American Patriotism Terrifies me!!

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by jd140

 

The point is that a gun owning citizenship, be it US or Iraq, can't fight off an oppressive regime, like so many people in this thread have argued that this is why citizens should be armed. It didn;t help the Iraqis, it wont help Americans.

America isn't a oppressive regime yet. What do you think would happen if their was a law passed that stated it would be illegal to bear arms? Taking away your right to defend yourself would be the first step in making a Democracy into a Dictatorship. Of course if the law would come to pass it would be under the pretense that it was for our own good, kind of how your arguement is stating. Americans are strong willed and would not let that happen as long as they have the means to do something about it. How easy would it be for the government if the citizens were unarmed?

reply to post by jd140


My argument was that being armed didn't help the Iraqis either way you look at it.

If you believe that saddam was ousted by America because of his oppressive regime then why didn't the fully armed populace do something?

If you believe that they were against the American invasion then see how futile their attempts were to overcome the situation.

This is my point - arming the population will not defend the country against oppression, as so many people have tried to use as a defence for gun ownership.

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by jd140

 

My argument was that being armed didn't help the Iraqis either way you look at it.

If you believe that saddam was ousted by America because of his oppressive regime then why didn't the fully armed populace do something?

If you believe that they were against the American invasion then see how futile their attempts were to overcome the situation.

This is my point - arming the population will not defend the country against oppression, as so many people have tried to use as a defence for gun ownership.

A) Your point is flawed from the outset by becoming Bush and equating iraq with the US

B) You have not shown the figures for legally held weaponry when Saddam came to power

C) Saddam was the tyrant and was removed, those who wished to reimpose tyranny fought back, and often, fought back heavily

Your point could not be any "wronger" *sic*

reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman



Your argument is silly 1st of all they did revolt against saddam there was an armed uprising. And this got the kurds to be recognized and given seats in saddams government. The 1991 uprisings in Iraq were a series of anti-governmental intifada in Southern and Northern Iraq during the aftermath of the Gulf War in March–April 1991.

The revolts in the Shia-dominated Southern Iraq involved armed citizens as well as demoralized Iraqi troops returning from Iraq's defeat in the Gulf War, but were in part organized by the agents of the Islamic Dawa Party and Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)—Iraqi Shia militant groups then largely based in Iran. Another uprising in the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq broke out shortly after. Unlike the spontaneous rebellion in the South, the uprising in the North was organized by two rival Kurdish party-based militias, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK).

So now can we get off this topic now it is a useless point. In history when a population is armed it makes it difficult to invade or subjugate that country good example is Afghanistan the Russians went in people didnt want them there and kicked them out. If the United States isnt careful it will happen again. The taliban are starting to gain support.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
Greater chance? Perhaps, but good chance? I doubt it.

tens of million armed citizens is formidable

Yes, but there's no guarantee "tens of million" actually will fight will they? That's the whole point.

which brings a different, but arguably equally (if not more) setting to conduct a war

Not at all. I'm sorry, but the American military are trained for urban combat, and will have actually have the upper hand. The idea that an urban arena becomes 'equal' is laughable, particularly in a scenario where it will become 'no holds barred' - which, if it's at the point the American government is fighting its people, it will be.

It wouldn't be as simple as that though, as the soldiers would be fighting their "own" (could even be family members) and that is a big disuasive factor- as are millions of armed citizens

What, so soldiers could be fighting civilians they know (and therefore not fight) but civilians won't be fighting people they know? How does your scenario only work in one direction?

Whilst I detest the surveillance society at present in the UK (as Im sure it is in the US) we are not even remotely close to a situation where armed insurrection is necessary. As bad as it is in the US, I dont think by and large people are being screwed til Tuesday, although certainly the direction is not good.

At what point? Who knows, things would need to get a lot worse and who knows what sort of catalyst could spark such an event

Which is why I'm asking how bad does it have to get? I can guarantee something which undermines your argument about the number who will fight though. They won't all agree at which is the right point to fight back. For some, the signs will be more obvious and blatant and 'enough's enough!', whilst others will be holding back not quite so sure of what's going on and perhaps want more 'proof' or 'evidence'. That's human nature.

I would suggest in a good position, basically because of two factors

a) an armed citizenry

You keep saying this as if it's evidence in itself. I know Americans are armed! That isn't evidence they will fight the American government and military. I'm under the impression that they bulk of armed Americans have handguns with a fairly limited amount of ammunition. Handguns against a trained army, using weaponry and defences that a handgun won't touch? Are American tanks made out of cardboard or something. Are the American airforce going to fly low and slow just to give Jim-Bob a chance to hit a plane with his handgun?

b) it would be american soldiers having to fight their "own", which would undoutedly ruffle a few feathers and affect "will"

Again, you proffer this as if it's a one way street.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Thebudweiserstuntman
reply to post by jd140

 

My argument was that being armed didn't help the Iraqis either way you look at it.

If you believe that saddam was ousted by America because of his oppressive regime then why didn't the fully armed populace do something?

If you believe that they were against the American invasion then see how futile their attempts were to overcome the situation.

This is my point - arming the population will not defend the country against oppression, as so many people have tried to use as a defence for gun ownership.

A) Your point is flawed from the outset by becoming Bush and equating iraq with the US

B) You have not shown the figures for legally held weaponry when Saddam came to power

C) Saddam was the tyrant and was removed, those who wished to reimpose tyranny fought back, and often, fought back heavily

Your point could not be any "wronger" *sic*

You've proved me right.

A - I'm comparing civilians Iraq / US, don't know why you keep throwing bush in

B - What's your obsession with figures for pre-saddam weaponry? It's irrelevant. The point is, during Saddams reign every household had a gun. Read the source I gave you

and thanks for C:

Yes they fought back, and heavily, but ultimately lost, proving that the excuse for an armed society arguing that it is needed to defend against the government is ultimately flawed. They did not win.

Originally posted by DisgustedOne
Of course yours counts, but only as a percentage of the whole. Same as mine. Not everyone has the same life experiences and therefore on any given subject there will be differing opinions. I can live with this and adjust my thinking if presented with reasonable evidence to warrant a change. Doesn't happen often, though.

Yes, but I could still ask a Scottish, Welsh or Irish person and still only have a "percentage of the whole". The answer you're angling for of course is for me to ask enough people until I hear someone say how much they hate the English or have issues with English patriotism - which I think is what the original question you asked. I think, whatever personal beef anyone from the other countries actually has with England. Actual English patriotism is going to be very far down the line.

It is the same for America. Simply put, we are not a simple people anymore. Our "melting pot" culture has complicated things beyond belief.

With all due respect, that's beside the point because your 'melting pot culture' point is very different from what I'm saying. What I'm trying to point out to you is that there's a belief outside of Britain that somehow England has all the other countries under some kind of occupied control and, somehow England carries more political gravitas than the other countries. It's not, however, the case. It's more complicated than that. For example, where is the English parliament? We don't actually have one! We have one that, for good or bad, speaks for Britain and England is included in that. However, Scotland and Wales also have their seats of political power. Again, there's issues such as the West Lothian question where the English are, in a sense, actually politically undermined.

What he stated was that American patriotism terrifies him. Why should our patriotism be any scarier than any others? People are either patriotic or they are not. People that are, by definition, feel rather strongly about it. And, I am beginning to learn, people that aren't feel rather strongly about those that are. But, as others have pointed out, let us not confuse Patriotism with Nationalism. What the rest of the world may not understand is that the armed Patriotic populace in America may one day be all that stands in the way of a rogue Nationalist American government, and the rest of the world. Let us hope it never comes to that.

The difference is how that patriotism is expressed. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, there is no country in the Western world that is as vociferous as America when it comes to patriotism. That is at least partly because there's also no country in the Western world that has a patriot culture like America. There's nowhere that a love for their country is encouraged like America. I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, just the way it is. This is possibly because, in a sense, America has an 'invisible Empire' of cultural rather than physical dominance. The last real Empire the Western world had seen was the British Empire and on a fairly regular basis, we're reminded that those days are long over.

The Welsh, Scots and Irish are encouraged or even 'allowed' to be patriotic, but not really the English. What's left for the English is British patriotism but even that is difficult because of the 'Empire', which rightly or wrongly is now seen as a dirty word within Britain and is such played down.

I know people have been pointing out that others should confuse patriotism with 'nationalism' but I'm not entirely sure they can be separated. I honestly think there's a Venn overlay between the two or maybe even a symbiotic relationship between the two terms.

On this, I think we can agree. You have posted well, sir, you have my respect.

You too.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

Originally posted by blueorder
Ive already clarified the analogy is flawed FUNDAMENTALLY from the outset by comparing Iraqis with Yanks (which is what Bush did)- furthermore we have no official stats of legally held gun ownership either pre or post Saddam, and lastly, Saddam was the tyrant and he was overthrown by the US

To sum it up, you think it is a good analogy, I don't

Why is the legality of the weapons such a big issue here? If legality was the issue because it was somehow being compared to say, killings occurring the USA due to legal or illegal guns with a regard to responsible gun ownership or something, then I could understand. However, the point appears to be that, when the time comes, and someone is attempting to repel an invading or despotic force, then it whether the gun was bought legally or obtained illegally makes little difference. It's still a 'bang bang stick that shoots nasty men'.

Originally posted by jd140

Why couldn't we? We did it during the American Revolution. The only differance is that the weapons are bigger and badder.

Unfortunately, that's a big difference. I'm sure you will manage just fine with your handgun against a tank rolling down your street.

Let me know you get on with that.

So your argument is that if you don't have a good chance of winning, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

I'm not sure what category that falls under... ignorant, or cowardly. I suppose you're in the "bend over and surrender instantly" camp?

I suppose you also feel that smaller countries shouldn't have armies, because bigger countries could always easily defeat them? After all, it's going to be the same scenario: A bunch of people with small arms trying to fight off a bunch of tanks. That doesn't take away the small countries' right to have militaries and to try and defend themselves.

The same applies to the people of this country. Just because we don't have tanks, jets, and APC's doesn't mean we don't have the right to defend ourselves from oppression.

Originally posted by mattifikation
So your argument is that if you don't have a good chance of winning, you don't have the right to defend yourself?

No, I haven't said you don't have a right to defend yourself at all. Can you actually point out where I did say that or even where I suggest that?

I'm not sure what category that falls under... ignorant, or cowardly. I suppose you're in the "bend over and surrender instantly" camp?

The actual answer to that is it's neither. I'm not even sure why you should think it either "ignorant" or "cowardly".

I suppose you also feel that smaller countries shouldn't have armies, because bigger countries could always easily defeat them? After all, it's going to be the same scenario: A bunch of people with small arms trying to fight off a bunch of tanks. That doesn't take away the small countries' right to have militaries and to try and defend themselves.

The same applies to the people of this country. Just because we don't have tanks, jets, and APC's doesn't mean we don't have the right to defend ourselves from oppression.

Again, where have I said you don't have the right (to at least try) to defend yourself from oppression?

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by jd140

Why couldn't we? We did it during the American Revolution. The only differance is that the weapons are bigger and badder.

Unfortunately, that's a big difference. I'm sure you will manage just fine with your handgun against a tank rolling down your street.

Let me know you get on with that.

A single shot, unreliable musket did pretty good against them cannons didnt they. I'm sorry but I'm just not an American hater. I love my country, I serve my country, I have protected those who couldn't protect themselves and I am not ready to say I quit just because a few people dislike the way the government is being ran. You guys want to live in a country that refuses to allow citizens to own weapons? I hear China is nice this time of the year.

Originally posted by jd140

A single shot, unreliable musket did pretty good against them cannons didnt they.

I find it strange that I have more faith in the prowess of the American military than the Americans posting on this thread. Back in the 18th C., the difference between a 'trained' soldier and an untrained civilian was not as great as it today.

There's often talk about who might be reading these boards, in terms of intelligence agencies &c. I'd like to think that Chinese and Russians and the like are now sat and making notes: 'we don't actually need tanks, planes or big weapons to defeat the American military; just lots of troops with handguns and rifles because that's all it's going to take to take down the American military'.

I'm sorry but I'm just not an American hater.

It's nothing to do with hating America!

I love my country,

Good for you! If you want to love your country, I don't actually have a problem with that.

I serve my country, I have protected those who couldn't protect themselves and I am not ready to say I quit just because a few people dislike the way the government is being ran.

You serve your country? As in the military?

You guys want to live in a country that refuses to allow citizens to own weapons? I hear China is nice this time of the year.

Why should I want to go to China? Where did that come from?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by Merriman Weir]

I have a big problem with the word patriot. I also have a big problem with the word terrorist.

My idea of a patriot is someone who defends the constitution of the USA and the bill of rights. Including the right to bear arms. They wanted everyone to be armed to make sure that nobody could take away your personal freedoms or constitutional rights. The gun defends freedom. Its the most essential tool.

The problem is, the word patriot has been twisted to mean 'good citizen of the current administration and the globalist elite new world order fascists. The word terrorist has been applied to those who would seek to undermine the current regime in the USA. However to many who oppose this government, they feel like the true patriots trying to wrestle power back from an overgrown mutant government to protect those core beliefs of the American people.

I say power to the people, support anarchy untill the power is evenly distributed again. The pyramid power structure that puts a few elite wealthy people at the top by breaking the backs of the billions that make up the base of the pyramid, needs to be torn down.

reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman


" guns serve no purpose in a civilised society "


Well, that's what the socialist/commies keep saying over and over and over again.

I guess it sunk in.




Too bad they are lies.
Towns with mandatory guns, have almost no crime. That fact pisses off the liars of the world who repeat your earlier comment, ad-nauseum.

If you took guns away how much easier would it be to be a criminal with a gun? Because Criminals won't give up there guns like everybody else.

"You're a criminal with a gun. Now you know everyone doesn't have a gun! Oh how much easier would being a criminal be?"

Not to mention one day you might have to fight for everything you have. Let's face it! The Government could get to be even more corrupt than it already is and they start invading into your personal space. Taking things that belong to you! Things that you have worked for hard and long. Are you just going to stand there and let them?

Crimes would sky rocket if they where taken away! Like I said if a Criminal knows you don't have a gun he's probably not going to think twice about doing whatever he might do if you did have one.

reply to post by Thebudweiserstuntman


My friend, you are wrong. You know little of American culture. First of all, I can move fifteen feet from this computer and lay my hand on the very same rifle that is issued to American forces. Actually mine will be a bit more effective because I custom load my ammunition.

Someone brought up a tank. Let me tell you about a tank. The tank has a crew. The crew have to stop, rest, eat, dump, and move out of the tank sooner or later. The tank is not invulnerable. The crew is not invulnerable. Patience to a knowing warrior is of a necessity. A tank is vulnerable to a number of things. The crew is vulnerable to a number of things homemade.

One thing you may not know. In the US there are a number of weapons development companies, most of them are small companies, and they have some of the most ingenious, most effective weapons in the world. Much better hardware than the military. These small companies are scattered all over the United States.

Even the military issue GE minigun has been made better and more effective and reliable by Dillon. The new smart weapons that the military is hot to get are all in the hands of these small developers.

The difference between Americans and Iraqi's is the concept of will. Will and courage are not things that can be given to you. You don't wake up one morning and suddenly you have it. Your people have it in spades, or they don't. Most of the Iraqi's who were possessive of will and freedom had already left or were killed. On top of that, you have three groups who more or less hate each other.

That's another thing about America. We have folks from all over the world who have seen the destructive excesses of dominating governments. If one assumes that the US government could supress the citizens of America, they are one dumb, ignorant SOB.

Yeah. We Americans will squabble among ourselves, but let someone try and put our freedom in danger, and you'll see Americans of all colors and backgrounds coming together just like we've done in the past.

There's a reason people literally die every week trying to get to our country. You can't say that about any other country in the world.

reply to post by dooper


A most eloquent post dooper....


You are an example of a Real Patriot; Politically Informed, Well Regulated Arms, And a recognizable admiration of the The Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I wish I had a neighbour like you..

People of the quality of the OP will not understand this. In fact, such people would hate to have such a neighbour and it would probably cause them to lose sleep at night.... which is strange, because having just One of you in the area would be like having a Cop parked down the block all night - and a Good cop at that.

reply to post by TruthTellist


Yes, I would loose sleep with someone like Dooper as a neighbour, waiting for the day he finally cracks after inhaling too much fumes from his gun polish and opens up on the nearest...[insert here]

mosque
school
mall
post office
office block

This afterall is the same person who called unarmed people that died in massacres such as Columbine and Dunblane 'dumbasses' and that they 'shouldn't be able to breed'.

So yes, I would be scared to have him as a neighbour.

And just out of interest, i notice in one of your threads you warn against people getting antipsychotic medication because the government won't let you own a gun. And you think that this is wrong?? You think that psychotic people should be allowed to own guns??

If either of you lived near me I would be worried. Very worried.

And PLEASE, don't go back and edit your previous post.

Before you even try and refute it here is your thread for everyone here to see;

www.abovetopsecret.com...