see if the country of India has a nice like U.K. in parentheses next to it, because last time I checked, it didn't.

Hologram wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
If the government had the support of the army and the desire to oppress us, it wouldn't matter how many guns we'd have. Their technology outclasses any petty weapons we might have on hand, and that's still ignoring the lack of coordination and leadership any sort of resistance we might put up would have. The only purpose automatic and semi-automatic weapons have is to kill people, not protect us from an actual army.

Tell that to the boots in Iraq, those muj have done quite a bit of damage with IEDs, AKs and second-rate Soviet-era surplus.

Tell that to the veterans of Vietnam, same situations.

And harkening back to the 1770's, the Brittish and Hessian troops under General Cornwall.

In each case, superior numbers and technology was meaningless in the face of a determined foe. Rarely is the conventional force able to stomp gurellias decisively. However, resistance movements have only been effective as the capablity of weapons increases, hence why we see the revolts of the Roman period being suppressed brutally but the revolts of the 1770's and onwards having greater success. The only way to beat a gurrellia is to in essence become one, this has rarely been done. In the end, maintaince of the second amendment is the only sure way to insure the rights of the people, the Founding Fathers knew what they were going when they put that in there.

I don't see the insurgents of Iraq pushing us out. The way I've heard it is that the war in western Iraq is pretty much over.

As for Vietnam, the NVA was well trained and very well coordinated and assisted the VC in any way possible, so your argument there is bunk.

And as for the American Revolution, there were many officers that were veterans of the Seven Years War and while the militias were horrendously undisciplined, the Continental Army was very well disciplined under the leadership of Washington and von Steuben.


And as for wanting to see a successful non-violent revolution? I suggest you actually pick up a history book and read about Mahatmas Ghandi and then look at a modern map and see if the country of India has a nice like U.K. in parentheses next to it, because last time I checked, it didn't.

Yes...but pre-Tet, when and where did NVA engage RVN or US forces in pitched battle? They didn't...without the Ho-Chi-Minh trail ferrying rifles and equipment to Victor Charlie, he would have been spectacularily defeated.

Your point here, Hologram, quite frankly is really bizarre. The fact that the actual USSR and its allies rather than ex-Soviet stockpiles was supplying the weapons to the Viet-Cong doesn't really matter, the point is that those weapons allowed them (rightly or wrongly) to fight Ngo Dinh Diem and the US.

And I could just as easily substitute Jenos' Viet-Cong for the Viet-Minh, who, as you'll no doubt be aware, waged a hugely successful guerrilla war on their own terms using basic equipment.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

ignotus wrote:
Solution is better educational programs and gun-free society (at the end).

Sure, Hitler.

That is funny. Let's keep everyone stupid, and let them have guns, and then we'll have full control of the world!

Don't tell me some skull-drudgery about how egalitarian Hitler was; he thought strict governmental controls on guns and massive propaganda programs, some of which were passed off as education in the kindergardens, would result in his Aryan Utopia. And most anti-gun types, either knowingly but ignoring the facts (not a first) or unwittingly, support a governmental policy that Hitler practiced. Delete the Second Amendment and what stops Big Brother from taking away other freedoms? Nothing; their is no rational reason for a government to maintain civil liberties once the citizen's right to rebel is removed.

Skull-drudgery - malapropism or not it's a good word

a) Several advanced european liberal democracies with strict gun controls show that gun laws do not lead to either prison states or nazism. What it leads to, mostly, is vastly fewer gun deaths.
b) Where were you pro-civil-liberty rebels when Patriot was passed?

heavycola wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

Skittles! wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:

ignotus wrote:
Solution is better educational programs and gun-free society (at the end).

Sure, Hitler.

That is funny. Let's keep everyone stupid, and let them have guns, and then we'll have full control of the world!

Don't tell me some skull-drudgery about how egalitarian Hitler was; he thought strict governmental controls on guns and massive propaganda programs, some of which were passed off as education in the kindergardens, would result in his Aryan Utopia. And most anti-gun types, either knowingly but ignoring the facts (not a first) or unwittingly, support a governmental policy that Hitler practiced. Delete the Second Amendment and what stops Big Brother from taking away other freedoms? Nothing; their is no rational reason for a government to maintain civil liberties once the citizen's right to rebel is removed.

Skull-drudgery - malapropism or not it's a good word

a) Several advanced european liberal democracies with strict gun controls show that gun laws do not lead to either prison states or nazism. What it leads to, mostly, is vastly fewer gun deaths.
b) Where were you pro-civil-liberty rebels when Patriot was passed?

Oh how I wish jay_a2j were here...

ive a 30 06 rifle and 25 bullets...my first stop would be the local gun shop for more bullets and id go a hunting

THORNHEART wrote:ive a 30 06 rifle and 25 bullets...my first stop would be the local gun shop for more bullets and id go a hunting

Only 25 rounds? If that is true you need to stock up right now! And as soon as you've taken out the first enforcer, take his gun and simply collect ammo from his dead buddies. As a gurellia, you must feed off of your enemy and not come to rely on external aid.

A guy called Che Gueverra(sp?) gave the world that piece of handy advice.

And yes heavycola, Skull-Drudgery is a good word but I did not come up with it. Gives me a more flexible vocabulary instead of reusing words like "tripe" and certain four-letter words over and over.

Jenos Ridan wrote:And yes heavycola, Skull-Drudgery is a good word but I did not come up with it. Gives me a more flexible vocabulary instead of reusing words like "tripe" and certain four-letter words over and over.

But what does it mean? I've heard of skulduggery, but never of Skull-Drudgery, and as far as I understood your original post that initiated this side-discussion, 'skulduggery' would not have been the best word to express the concept you wanted to convey.

MeDeFe wrote:

Jenos Ridan wrote:And yes heavycola, Skull-Drudgery is a good word but I did not come up with it. Gives me a more flexible vocabulary instead of reusing words like "tripe" and certain four-letter words over and over.

But what does it mean? I've heard of skulduggery, but never of Skull-Drudgery, and as far as I understood your original post that initiated this side-discussion, 'skulduggery' would not have been the best word to express the concept you wanted to convey.

In essence, basically the same as wankery or over-thought fabrication; to have a viewpoint at is so skewed in favor of a particular agenda as to be utterly moronic. Skull for the mental aspect and Drudgery implies work, or in this case, overwork. Saavy?

Ah, now I see where you're coming from, I think the confusion stems from the fact that the first thing I associate with the word 'skull' is not the mind and mental processes. It might be safe to assume that the same is true for many other posters.

MeDeFe wrote:Ah, now I see where you're coming from, I think the confusion stems from the fact that the first thing I associate with the word 'skull' is not the mind and mental processes. It might be safe to assume that the same is true for many other posters.

Truth be told, skull implies (at lest to me), an empty head. So in would be like saying "bollocks", "wankery" or "tripe". I've encountered a lot of mind-boggling Skull-Drudgery on the web and that is were I found it.

THORNHEART wrote:ive a 30 06 rifle and 25 bullets...my first stop would be the local gun shop for more bullets and id go a hunting

Yeah...more ammo would definitely be needed. I've got 200+ rounds for my 9mm pistol, with 2 17-round clips. But I'd probably end up heading to a friends house...cause I'd rather lie on the roof with a deer(sniper) rifle than confront them at the front door with a pistol. It's a good side-arm...but definitely a primary weapon.

But yeah...picking off an invading army as they walk the streets of America would be fun. Do I need to see a psychologist now, or is that a good thing?

Anarkistsdream wrote:I would protect my home and family from any enemy, foreign or domestic. Would I join the military, though? Hell no.

same here

I would try to fight back. If my country was invaded, I would join some partisan group such as guerrillas(lower chance of being killed since guerrillas are quite hard to detect, plus higher chance of killing off the enemy because guerrillas use surprise to initiate attacks).

Joodoo wrote:I would try to fight back. If my country was invaded, I would join some partisan group such as guerrillas(lower chance of being killed since guerrillas are quite hard to detect, plus higher chance of killing off the enemy because guerrillas use surprise to initiate attacks).

not smart... guerillas tried spies, not POWs

Ar-Adûnakhôr wrote:

Joodoo wrote:I would try to fight back. If my country was invaded, I would join some partisan group such as guerrillas(lower chance of being killed since guerrillas are quite hard to detect, plus higher chance of killing off the enemy because guerrillas use surprise to initiate attacks).

not smart... guerillas tried spies, not POWs

?

I'd rather be killed quicker if I was captured. If you are a POW, you usually get tortured/have to do forced labour and I don't like torture. Guerrillas are cool because they're hard to wipe out.

Joodoo wrote:I'd rather be killed quicker if I was captured. If you are a POW, you usually get tortured/have to do forced labour and I don't like torture. Guerrillas are cool because they're hard to wipe out.

Because that is what the americans did to their pows?


POWs are generally treated very good in most countries.

you never know...
In World War 2, Chinese POWs had a death rate of more than 99.99% in the hands of the Japanese. Out of tons of Chinese POWs, only about 30 survived at the end of the war.
The death rates for Soviet POWs in the hands of the Nazis were also quite high. When the tide turned and USSR was winning, the death rate for Nazi POWs in Soviet hands were also very high.
There are many issues with mistreatment with POWs in history, and it still continues today, so we can blame that on war, because if there wasn't war, there wouldn't be POWs.

Joodoo wrote:you never know...
In World War 2, Chinese POWs had a death rate of more than 99.99% in the hands of the Japanese. Out of tons of Chinese POWs, only about 30 survived at the end of the war.
The death rates for Soviet POWs in the hands of the Nazis were also quite high. When the tide turned and USSR was winning, the death rate for Nazi POWs in Soviet hands were also very high.
There are many issues with mistreatment with POWs in history, and it still continues today, so we can blame that on war, because if there wasn't war, there wouldn't be POWs.

But on the other hand the British POWs were treated pretty well by the nazis in WWII.

Besides, spies still get a shittier treatment. At least with being a POW you might have a shot at a good treatment.

It depends how the opposite country treats the country it's at war with POW's.

So.. As used about, British treated Nazi POW's well, and vice versa. Soviet Union wasn't really tolerant with Nazi POW's, so vice versa