BF2S Forums Serious Question about the 2nd Amendment

sergeriver wrote:

My bad, I read Hitler or Stalin, yes, and I addressed it.

Kmarion wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I see.  No, it's not the same.  Freedom of speech should have certain limits, like insulting other people or advocating Genocide.

thats where I disagree.  Freedom of Speech is just that.  You limit some kinds, you limit it all. I dont understand the thinking behind people who think books should be banned(europe, mein kampf is an example)  Banning books is the first step towards burning them.   Thats what the nazis liked to do.

In other words nobody has the right not to be offended.. Number one now when you search Penn Teller ... aww yea fellas (Searching 1st Amendment also)

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-12-19 16:52:26)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

My bad, I read Hitler or Stalin, yes, and I addressed it.

Address this: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/re … ements.htm

Kmarion wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

thats where I disagree.  Freedom of Speech is just that.  You limit some kinds, you limit it all. I dont understand the thinking behind people who think books should be banned(europe, mein kampf is an example)  Banning books is the first step towards burning them.   Thats what the nazis liked to do.

In other words nobody has the right not to be offended.. Number one now when you search Penn Teller ... aww yea fellas (Searching 1st Amendment also)

Be offended. You can protest to your heart's content.

(apologies if misconstrued: working on a construction project off and on, and don't have time to get sucked into YouTube.)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Address this: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/re … ements.htm

History Site wrote:

For two years, from 1939 to the summer of 1941, the resistance movements of Europe had found it hard to make much of an impression on the might of the German military. Reports from commanders in the field to the German Army’s headquarters (OKW), indicate that the resistance movements were an irritant but no more than this. The savage repression of local populations usually did enough to put people off of joining any local resistance force. 

However, all this changed in June 1941 with Operation Barbarossa – the attack on Russia. Communist groups throughout Europe had done little to assist any resistance movement in Nazi-occupied Europe. Now, with the attack on Russia, this changed.

While conveniently skipping the opening paragraph:

The resistance movement in Europe during World War Two played an important part in defeating Nazi Germany's military might. The resistance movement - Europe's secret armies or partisans - gathered intelligence for the Allies, destroyed communication lines, assisted escaped POW's and openly attacked the Germans once the retreats on both the western and eastern fronts had started. Their work was vital for both the Russian's and Allies but it was also extremely dangerous as any slips in security were ruthlessly exploited by the Gestapo. Resistance movements were found in all Nazi-occupied countries.

Of course, you're perfectly entitled to the 'resistance is futile' mindset, if you choose.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Yes, they were a pain in the ass for Germany, like a mosquito in a hot summer.  The Russians did most of the job, after Hitler committed suicide with Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

If you're seriously suggesting that they were useless, then there is no point continuing this.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

While I agree with the first part of your post, the last bit is just laughable.

Yeah, it is pretty funny 150,000 US troops can't, over five years, subdue an armed population.
Democracy does indeed flow from the barrel of a gun I guess.

shows how much you know about combat in Iraq.

shows how much you know about combat in Iraq.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

last time I checked, it wasnt too legal to own 155 MM artillery rounds here in the states.

SharkyMcshark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

shows how much you know about combat in Iraq.

Explain yourself then.
Militias in Iraq and Afghanistan have bogged the US down for the past 5 years.
It seems to support the theory an armed population can resist a tyrannical govt.

Don't worry, they'll avoid the question. See, in their minds they keep guns with one of the reasons being that they can overthrow the oppressors if necessary. But they don't make room for this happening elsewhere to them. People... shooting at the US Army in another countries, THEY MUST BE BAD GUYS (and in effective too!)!

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

last time I checked, it wasnt too legal to own 155 MM artillery rounds here in the states.

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So what you're saying is that every alleged 'insurgent' is running around with 150MM artillery cannons?

I'm just astounded at the hypocricy of saying that an armed civilian militia is a stumbling block for any power invading the US, but then dismissing the effect that en armed militia is having on the occupations Iraq and Afghanistan (even if you just counted the 'farmers toting AK's' so to speak, and leave the 150MM artillery you seem so fond of out of the equation).

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So what you're saying is that every alleged 'insurgent' is running around with 150MM artillery cannons?

I'm just astounded at the hypocricy of saying that an armed civilian militia is a stumbling block for any power invading the US, but then dismissing the effect that en armed militia is having on the occupations Iraq and Afghanistan (even if you just counted the 'farmers toting AK's' so to speak, and leave the 150MM artillery you seem so fond of out of the equation).

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

r2zoo wrote:

SharkyMcshark wrote:

So what you're saying is that every alleged 'insurgent' is running around with 150MM artillery cannons?

I'm just astounded at the hypocricy of saying that an armed civilian militia is a stumbling block for any power invading the US, but then dismissing the effect that en armed militia is having on the occupations Iraq and Afghanistan (even if you just counted the 'farmers toting AK's' so to speak, and leave the 150MM artillery you seem so fond of out of the equation).

How hard is it to see he's clearing mentioning IEDs here? Often made of any left over explosive devices, such as artillery rounds and the such.

thankyou.  the two geniuses above you couldnt figure that out.   There is no law in the US guaranteeing the freedom to own munitions of war.  There is no law in Iraq guaranteeing the freedom to own munitions of war.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Vietnam - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the US military for quite a while, until they won.
Afghanistan - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the Russian military for quite a while, until they won.
Northern Ireland - A few guys with smallarms and home made bombs managed to tie up the British military for quite a while, until they won.
Somalia - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the US military for a while, until they won.
Lebanon - A few guys with smallarms managed to tie up the Israeli military for a while, until they won.
Afghanistan - A few guys with smallarms are still tying up the US military and NATO. The expectation is there are another ten years ahead.
Iraq - A few guys with smallarms and home made bombs - got the picture yet?

It seems impossible for a modern military to win against even a moderately armed population. This is now the nature of warfare.

Does the above support the 2nd amendment idea that an armed population is a useful thing to have to repel invasion or the overthrow a tyrannical govt? I don't know, but I believe its less likely to get to that stage if the population is armed.
The Swiss seem to have a robust democracy and an absence of wars in the last 900 yrs. (And many excellent cheeses).

I think every household in Iraq is allowed to own a smallarm, AK or pistol, and a few mags, someone can correct me I expect.
I guess if 155mm rounds are an issue it might have been an idea to secure them, and all the other military eqpt esp RPGs, instead of the oilfields?
It might also have been sensible not to disband the Iraqi army, putting thousands of military trained personnel out of work without dole.
A tiny bit of pre-war research and post war planning would have gone a long way.