• 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!

Do firearms empower people?

Do firearms empower people?

  • Total voters
    52
Manc Skipper said:
Irrelevant and yes, along with with a thousand years of legal precedent.
Click to expand...

the collective bed wetting following Dunblane was really pathetic

must be tough to know one of my friends has more Gold Olympic and world archery medals than all of England!
 
US Conservative said:
You must be too young, Im guessing you are in your early to mid 20's. The glasses still work. ;)
Click to expand...
If you consider 27 "too young" then I suppose so USCon_ :baby1

And thats Gary Coleman, RIP. :(
Click to expand...
I know :( I recognized his name after I googled "Diffrent Strokes"_
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Yes because throughout the history of this globe, the power with superior numbers and firepower have always been the one that won haven't they? And there's never been any examples of a smaller forces challenging a larger one, let alone succeeding. Seriously, have you ever taken a single history class?



Keep in mind that once France entered the conflict, the war went from a small regional conflict into a global conflict. France's military hit at British assets from North America, Africa, the Indies, and even at home. Even if they wanted to send more troops, the fact of the matter is that they couldn't afford too.
Click to expand...
The war was not popular in England either, many spoke out against it in Parliament because they felt Americans were their countrymen.
 
American said:
The war was not popular in England either, many spoke out against it in Parliament because they felt Americans were their countrymen.
Click to expand...

True, but it was only in waning years of the conflict (after 5 or so years I can't recall) that parliament flipped to an anti-war one. Prior to that period, they were free to commit as many troops as they felt was needed. And by the way, it wasn't so much a lack of troops that was the issue; George Washington lost far more engagements than he would actually win. The problem for Great Britain is that they never could manage to land the knockout blow, either against Washington in the North or (eventually) Greene in the South. It would be like trying to remove weeds by only cutting off what's on top. Sure it will look good for a time, but in the end, you haven't really solved anything.

In addition, Parliament (and by extension the people) didn't have the same amount of power that it does today; had the King of wanted to continue the conflict, theoretically he could of.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Yes because throughout the history of this globe, the power with superior numbers and firepower have always been the one that won haven't they? And there's never been any examples of a smaller forces challenging a larger one, let alone succeeding. Seriously, have you ever taken a single history class?
Click to expand...

Name one tyrannical government that was overthrown by an inferior force.
 
Tucker Case said:
Name one tyrannical government that was overthrown by an inferior force.
Click to expand...

Guess that depends on how you would define "tyrannical" and how far back you want to go. Rome got their asses handed to them on multiple occasions by "inferior forces". All the European empires got their lumps during their adventuring days from one place to another. History is littered with empires that ran up against inferior forces and just couldn't handle themselves, mostly due to supply lines being easily disrupted and lack of knowledge of the terrain and the locals. Probably the most recent though would be the Mujaheddin in the 1980's in Afghanistan.
 
I would say that, like any tool, they do not empower a person so much as enhancing their own power.
 
God didn't make all people equal, Smith & Wesson did.
 
Tucker Case said:
Name one tyrannical government that was overthrown by an inferior force.
Click to expand...
Consider the wars involving Vietnam, which suggests the ability to win can be trumped by the will to win_

"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.''- Braveheart

Yes, poets are known to exaggerate victories and romanticize battles in the struggle of "Good versus Evil"_

And the message the poets usually convey is that, there is much more to being victorious than military might alone_
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Guess that depends on how you would define "tyrannical" and how far back you want to go.
Click to expand...

According to the definition of tyranny: "a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler"

History is littered with empires that ran up against inferior forces and just couldn't handle themselves, mostly due to supply lines being easily disrupted and lack of knowledge of the terrain and the locals.
Click to expand...

See the part in bold? It directly contradicts the concept of "overthrow". It in fact would imply "defend against and invading force". We're talking about overthrowing. Talking about "Repelling an invading force" in the context of "overthrowing a tyrannical government" is, quite obviously, asinine.
 
Empirica said:
Consider the wars involving Vietnam, which suggests the ability to win can be trumped by the will to win_
Click to expand...

So the US invading force in Vietnam was tyrannical in your opinion?

If not, why the **** are you talking about it?
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Guess that depends on how you would define "tyrannical" and how far back you want to go. Rome got their asses handed to them on multiple occasions by "inferior forces". All the European empires got their lumps during their adventuring days from one place to another. History is littered with empires that ran up against inferior forces and just couldn't handle themselves, mostly due to supply lines being easily disrupted and lack of knowledge of the terrain and the locals. Probably the most recent though would be the Mujaheddin in the 1980's in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

To expand further on this, I would argue that the most inherently useful aspect of the 2nd amendment is the fact that it makes the US more easily defensible against any invading force. The whole purpose of the state militias (and subsequently the second amendment which provided for the arming of said militias) was NOT to prevent tyranny in the US, but was instead to prevent invading forces from achieving victory by making an invasion "not worth the effort it would require".
 
TurtleDude said:
the collective bed wetting following Dunblane was really pathetic

must be tough to know one of my friends has more Gold Olympic and world archery medals than all of England!
Click to expand...

My indifference to braggarts is at fever pitch.
 
Empirica said:
Consider the wars involving Vietnam, which suggests the ability to win can be trumped by the will to win_

"In the year of our Lord 1314, patriots of Scotland, starving and outnumbered, charged the fields of Bannockburn. They fought like warrior poets. They fought like Scotsmen. And won their freedom.''- Braveheart

Yes, poets are known to exaggerate victories and romanticize battles in the struggle of "Good versus Evil"_

And the message the poets usually convey is that, there is much more to being victorious than military might alone_
Click to expand...

Braveheart was Hollywood BS based loosely on romanticised crap written by a Wallace descendant. Bannockburn was a great tactical victory against the odds, but people forget that though we sent Henry "homeward to think again" 200 years later they came back and kicked the living **** out of us when a whole male generation was lost at Flodden.
 
Tucker Case said:
So the US invading force in Vietnam was tyrannical in your opinion?
Click to expand...
The "tyrannical" catalyst you mentioned was inconsequential to my point because it had no bearing on the outcome_

Tucker Case said:
If not, why the **** are you talking about it?
Click to expand...
I thought it was quite clear that I was commenting on the "overthrown by an inferior force" segment of your post_

And for christ sake, calm yourself down Tuck; these emotional flair-ups are unproductive, stressful and so unnecessary_

Manc Skipper said:
Braveheart was Hollywood BS based loosely on romanticised crap written by a Wallace descendant. Bannockburn was a great tactical victory against the odds, but people forget that though we sent Henry "homeward to think again" 200 years later they came back and kicked the living **** out of us when a whole male generation was lost at Flodden.
Click to expand...
Which is pretty much what I said!

I included "Braveheart" simply to make the point in my post below_(which btw you quoted and should have noticed)
Empirica said:
Yes, poets are known to exaggerate victories and romanticize battles in the struggle of "Good versus Evil"_

And the message the poets usually convey is that, there is much more to being victorious than military might alone_
Click to expand...
Have a nice day~
 
Empirica said:
The "tyrannical" catalyst you mentioned was inconsequential to my point because it had no bearing on the outcome_

I thought it was quite clear that I was commenting on the "overthrown by an inferior force" segment of your post_
Click to expand...

So you respond to a statement requesting one to "name one tyranical government that was..." by ignoring that portion of the post?!?!?!?

And you think it should be quite clear that you were ignoring the primary ****ing portion of the sentence being responded to in order to treat the prepositional phrase at the end as though it was the request that was presented?!?!?

Frankly, for that to be "quite clear", one must assume that you are totally and completely incapable of presenting a cogent thought in a conversation because it requires total and complete incompetence to do the above.

So I guess you are right, it should have been quite clear.


And for christ sake, calm yourself down Tuck; these emotional flair-ups are unproductive, stressful and so unnecessary_
Click to expand...

No, the sheer idiocy you consistently choose to post in lieu of posting a cogent, intelligent thought is unproductive and unnecessary. My reaction to your choice to spew such idiocy all over the page like a 15 year old amish kid spws all over his jockeys at a strip club is just good old-fashioned fun.
 
Manc Skipper said:
My indifference to braggarts is at fever pitch.
Click to expand...

bed wetters seem to be more palatable to you than winners. but what your country did to thousands of honest pistol owners was disgusting
 
Tucker Case said:
So you respond to a statement requesting one to "name one tyranical government that was..." by ignoring that portion of the post?!?!?!?

And you think it should be quite clear that you were ignoring the primary ****ing portion of the sentence being responded to in order to treat the prepositional phrase at the end as though it was the request that was presented?!?!?

Frankly, for that to be "quite clear", one must assume that you are totally and completely incapable of presenting a cogent thought in a conversation because it requires total and complete incompetence to do the above.

So I guess you are right, it should have been quite clear.




No, the sheer idiocy you consistently choose to post in lieu of posting a cogent, intelligent thought is unproductive and unnecessary. My reaction to your choice to spew such idiocy all over the page like a 15 year old amish kid spws all over his jockeys at a strip club is just good old-fashioned fun.
Click to expand...

Dude, she owned you. Move on.
 
I think that carrying guns all the time may make the option of using it more probable. Perhaps this is the reason why so many people die from guns in USA.
 
DDD said:
I think that carrying guns all the time may make the option of using it more probable. Perhaps this is the reason why so many people die from guns in USA.
Click to expand...


Most of the people who die "from guns" in the US do so because they have committed suicide.

Excluding cops or citizens killing perps in justified shoots, most other "gun deaths" in the US are thug-on-thug, and who really cares if a drug dealer shoots another drug dealer, as long as he doesn't miss.


Accidents are statistically rare. Law-abiding CCW types shooting someone in a fit of anger are rare, despite the media hyping those rare incidents.
 
US Conservative said:
It was pertinent to the topic.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. It was a strawman.

Sorry that things like firearms and freedom bother you.
Click to expand...

As is that. An exceptionally stupid strawman at that, as I support the second amendment.

Firearms and freedom are great. Idiocy is a problem, and strawmen are often indicative of idiocy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom