[luke warm]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-September-26, 06:54, said:

A classic example of that is abortion. It is interesting as a non-American to observe that on many issues where liberty/freedom/choice can be taken in more than one way, Republicans are often only able to see one side and think this is 100% clear. This provides a clear message that often resonates with voters but I suspect is highly detrimental to the political debate as a whole.

unlike, for example, democrats? as for abortion (or most other social issues), i personally think the tea party would be virtually unbeatable if it changed the narrative from nationalizing such things to making them more states' issues

"what's your stand on gay marriage?" - well, i believe that's an issue best left to each state and its citizens to decide... i can tell you my personal belief but, whatever it is, i don't believe it's the job of the central gov't to mandate individual beliefs

"what's your stand on abortion?" - well, i believe that's an issue best left to each state and its citizens to decide... i can tell you my personal belief but, whatever it is, i don't believe it's the job of the central gov't to mandate individual beliefs

etc etc

[mike777]

It is interesting that many nonAmericans seem to be in favor of something close to a ban on private gun ownership compared to how it is in America.

This seems to be very strong in greater Europe, the one place that has suffered from real tyranny in our families' lifetime.
A place that had operating concentration camps during the 1990's.
A place where half of Europe was behind an Iron Curtain and I walked through Checkpoint Charlie.

Where even today in such places in Eastern Europe, see Moscow, one sees Putin and thinks tyranny. Where even today in places such as the Balkins, American boys are on the ground guarding against tyranny.

Other countries are shocked that yes we send our kids to neighbor's houses to ply and they own private firearms.

"Should a parent have the liberty to feel reasonably safe in letting their child play at their best friend's house without having to worry about whether there is a lethal weapon somewhere in the vicinity"

[dwar0123]

 mike777, on 2012-September-26, 16:00, said:

It is interesting that many nonAmericans seem to be in favor of something close to a ban on private gun ownership compared to how it is in America.

This seems to be very strong in greater Europe, the one place that has suffered from real tyranny in our families' lifetime.
A place that had operating concentration camps during the 1990's.
A place where half of Europe was behind an Iron Curtain and I walked through Checkpoint Charlie.

Those are all terrible things, but I don't think many accept the notion that liberal gun ownership would have changed any of them.

[mike777]

I accept that you dont accept that and per your post many others dont.

Given what happened whn the strongest miltary force in the world went to Iraq and Afganistan I wonder if the myth of an unbeatable home army stopping untrained home grown civilians still holds. I mean at some point many may change sides.

In any event the attitude of many Europeans does surprise me given your recent history of govt tyranny.

"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

Churchhill.

[dwar0123]

 mike777, on 2012-September-26, 16:20, said:

Given what happened whn the strongest miltary force in the world went to Iraq and Afganistan I wonder if the myth of an unbeatable home army stopping untrained home grown civilians still holds. I mean at some point many may change sides.

I am not sure how to read that.

Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force successfully oppressing the unarmed Iraq's and Afghan's.

My response. They are hardly unarmed.

Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force successfully oppressing the heavily armed Iraq's and Afghan's?

My response. What good did the weapons do them?

Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force unsuccessfully oppressing the unarmed Iraq's and Afghan's?

My response. They are hardly unarmed.

Are you suggesting that we are the tyrannical force unsuccessfully oppressing the heavily armed Iraq's and Afghan's?

My response. Their level of armament prior to the outbreak of conflict was immaterial as in both cases they are acquiring arms at a substantial rate from outside sources.

Regardless, I don't think your premise is at all bolstered by this example, in fact I think it is substantially damaged. A truly determined and oppressed population doesn't need to be armed prior to conflict to overthrow their tyrant's. I give you the Arab spring in general as an example. Given it is a real world example I feel confident in stating that is how it would really go. Plenty of examples of the military backing the civilian populations and in the cases where it hasn't the relative armament of the oppressed was only a temporary impediment.

<insert awesome inspiring quote that has little to do with the topic and does nothing to aid my point>

[mike777]

"Regardless, I don't think your premise is at all bolstered by this example, in fact I think it is substantially damaged"

Very interesting that we look at the same facts and draw such different conclusions.

Looking at Northern Africa and Syria, IRaq, afghanstan, eastern europe and the balkins you see less need of liberal gun laws to fight Govt. tyranny.

[dwar0123]

 mike777, on 2012-September-26, 17:00, said:

"Regardless, I don't think your premise is at all bolstered by this example, in fact I think it is substantially damaged"

Very interesting that we look at the same facts and draw such different conclusions.

Looking at Northern Africa and Syria, IRaq, afghanstan, eastern europe and the balkins you see less need of liberal gun laws to fight Govt. tyranny.

Given the modern world with its global trade and fast transportation, I think the gun laws are mostly immaterial with respect to fighting govt. tyranny. This is one of many realities that is fundamentally alien to the founding fathers and thus not considered when crafting the constitution. In addition to the massive incease in the lethality of modern weapons.

[Cthulhu D]

 dwar0123, on 2012-September-26, 18:20, said:

Given the modern world with its global trade and fast transportation, I think the gun laws are mostly immaterial with respect to fighting govt. tyranny. This is one of many realities that is fundamentally alien to the founding fathers and thus not considered when crafting the constitution. In addition to the massive incease in the lethality of modern weapons.

Of course, the lesson from Syria, Iraq, Bosnia etc is that high explosives and shoulder launched anti tank and anti aircraft missles are critical for effective insurgencies. Tanks and Helicopters are key parts of the infrastructure of oppression and they cannot be dealt with with a hunting rifle, and high explosives - particularly mortars, but also mines, plastic explosives and artillery shells - are critical for fighting asymetric warfare and conducting bombing campaigns.

Missiles and explosives are much more important than guns and much harder to acquire - because they are so tightly controlled. For example, the Syrian resistance is currently desperately trying to acquire missles on the open market. Anyone who seriously believes that the purpose of gun ownership is to enable the populace to resist government oppression should be advocating for the purchase of shoulder launched missles and plastic explosives for the general populace.

But no-one is going to seriously argue for that because it's stupid. Once you understand that there is a trade-off to be made, it's obvious that the public health benefits outweigh the intangible FIGHT THE POWER stuff which is ridiculous.