Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug
"Shall not be infringed" is a pretty clear statement. Historically whenever the populace gets disarmed oppression pretty much immediately follows. Even Marx was like "yeah the people get to have guns and never trust somebody who says otherwise."

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug

Koos Group posted:

It would be educational for you to provide historical examples. The more the better of course.

When the Nazis took power Hitler disarmed sectors of the population especially the Jews. They also disarmed the countries they conquered. Himmler specifically said "Ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as having guns doesn’t serve the State." Before that the Weimar Republic began gun registry which was then used by those in power against political opponents pretty specifically. We know what happened after that.

Before the Armenian genocide around WW1 the Turks disarmed the Armenians and immediately started taking everything they had and exterminating them.

In the late 19th century the American government confiscated the Lakota's guns "for their own safety." Once they were handed over the cavalry immediately attacked and slaughtered them.

Mao implemented strict gun control in the 60's and the Chinese government has been oppressive ever since.

Rome also had a history of disarming conquered peoples and then taxing them into the dirt.

Before the communist revolution in Russia the people in charge of it loved having an armed population. After the fact they disarmed the common folks and only let party members have a few weapons. We all know what Stalin did after that.

Chinese history is actually full of this which is why martial arts and weird weapons like the kama were invented. The common folks got disarmed, the government became oppressive, and they had to improvise to throw the shackles off.

The Spanish Empire didn't let common people have weapons and instead forced them to rely on their military. This caused all sorts of problems for the common folks one of which was the difficulty they achieved their independence. One of the first steps was getting the people armed enough to resist Spanish rule in the first place. Overall the Spanish Empire was dreadful to its conquered people.

It's pretty simple, really. If one side has weapons and the other one doesn't the side with the weapons can easily oppress the other one.

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug

Bishyaler posted:

The US Army would disagree that handguns are not adequate weapons of war. The Colt 1911 served as the standard-issue sidearm for the United States Armed Forces from 1911 to 1985 and saw widespread use in World War 1 through the Vietnam War.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment is one that includes resisting tyranny and personal self-defense, and that latter shouldn't even be in dispute since the police have repeatedly argued (and won) in court that they have no duty to protect people in danger.

Even if the police did have a legal duty to protect people they aren't everywhere. They can't be everywhere and I don't think anybody would want to live in a society where they are as that's a sure sign of an oppressive government. Chances are if you get attacked the police aren't there. But who is there? You are.

This is why the phrase is "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

The other thing is that the argument of "how would you beat the U.S. army?" Nothing is certain in war. The point is to make it cost more to conquer or oppress you than the other side wants to spend and increase your odds. The flip side of that is that the American military is also pretty tightly tied to the American people just by virtue of how it works. It's an entirely volunteer force mostly staffed by people who do a stint or two and then go back home. Where do you suppose their loyalties lie?

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Expect expecting a group of civilians in era of tanks, drones, radios, cruise missiles, airplanes, etc. to defeat an army it is a guarantee the army will win.

There's a lot more to war than just weapons. Believe it or not but U.S. history actually has examples of the military being called in and then refusing to do anything. During some of the biggest labor strikes the national guard would sometimes get called in to restore order and force people back to work.

What they usually did was stack their arms and go home.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply