Massacre in Connecticut - Page 10

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

I would argue that you are extrapolating with insufficient historical data and insufficient consideration of other variables. There have not been enough cycles to conclude that they are inevitable despite other changes, and those cycles themselves were to dissimilar to be definitively classified as part of a longer pattern. In particular, "religious dictatorships", as you characterized them, thrived primarily by fear predicated on ignorance, and, as our knowledge has advanced, religion in the western world has both waned in popularity and changed from being a ubiquitous, mandatory doctrine to a personal choice. I cannot see how that process of marginalization would be easily reversed.

Maybe I am seeing a pattern in too little data, I have been known to do that.

Cherry Picking and you know it.

Edit:  Nor have you established a causal relationship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

The American Revolutionary War "officially" started on April 19, 1775 when the British government sent 700 armed troops to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. When the British troops arrived in Lexington, they were met by 77 armed minutemen who had the courage to defend themselves and their property against aggression from their own government.

 

Those 77 minutemen - outnumbered almost 10 to 1 - weren't able to halt the advance of the British troops. Many of them lost their lives.

 

However, when the British reached Concord, they were engaged and routed by 500 armed minutemen.

 

We all know the eventual outcome of what came to be known as the American Revolutionary War.

 

The ushering in of the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known began when an overbearing, oppressive government tried to disarm its own citizens and was met with resistance by those who had the capability and desire to defend themselves, their property, and their freedom.

 

History is rife with examples of governments disarming their own people, many times under the pretense of "promoting peace and safety", only to turn around and commit horrendous atrocities against the people they had rendered defenseless.

 

Here are a few examples of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

 

1911 – Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

 

1929 – Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

 

1935 – China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

 

1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

 

1956 – Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million educated people.

 

1964 – Guatemala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

 

1970 – Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

 

What would have happened if the American colonists had allowed the British government to disarm them?

 

Think about it.

The British Government, along with many other democratic governments, disarmed its own citizens long ago without any disastrous results. Your examples are fascinating but do not permit a generalized conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

The British Government, along with many other democratic governments, disarmed its own citizens long ago without any disastrous results. Your examples are fascinating but do not permit a generalized conclusion.

Even without guns the British government are afraid of their people, just too many geniuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

.......

 

1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

 

........

Ummmm.... you absolutely SURE about THAT number....

And then there's the whole lack of causation etc....

8 million Jews were exterminated not 16 million. This is a sure fact in history.
 

You mean you plagiarized without citing your source?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

The American Revolutionary War "officially" started on April 19, 1775 when the British government sent 700 armed troops to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. When the British troops arrived in Lexington, they were met by 77 armed minutemen who had the courage to defend themselves and their property against aggression from their own government.

 

Those 77 minutemen - outnumbered almost 10 to 1 - weren't able to halt the advance of the British troops. Many of them lost their lives.

 

However, when the British reached Concord, they were engaged and routed by 500 armed minutemen.

 

We all know the eventual outcome of what came to be known as the American Revolutionary War.

 

The ushering in of the greatest era of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known began when an overbearing, oppressive government tried to disarm its own citizens and was met with resistance by those who had the capability and desire to defend themselves, their property, and their freedom.

 

History is rife with examples of governments disarming their own people, many times under the pretense of "promoting peace and safety", only to turn around and commit horrendous atrocities against the people they had rendered defenseless.

 

Here are a few examples of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

 

1911 – Turkey disarmed its citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

 

1929 – Russia disarmed its citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

 

1935 – China disarmed its citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

 

1938 – Germany disarmed its citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

 

1956 – Cambodia disarmed its citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million educated people.

 

1964 – Guatemala disarmed its citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

 

1970 – Uganda disarmed its citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

 

What would have happened if the American colonists had allowed the British government to disarm them?

 

Think about it.

Do you honestly think that if the American public are disarmed that the Government will start mass killing them?  Delusional.  That you even put this forward as an argument says a lot about you as a person.  And I don't care if this is considered to b a personal attack, but your argument is bat shit fucking crazy.

Comparing the USA to Uganda?  In 1970?  The more I digest your post the more ridiculous it reads.

Bat Shit Crazy Town.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

The American Revolutionary War "officially" started on April 19, 1775 when the British government sent 700 armed troops to seize munitions stored by the colonial militia at Concord, Massachusetts. When the British troops arrived in Lexington, they were met by 77 armed minutemen who had the courage to defend themselves and their property against aggression from their own government.

 

Those 77 minutemen - outnumbered almost 10 to 1 - weren't able to halt the advance of the British troops. Many of them lost their lives.

 

However, when the British reached Concord, they were engaged and routed by 500 armed minutemen.

 

We all know the eventual outcome of what came to be known as the American Revolutionary War.

The militia were...you know, actual militias.  Not random guys with guns.  The modern day equivalent would be the regular US army moving to disarm a national guard armory.

The militia at Lexington was the local militia and not a minuteman company.  Kinda like the difference between regular police and SWAT.  The whole thing was a confused mess on the part of both sides and not either an organized defense of the town or an organized attack but a show of force.  The Lexington Militia was simply standing in parade ranks in the commons.  The regulars were marching through.  Then some asshat with a gun, firing from cover, got a bunch of his friends killed.

If the Lexington Militia HAD been in battle ranks they still would have gotten creamed but they'd have done more than one minor injury against the regulars and frankly the regulars probably would have turned around and gone back given their mission would already be a failure.

The Concord Militia were outnumbered by the British column and wisely vacated the town until help could arrive (aka the Minuteman companies from other towns).  The Brits, in the meantime destroyed three hidden 24 pounders.  This would be like the Army showing up and destroying three National Guard M1 tanks.  Not something you keep in your basement for home defense.

When help arrived the militia advanced on three companies of regulars guarding the bridge and again the battle was both a mess and a surprise to both sides. Neither had intended to kill each other that day.  Only this time three light companies of regulars were on the receiving end of stupidity (in this case a poor tactical command) and got routed.  After which the militia resumed defensive positions and the Brits ate lunch before belatedly marching home with moderately disastrous results from getting ambushed all the way back until a relief column met up with them.

This is hardly the picture you wish to paint or individual homeowners banding together to heroically defend their town.

The eventual outcome of the American Revolutionary War was that regular troops of the Continental Army, trained by a Prussian and aided by 5,500 French troops, defeated the regular troops of the British Army at Yorktown ending the war.  The Brits didn't get beat by the militia.  No more than South Vietnam fell to the VC but actually to NVA armored divisions.

The British people are disarmed today.  I'm going to guess they are not going to get murdered en masse any time soon.  

What would have happened if the American colonists had allowed the British government to disarm them?  We'd be Canadians.

That said, yes, it is harder for a government to mistreat an armed populace.  On the other hand you need to take the bad with the good where a heavily armed populace engages in sectarian violence.  The body count there is pretty high as well.

And in many of those cases you cited, when the secret or not so secret police come to get you, being armed doesn't do you a whole lot of good other than maybe taking a few of the foot soldiers with you because the majority of your neighbors are either cheering them on or turning a blind eye and keeping their heads down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

They think the USSR is a good example of why socialism fails.

So? You think Somalia is a good example of why libertarianism fails.

Government is the embodiment of violence. Taking money and property away from people under threat of violence ("taxation") is wrong. That the plunder is systemized and deemed "legitimate" because a group of individuals voted for it does not make it right.

You willfully ignore the countless other examples of armed individuals thwarting crimes or successfully defending themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 


Lol. That's the funniest thing I've read in this thread. Are you practicing for a stand-up routine?

Perhaps you should write a letter to the FBI disputing their statistics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega 

Do you honestly think that if the American public are disarmed that the Government will start mass killing them?  Delusional.  That you even put this forward as an argument says a lot about you as a person.  And I don't care if this is considered to b a personal attack, but your argument is bat shit fucking crazy.

Ignore historical precedent at your own peril.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

 

The militia were...you know, actual militias.  Not random guys with guns.  The modern day equivalent would be the regular US army moving to disarm a national guard armory.

I disagree:

I could cite more, but it is quite clear what the founders meant when they ratified the Second Amendment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

The British people are disarmed today.  I'm going to guess they are not going to get murdered en masse any time soon.

Guess away. I haven't made any claims that the British government has any immediate plans to do so. Of course, governments eventually change, don't they?

The British people certainly are lucky, aren't they? And that's all they really have to rely on at this point. Luck.

All they can do is hope that people who have guns - foreign or domestic - don't decide to use them against those who have been rendered defenseless by their own government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Again, I know you vehemently disagree with the idea of the "social contract", but it is legitimate. Every citizen benefits greatly from services rendered by the government. To benefit from those services without paying for them is theft. What you want is the freedom to commit that theft by not paying back your share of the social contract. How does one defend against theft?

And again with the "social contract" - the justification given for systemized plunder.

You have to go through a twisted bit of reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that not wanting a group of individuals calling themselves a government to take my property without my consent is theft on my part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


No. I think of it as the only example of libertarianism without established socialism. Can you name any other? I didn't think so. Can you explain how Somalia differs from a "true" example of libertarianism without socialism? I didn't think so. It's a good example of what can happen under libertarianism, and you know it. Meanwhile, the USSR was not a social democracy. Nether Maoist China or North Korea nor modern capitalist China after Deng are examples of socialist democracies. Can you name any countries that are examples of socialist democracies? I can.

You apparently do not understand what libertarianism is. Until you have a desire to educate yourself about it, you'll go on believing that Somalia is a good example of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

And you willfully ignore that all those examples are hugely outnumbered by the examples of where people were needlessly killed thanks to the public's easy access to firearms or because of accidental discharge or stolen weapons. Let me paraphrase what Jefferson said... security in the face of increased danger and lawlessness is not security at all. I'm far more secure in Hong Kong than you are anywhere in the US, and it's not simply because people are more peaceful and don't commit crimes here.

Conjecture.

A madman kills school children and it's all the mainstream media talks about for a month.

You rarely hear about ordinary people using firearms responsibly to defend themselves or thwart crimes because the mainstream media usually buries such stories.

Could the problem be lead?

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline

I recall gas stations serving up leaded and unleaded gasoline. And I remember being told to run the tap a while before using the water.  And buying leaded paint.  The list goes on.

Libertarian Principles                        Somalian "Government" (outside of warlord controlled zones) as of 2002

No income tax                                                             Yes

No tax on business                                                      Yes

No sales tax or GST                                                    Yes

No taxes at all                                                              Yes

Free trade with other countries                                    Yes

Road building handled by the private sector               Yes

Security handled by private sector                              Yes

Education handled by private sector                           Yes

Public can legally own firearms                                   Yes

Public can legally own anything                                  Yes

Freedom to eat anything, or take any drug                 Yes

Freedom to choose whether to vaccinate                   Yes

Freedom of religion                                                     Yes*    *=so much as society allows

Freedom of sexuality                                                   Yes*

Fits in with Libertarian Anarcho-capitalist

utopian prediction of what would happen

under a system free of government control                  No

Oh, you're right. What was I thinking?

On a serious note, you'll notice that the areas in Somalia with the most government control -- Somaliland, for instance -- have the most prosperity and stability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

And?

 

There is no "and."  There is just the hilarity of your post.  

Riiight. Got it. You really are great at presenting your argument. Now tell us again exactly how the USSR is a good example of why Socialism never works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Riiight. Got it. You really are great at presenting your argument. Now tell us again exactly how the USSR is a good example of why Socialism never works.

The same reason Somalia is a good example of why libertarianism never works.