jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
FR
Just as a matter of interest: is there any argument out there about individuals' requirements for a 'well-regulated militia' *other* than just having a gun? I mean, for instance, government soldiers have to be physically fit. A militia wouldn't be very effective if it was made up of massively-overweight people who could barely walk a hundred yards never mind run it, presumably. Still, perhaps a matter for another thread.
quote:
BamaD
No
quote:
PeonForHer
Seems strange, in a way. A militia, whose purpose is to go up against governmental military forces should that ever become necessary - and the only sense in which such a militia can even hope to compete against such forces is in terms of some firepower. (Just minor firepower, too - because those military forces have weapons that go way beyond just guns and rifles, of course.) One might have thought that the idea of a militia, as per the 2nd, would encourage many more people to train the way professional soldiers train - discipline, physical fitness, team-work, strategy ... all the rest of it ....
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
You really do not study history, do you?
Look at how many governments were toppled by rag tag, ill trained, ill equipped fighters in the 20th century alone.
Your own studies of history - of that of the USA - seem to be on the shaky side, from the many comments I've seen hotly challenging your historical knowledge on this and other threads, I have to say, JLF. And your understanding of world events ... that's shakier still.
As for 'rag tag, ill trained, ill equipped fighters in the 20th Century' ... yes. But people toughened by poverty, real hardship, very strongly motivated, their lives at stake - lean, fit, hungry ... Most of willing to *combine into a force* (versus the individualism that I've seen characterise American gunsters so often) Well, in all, I have to say I don't look at the general profile of the USA's citizenship and see the potential of North Vietnamese guerrillas - or that of most of the anti-government forces involved in the Arab Spring. But even if they did have that, they'd be up against the most heavily-armed government forces on the planet.
Actually, I have answered your "challenges" with documented evidence, the fact you choose (in typical british style I might add) to ignore any indication that your beloved empire actually unfairly treated the American colonists, or the people of any of its colonies speaks more for your own myopic point of view.
You speak of "individualism" on the part of "american gunsters," and ignore that fact that that same individualism has driven the people of the US to first kick the british out of our business, come back and tell the british to leave our ships and crews alone (war of 1812) and then build something, that even with its problems, is a damn site better than most of the former colonies of the British Empire.
You ignored the "wonderful" example of how the British military dealt with a peaceful demonstration in India, by blocking the only exit to a place where peaceful demonstrators had gathered, then promptly demonstrated the .303 enfield's capability to convince peaceful protesters to shut the fuck up.
How about the way the British military and black and tans dealt with unarmed Irish protesters?
Hell, you folks have done more to prove the need for people to have guns to deal with a bunch of "civilized," "benevolent," government officials than most other out right dictatorships.
As far as starving masses over throwing a corrupt government, the Cubans following Castro werent skin and bones. Driven by oppression, yes, but not starving.
As I said, one of your own politicians has publicly stated that the British colonial history in the middle east and other parts of the world is a major contributing factor in what is going on now.
What exactly were the reasons behind the Mau Mau uprising in British controlled Kenya? Too many privileges afforded the native people by the British colonial government?
How about the way the British broke up the middle east? Smart move putting groups of people inside the same borders who had the single goal of killing each other, especially in disproportional numbers.
And oh, yes, as I pointed out to another brit, how about the establishment of a monopoly on salt in India, then taxing the crap out of it, and making it illegal for Indians to actually get salt from the ocean. Real humanitarian goals there.
Individualism may be the hallmark of an American, but the arrogance of the British take the idea of pride and ego to levels that in mythology is reserved for gods.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: SCOTUS, Second Amendment and gun control laws. - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread