213374U Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 A small caliber gun is better than nothing. Yes, I guess it's better than nothing at making you a target. It's better than nothing at giving a soldier an excuse to shoot you. Other than that, I don't see how small caliber weaponry in the hands of untrained personnel can do any good against a well equipped and trained military force. And I'm talking hypothetically. What if your government becomes too powerful. To the point where your freedoms begin to be suppressed. It could happen, you never know. The government can't just "become too powerful". There are laws to prevent that, and if those laws are broken, whoever is responsible may be prosecuted. Totalitarian regimes are always supported by a large segment of the population (if only at first). You don't want the gov't to have too much power? Don't support a power-hungry megalomaniac and you should be just fine. ) - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 It's a romanticized old idea born out of an age where this might actually be plausible, but it would never work in this day and age. What if this elected government was to gain too much power (which they would in a democratic way, most likely), should people rush to the streets packing their shotguns and pistols, making their way towards the capital? If this government was indeed interested in total power, wouldn't they just obliterate your mob with an airstrike, or roll you over with an armoured tank, which you by the way, have no chance of destroying by any means? You're not there, to threaten the elected government with violence, but you can challenge it, with your vote. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 A small caliber gun is better than nothing. Yes, I guess it's better than nothing at making you a target. It's better than nothing at giving a soldier an excuse to shoot you. Other than that, I don't see how small caliber weaponry in the hands of untrained personnel can do any good against a well equipped and trained military force. And I'm talking hypothetically. What if your government becomes too powerful. To the point where your freedoms begin to be suppressed. It could happen, you never know. The government can't just "become too powerful". There are laws to prevent that, and if those laws are broken, whoever is responsible may be prosecuted. Totalitarian regimes are always supported by a large segment of the population (if only at first). You don't want the gov't to have too much power? Don't support a power-hungry megalomaniac and you should be just fine. ) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Look at Saddam Hussein. We thought by helping put him into power, he would be a great leader. And then he slowly became more powerful, and more oppressive. It happens. And I didn't see Iraqi citizens earnestly supporting him. And just because you have small caliber munitions doesn't mean you can't win. You would have the advantage of knowing the terrain (just like in the Revolutionary War), and tactics play a huge role in the outcome of a battle as well. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Look at Saddam Hussein. We thought by helping put him into power, he would be a great leader. And then he slowly became more powerful, and more oppressive. It happens. And I didn't see Iraqi citizens earnestly supporting him. Eh. He had some popular support. And he succeeded the previous dictator, IIRC. Something similar couldn't happen in the US or Europe. And just because you have small caliber munitions doesn't mean you can't win. You would have the advantage of knowing the terrain (just like in the Revolutionary War), and tactics play a huge role in the outcome of a battle as well. Yeah. Your reliable Colt against the enemy's attack helicopters, cruise missiles, fuel-air explosives and most importantly: KEVLAR. But fear not, for you know the terrain! Oh, wait. They have GPS. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draken Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 Okay, how do you change a thread's name? I'm changing this to "Discussion About Terrorists, Firearms, and other Political Dabates." Seriously, only like, three people can touch my body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Look at Saddam Hussein. We thought by helping put him into power, he would be a great leader. And then he slowly became more powerful, and more oppressive. It happens. And I didn't see Iraqi citizens earnestly supporting him. Eh. He had some popular support. And he succeeded the previous dictator, IIRC. Something similar couldn't happen in the US or Europe. And just because you have small caliber munitions doesn't mean you can't win. You would have the advantage of knowing the terrain (just like in the Revolutionary War), and tactics play a huge role in the outcome of a battle as well. Yeah. Your reliable Colt against the enemy's attack helicopters, cruise missiles, fuel-air explosives and most importantly: KEVLAR. But fear not, for you know the terrain! Oh, wait. They have GPS. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Yeah. Roll your eyes. But pray that your superior officer has more common sense than you. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkside Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Something similar couldn't happen in the US or Europe. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Useful Info #13: If you say it can never happen, it usually does. People never thought the Titanic could sink. I'm not saying the government is going to turn on us, I'm just saying that if you become too acustomed (sp?) to something or trust something too entirely... So do us all a favor, VOTE. (I can't yet <_< ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Useful Info #13: If you say it can never happen, it usually does. People never thought the Titanic could sink. I'm not saying the government is going to turn on us, I'm just saying that if you become too acustomed (sp?) to something or trust something too entirely... So do us all a favor, VOTE. (I can't yet <_< ) Useful Info #14: A dictator couldn't succeed another dictator in Europe or the US because presently there are no dictators in those places. " And yeah, I vote whenever I can. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Yeah. Roll your eyes. But pray that your superior officer has more common sense than you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I just rolled my eyes because you missed what I put in my initial post. I said that these forces would be supporting the main military force, not taking on the enemy by itself. And kevlar could be provided to these forces because you can buy kevlar vests/helmets from almost any gun store these days. And yes, I know the importance of weaponry in battle, I was just stating that tactics are more important. You could have an army of soldiers with high caliber weapons, but it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't know how to lead or use tactics in order to destroy the enemy force. If you're not familiar on how to use techniques such as bounding and overwatch to cross a DA, or if you don't know when to use certain formations; your Soldiers with high caliber weapons will be pretty dead. As for your comment on common sense, f*ck you. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigboy2 Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 If a sith lord ever comes after you than use this on him Good bye Nihliues "Your total disregard for the law and human decency both disgusts me and touches my heart. Bless you, sir." "Soilent Green is people. This guy's just a homeless heroin junkie who got in a internet caf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I said that these forces would be supporting the main military force, not taking on the enemy by itself. And kevlar could be provided to these forces because you can buy kevlar vests/helmets from almost any gun store these days. Oh. Sorry, but in battle, civilians are only a nuisance. Untrained and ill-equipped personnel are not helpful in the battlefield, and their slaughter will only contribute to decrease the moral of the army they are supposed to support. And most high-speed ordnance (such as the one fired by AK-47s) can pierce civilian models of kevlar, so... yeah. And yes, I know the importance of weaponry in battle, I was just stating that tactics are more important. You could have an army of soldiers with high caliber weapons, but it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't know how to lead or use tactics in order to destroy the enemy force. No amount of tactics is going to change the fact that you can't take down a fighter with your handgun. If civilian partisans were effective fighting forces, there would be no need to maintain a dedicated army. It's that simple. As for your comment on common sense, f*ck you. Whatever. I just hope you open your eyes before a bullet opens them for you. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11XHooah Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 I said that these forces would be supporting the main military force, not taking on the enemy by itself. And kevlar could be provided to these forces because you can buy kevlar vests/helmets from almost any gun store these days. Oh. Sorry, but in battle, civilians are only a nuisance. Untrained and ill-equipped personnel are not helpful in the battlefield, and their slaughter will only contribute to decrease the moral of the army they are supposed to support. And most high-speed ordnance (such as the one fired by AK-47s) can pierce civilian models of kevlar, so... yeah. And yes, I know the importance of weaponry in battle, I was just stating that tactics are more important. You could have an army of soldiers with high caliber weapons, but it doesn't mean sh*t if you don't know how to lead or use tactics in order to destroy the enemy force. No amount of tactics is going to change the fact that you can't take down a fighter with your handgun. If civilian partisans were effective fighting forces, there would be no need to maintain a dedicated army. It's that simple. As for your comment on common sense, f*ck you. Whatever. I just hope you open your eyes before a bullet opens them for you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, that's true. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionavar Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Usefull Information: Thread Derailed. FL0SD.ObE The universe is change; your life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius (161) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Recommended Posts