• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

History Of Countries That Have Banned Firearms

apdst said:
I've pointed out that 100% of all genocides were committed against unarmed people.

You can't win this argument. The historical facts will sink you every time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a false statement... Jews clearly had firearms, which they used to revolt against the Germans, and failed.

In Cambodia firearms were extremely plentiful. Same thing in the former Yugoslav states. The Kurds had guns. The Libyan tribesmen had guns.

Historical facts show you to be full of ****.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Yeah, that's a false statement... Jews clearly had firearms, which they used to revolt against the Germans, and failed.

In Cambodia firearms were extremely plentiful. Same thing in the former Yugoslav states. The Kurds had guns. The Libyan tribesmen had guns.

Historical facts show you to be full of ****.
Click to expand...

They didn't have them before the round ups started. Had they, the Holocaust would have never happened.

Gun control was instituded in Cambodia in 1956 by the royal government.

The Kurds got guns, but for years they were unarmed. Look who's trying to **** with them, now that they're armed to the teeth?
 
apdst said:
They didn't have them before the round ups started. Had they, the Holocaust would have never happened.

Gun control was instituded in Cambodia in 1956 by the royal government.

The Kurds got guns, but for years they were unarmed. Look who's trying to **** with them, now that they're armed to the teeth?
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but no, tanks, artillery and aircraft remain just as bulletproof no matter what laws you implement or don't implement.

The Cambodian Civil War ensured that firearms where abundant and plentiful and had been for years.

Uh...no. The Kurds had been heavily armed for decades before Saddam began trying to wipe them out.

The Turks are trying to **** with them. Still.
 
vegas giants said:
Your argument is against facism. Democracies never have these problems with gun control
Click to expand...

Germany was a democracy. So were Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

The United States has always had a democratically elected government. They killed the **** out of some unarmed indians.

You think an elected government can't murder millions of people? Think again.
 
apdst said:
Germany was a democracy. So were Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

The United States has always had a democratically elected government. They killed the **** out of some unarmed indians.

You think an elected government can't murder millions of people? Think again.
Click to expand...
Then we better never have any kind of gun control of any kind....is that your point?
 
Tigerace117 said:
I hate to break it to you, but no, tanks, artillery and aircraft remain just as bulletproof no matter what laws you implement or don't implement.

The Cambodian Civil War ensured that firearms where abundant and plentiful and had been for years.

Uh...no. The Kurds had been heavily armed for decades before Saddam began trying to wipe them out.

The Turks are trying to **** with them. Still.
Click to expand...

An armored vehicle's most dangerous enemy is a dismounted infantryman.

Cambodia was just like Somalia and Sierra Leone: the weapons were in the hands of the Khmer Rouge, not the regular folks. You know as well as I do that the Khmer Rouge wouldn't have lasted 5 ninutes against some ol' boys from down the bayou who were armed with deer rifles and duck guns.

The Turks are trying. Not too successful, are they? Why do you think that is?
 
vegas giants said:
Then we better never have any kind of gun control of any kind....is that your point?
Click to expand...

Concerning ownership by law abiding American citizens, that's exactly right.
 
vegas giants said:
So I can bring my gun on a plane? They can not deny entry to blacks....why gun owners?
Click to expand...

Planes are private property. I also don't have to fly, if I choose not to. I'm glad you brought this idiotic aregument.
 
apdst said:
Planes are private property. I also don't have to fly, if I choose not to. I'm glad you brought this idiotic aregument.
Click to expand...

Private business can deny entry to gun owners but not blacks? Why? This could lead to a holocaust!
 
vegas giants said:
Private business can deny entry to gun owners but not blacks? Why? This could lead to a holocaust!
Click to expand...

Airlines are private property. The 1st Amendment isn't protected on private property, either.
 
Tigerace117 said:
But it was a choice which shows the argument that "armed citizens can defeat a tyranny" to be a fallacy. A true tyranny will always have more firepower, and the willingness to use it, which 9.99 times out of 10 will crush any would be insurgency.

I'm not saying I don't agree with the decision to fight; I'm disagreeing with the conclusions people draw from that decision.
Click to expand...

Armed citizens have defeated tyranny in other attempts. The problem with this as with most of your arguments is that everything is an absolute. Either it must work 100% of the time, or it is not worth trying at all. :roll:

I get sick and tired of repeating this to every nay-sayer on this issue but it must needs bear repeating...the right to revolt/rebel does not guarantee success, nor does the possession of weapons do so either.

However, possession of weapons increases the odds significantly, and at the very least gives government pause before stirring up the pot. This is exactly why most governments prefer the people NOT be armed.
 
apdst said:
Airlines are private property. The 1st Amendment isn't protected on private property, either.
Click to expand...

But whygun owners and not other groups? Isn’t this discrimination? Facism!!!!!
 
apdst said:
An armored vehicle's most dangerous enemy is a dismounted infantryman.

Cambodia was just like Somalia and Sierra Leone: the weapons were in the hands of the Khmer Rouge, not the regular folks. You know as well as I do that the Khmer Rouge wouldn't have lasted 5 ninutes against some ol' boys from down the bayou who were armed with deer rifles and duck guns.

The Turks are trying. Not too successful, are they? Why do you think that is?
Click to expand...

Which is why there were so many Tiger tanks knocked out by rifles, right?

Even today basically competent combined arms tactics negate the threat. ISIS lost plenty of armor, but ISIS is not competent.

Just like Somalia and Sierra Leone, everyone in Cambodia had guns. There were firearms all over the country. The "good ole boys" wouldn't have lasted five minutes, to be frank, because the Khmer Rouge, in addition to being thugs, had years of combat experience.

The Turks aren't quite ready to jump in with both feet and turn the entire world against them. We'll see if that lasts.
 
vegas giants said:
But whygun owners and not other groups? Isn’t this discrimination? Facism!!!!!
Click to expand...

Why do you lose your 1st, 5th and 4th Amendment rights when you board a commercial aircraft?

You sound pissed off that you have to surrender those rights, but black folks are allowed to sit next to you, in first class.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Which is why there were so many Tiger tanks knocked out by rifles, right?

Even today basically competent combined arms tactics negate the threat. ISIS lost plenty of armor, but ISIS is not competent.

Just like Somalia and Sierra Leone, everyone in Cambodia had guns. There were firearms all over the country. The "good ole boys" wouldn't have lasted five minutes, to be frank, because the Khmer Rouge, in addition to being thugs, had years of combat experience.

The Turks aren't quite ready to jump in with both feet and turn the entire world against them. We'll see if that lasts.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of tigers immobilized by infantry weapons and improvised weapons.

BTW, who lost the war?
 
vegas giants said:
So no gun control at all.....right?
Click to expand...


If 20,000 "common sense" gun control laws "for the children" are not enough for you, you're in the wrong country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom