Terrorists strike yet again

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,105
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
Every gun owner I know is an irrational Trump supporter. This act was committed by an irrational gun owner. If he had voted for Trump, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Syllogism.

...and what have another Syria where outside political powers get involved, closing the window on any kind of reasonable outcome for the people?
So rather than allow those peoples (mainly the Rohingya in this case, but the Kurds are next, and the Catalans face a remote possibility) to defend themselves in their own internal struggles, you'd prefer they be wiped out to "prevent another Syria?"

I'm sorry but the notion of gun owners having the firepower to defend themselves against the U.S. Military is bordering tinfoil hat levels of crazy...
Please elaborate.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
But in this case, as in others, the problem is that you're making it *easier* to choose different and perhaps harder to control means. Australia's ban meant the nutters moved to mass arson... and it still didn't stop the mass shootings.
Funnily enough I work with a former Aussie cop who was actually on a biker gang task force, she said they made guns out of Nokia antennae as they were perfect size for a .22. They also made tasers and such out of cellphones, after all "modern" guns are over 100 years old at this point, technology to build them is readily available to ANYONE.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Funnily enough I work with a former Aussie cop who was actually on a biker gang task force, she said they made guns out of Nokia antennae as they were perfect size for a .22. They also made tasers and such out of cellphones, after all "modern" guns are over 100 years old at this point, technology to build them is readily available to ANYONE.
Worse than that. You can make a fully automatic (or semi-auto, if you want to remain legal) Kalashnikov AK-47 type rifle... OUT OF A SHOVEL. No, really. See for yourselves, it doesn't even take much skill. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...res-into-swords-man-builds-ak-47-from-shovel/

If you can make the iconic AK-47 out of a shovel, well... I'm sure one can figure out just how effective even a total ban would be. The AK was designed to be made and used by unskilled peasants with a minimum of machinery and materials. Your average North American with a garage full of normal tools, given the materials, could make one in a weekend. The MAC series of submachine guns are even easier to make.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know about the rest of the EU but France has definitely taken measures to control truck traffic in populated walking areas. Marseille had regular patrols, truck driver check points, and a number of concrete barriers running along walking areas.
All that did was make them shift targets and go from wholesale attacks to retail. See the list I posted above about post-'measures' attacks in France. And then look at all the new ones that popped up in England that didn't involve just trucks but cars. Such as, oh, the London Bridge attack this year? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2017_London_Bridge_attack
 
Last edited:

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,000
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
Syllogism.
Essentially.

So rather than allow those peoples (mainly the Rohingya in this case, but the Kurds are next, and the Catalans face a remote possibility) to defend themselves in their own internal struggles, you'd prefer they be wiped out to "prevent another Syria?"
I would argue that there are better ways to fight and that violence leads to something along the lines of Syria.

Please elaborate.
What is there to elaborate on? You really think individuals with guns are a viable match against an entity that not only controls the flow of resources and information but also has control of arguably the world's most powerful military? Never mind the fact that such instability in the U.S. makes it ripe for takeover from a foreign power like China or Russia?

Once upon a time I would have agreed with you but with how globalized and technologically entrenched our society has become, I don't see how having a few guns realistically protects us from government tyranny.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,105
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
Essentially.
So then you recognize the inherent flaw in that line of logic. Good.

I would argue that there are better ways to fight and that violence leads to something along the lines of Syria.
I think my ancestors in 1930s Austria might've felt differently if they didn't have their rights slowly but steadily stripped away (y'know, by real Nazis), and I'm sure that today the Burmese/Myanmar Muslims (Rohingya) would like the chance to fight back and not be wiped out either.

I mentioned the Kurds and the Catalans because they are on different parts of the spectrum. The Kurds have been historically treated like shit and also murdered en masse, but right now enjoy many freedoms but not all the freedoms they wish to have. The Catalans live peacefully in a democratic society, but many were forcibly prevented from exercising a democratic right to vote this weekend.

This is essentially the rationale behind the right to bear arms. Without them, you look at Catalan, then the Kurds, then the Rohingya. Then you look no more, because you're dead or faced with indentured servitude.

What is there to elaborate on? You really think individuals with guns are a viable match against an entity that not only controls the flow of resources and information but also has control of arguably the world's most powerful military?
1) US Independence
2) Vietnam War
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,000
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
So then you recognize the inherent flaw in that line of logic. Good.

I'm aware it's flawed but that isn't the point. I said "If it was a Trump supporter, I wouldn't be surprised." Do know my conscience better than myself to know when I am and am not surprised by things?

I think my ancestors in 1930s Austria might've felt differently if they didn't have their rights slowly but steadily stripped away (y'know, by real Nazis)
That is a gross over-speculation and you know it. That being said, it ignores my point about a technologically entrenched society. 1930s Europe was pretty free from any kind of kind of reliance on infrastructure thus it's pretty easy for small towns and villages to operate independently of the government as far was food, water, and general resources are concerned.

, and I'm sure that today the Burmese/Myanmar Muslims (Rohingya) would like the chance to fight back and not be wiped out either.

I mentioned the Kurds and the Catalans because they are on different parts of the spectrum. The Kurds have been historically treated like shit and also murdered en masse, but right now enjoy many freedoms but not all the freedoms they wish to have. The Catalans live peacefully in a democratic society, but many were forcibly prevented from exercising a democratic right to vote this weekend.

This is essentially the rationale behind the right to bear arms. Without them, you look at Catalan, then the Kurds, then the Rohingya. Then you look no more, because you're dead or faced with indentured servitude.
Again you're ignoring the differences in the level of development of each case. Would guns help in Rohingya and Kurdish areas? Yeah probably because those aren't well developed areas. Would guns help in the case of Catalan? I'm not particularly convinced that they would. It would be a long and ugly civil war that would result in another Syria causing a mass exodus.

1) US Independence
2) Vietnam War
Again, two scenarios that occurred at a time when the reliance of resources on technology was low. In addition when discussing the Vietnam War you're forgetting the military influence of two outside major foreign powers (China and USSR).
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
1) US Independence
2) Vietnam War
There is also the very real example of the Battle Of Athens, Georgia, right here in the US in 1946. Armed citizens rebelled against a brutal, corrupt local government and law enforcement entity - and won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

It's also worth noting that relatively speaking, American citizens are currently *less* well armed in comparison to the US military than we have historically been. American citizens used to routinely own the equivalents of battleships - large, extremely well armed merchant vessels, fully capable of laying siege and waste to coastal towns and cities. At one point the armed merchant marine had several multiples of the firepower of the entire US Navy; some armed US merchantmen even defeated or saw off front line units of the British Navy. This was considered normal.
 

NecroJoe

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
19,303
Location
San Francisco area, CA, USA
Car(s)
2015 Mazda 3 S GT, 2015 VW e-Golf
I heard a quote several times, and I'm too lazy to look up who said it, that "A liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet."

Interesting to note one of the musician's has had a change of heart...but the other way:

I?ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was.


Enough is enough. Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn?t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand.

These rounds were powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in a close proximity of a victim shot by this f-cking coward received shrapnel wounds. We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn?t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it.

We actually have members of our crew with CHL licenses, and legal firearms on the bus. They were useless. Not only were the guns hard to get to when the shocking attack began, but they could have just added more confusion to the chaos, or authorities at the event trying to track down the origin of the shots fired may have confused the crew for the perpetrators.

We couldn?t touch them for fear police might think that we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
So then you recognize the inherent flaw in that line of logic. Good.

I'm aware it's flawed but that isn't the point. I said "If it was a Trump supporter, I wouldn't be surprised." Do know my conscience better than myself to know when I am and am not surprised by things?



That is a gross over-speculation and you know it. That being said, it ignores my point about a technologically entrenched society. 1930s Europe was pretty free from any kind of kind of reliance on infrastructure thus it's pretty easy for small towns and villages to operate independently of the government as far was food, water, and general resources are concerned.



Again you're ignoring the differences in the level of development of each case. Would guns help in Rohingya and Kurdish areas? Yeah probably because those aren't well developed areas. Would guns help in the case of Catalan? I'm not particularly convinced that they would. It would be a long and ugly civil war that would result in another Syria causing a mass exodus.



Again, two scenarios that occurred at a time when the reliance of resources on technology was low. In addition when discussing the Vietnam War you're forgetting the military influence of two outside major foreign powers (China and USSR).
You know you are basically making the case for repeal of any gun control measures and to allow US citizens to own anything up to ans including nukes.

Aside from that look at Iraq and all the trouble we had there fighting insurgents, guerrila warfare is very difficult to defend against.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I heard a quote several times, and I'm too lazy to look up who said it, that "A liberal is just a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet."

Interesting to note one of the musician's has had a change of heart...but the other way:
It's also interesting that it went the other way with the Dallas BLM terrorist shooting last year. Citizens who were there bearing rifles gave their weapons to officers who did not have rifles or worked with officers.

- - - Updated - - -

Aside from that look at Iraq and all the trouble we had there fighting insurgents, guerrila warfare is very difficult to defend against.
Don't forget Afghanistan. With only a bit of help from the US, they ran the mighty Soviet empire right the hell out of their country.

The Soviets weren't crippled by stupid rules of engagement like the US was in Vietnam either.
 
Last edited:

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '13 FIAT, '03 Ranger XLT Supcab
I mentioned the Kurds and the Catalans because they are on different parts of the spectrum. The Kurds have been historically treated like shit and also murdered en masse, but right now enjoy many freedoms but not all the freedoms they wish to have. The Catalans live peacefully in a democratic society, but many were forcibly prevented from exercising a democratic right to vote this weekend.

This is essentially the rationale behind the right to bear arms. Without them, you look at Catalan, then the Kurds, then the Rohingya. Then you look no more, because you're dead or faced with indentured servitude.
Both the Kurds and Catalans would be an insurrection if they went for it, and these hypothetical uprisings would be a bit different than...

1) US Independence
2) Vietnam War
...these. A foreign power occupying another land is different than an insurrection. In the latter, it's possible to lose the battles yet win the war so long as the battles end up being too costly for the power trying to occupy. (Warfare's changed a bit since American independence, so I'm mostly focusing on more modern times.) But it is brutal on the locals. Tons of Vietnamese died fighting the US, and the US kept piling up tactical victories. The Tet Offensive was a tactical loss for the Vietnamese and a huge manpower drain, but did start to force a strategic US withdrawal. After all, Vietnam was an ocean away and not integrally important to the US.

That is not true of insurrection. The two sides aren't squaring off across any distance, and at least one side sees themselves in full control of the territory and will fight to keep it that way. Shays wanted to overthrow a tyrannical Massachusetts government, look how well that turned out for him. The Confederacy wanted to leave the Union, look how well that worked out for them. The IRA in Northern Ireland, FARC in Colombia, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Communist vs Nationalist Chinese, Chechnya, etc etc. It's not simply a game of waiting out until the other side gets tired and goes home because they already are home. To win requires either the upper hand in numbers, like the Communist Chinese did since the war against Japan was more costly on the Nationalists, or foreign support, and the willingness to see a brutal fight through.

It's why I think the Kurds will rise up and the Catalans won't, weapons handy or not. The Kurds could gather foreign support for themselves and would fight more or less as one entity against separate powers for their independence and self-determination from countries that have kept them separate and oppressed, whereas the Catalans are wealthy, part of a first world nation, and isolated; neither the EU nor the US would come to their aid if it came to war with Madrid, and other foreign powers that may or may not want to help would be risking an awful lot to ship arms to the Iberian peninsula, to say nothing of the devastation such a war would bring.

There is also the very real example of the Battle Of Athens, Georgia, right here in the US in 1946. Armed citizens rebelled against a brutal, corrupt local government and law enforcement entity - and won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)
Some tidbits from that I found quite interesting:

  • The GIs recognized that they had broken the law, and that Cantrell would likely receive reinforcements in the morning, so the GIs felt the need to resolve the situation quickly...For the veterans it was win before morning or face a long time in jail for violating local, state and federal laws.
  • The deputies knew little of military tactics, but the GIs knew them well.
  • Governor McChord moved to activate the national guard but quickly rescinded the order.
  • The new GI government of Athens quickly encountered challenges including the re-emergence of old party loyalties. On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making."[36] The GI government of Athens, Tennessee collapsed.
  • The Non-Partisan GI Political League had replied to inquires by veterans elsewhere in the USA with the advice that shooting it out was not the most desirable solution to political problems.
It's definitely an interesting story, though.

It's also worth noting that relatively speaking, American citizens are currently *less* well armed in comparison to the US military than we have historically been. American citizens used to routinely own the equivalents of battleships - large, extremely well armed merchant vessels, fully capable of laying siege and waste to coastal towns and cities. At one point the armed merchant marine had several multiples of the firepower of the entire US Navy; some armed US merchantmen even defeated or saw off front line units of the British Navy. This was considered normal.
I, for one, am glad it no longer is normal. Imagine one of these lone wolves with a cruise missile.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
That is not true of insurrection. The two sides aren't squaring off across any distance, and at least one side sees themselves in full control of the territory and will fight to keep it that way. Shays wanted to overthrow a tyrannical Massachusetts government, look how well that turned out for him. The Confederacy wanted to leave the Union, look how well that worked out for them. The IRA in Northern Ireland, FARC in Colombia, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Communist vs Nationalist Chinese, Chechnya, etc etc. It's not simply a game of waiting out until the other side gets tired and goes home because they already are home. To win requires either the upper hand in numbers, like the Communist Chinese did since the war against Japan was more costly on the Nationalists, or foreign support, and the willingness to see a brutal fight through.
On the other hand, look at the ugly mess that was created after Yugoslavia started falling apart; that kind of pokes a few holes in your ideas. They can be viewed as simultaneous insurrections.

It's why I think the Kurds will rise up and the Catalans won't, weapons handy or not. The Kurds could gather foreign support for themselves and would fight more or less as one entity against separate powers for their independence and self-determination from countries that have kept them separate and oppressed, whereas the Catalans are wealthy, part of a first world nation, and isolated; neither the EU nor the US would come to their aid if it came to war with Madrid, and other foreign powers that may or may not want to help would be risking an awful lot to ship arms to the Iberian peninsula, to say nothing of the devastation such a war would bring.
The Catalans may not care enough about those concerns or may just really want out. They wouldn't be the first.

I, for one, am glad it no longer is normal. Imagine one of these lone wolves with a cruise missile.
Said lone wolf would have to have many millions of dollars just to acquire one and its launcher. The financial hurdle alone would be hard to clear. Not impossible, though.

And, I hate to tell you, in some of the nastier parts of the world, you *can* actually buy one. There's still missing Soviet nuclear warheads, for example. Quite a lot went missing in the fall of the USSR and even today it's possible to buy some impressive Russian weapons systems through direct purchase or bribery. Including cruise missiles.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,601
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
You can buy or build missiles, including cruise missiles, AA missiles and even small anti-ship munitions. Problem with all of these is cost and knowledge, even a basic missiles is difficult to build, that is if you care where it actually lands, there is a reason rocket science is used to describe something that requires a lot of brains to do. Firearms on the other hand are extremely simple to manufacture, as already alluded to AK pattern rifles were very specifically designed to be trivial to manufacture in mass quantities. There is a reason why AKs are as used as widely as they are, they are not the most accurate of rifles but sure as hell simple and reliable to make.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,105
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
I'm aware it's flawed but that isn't the point.
It's the only point.

That is a gross over-speculation and you know it. That being said, it ignores my point about a technologically entrenched society. 1930s Europe was pretty free from any kind of kind of reliance on infrastructure thus it's pretty easy for small towns and villages to operate independently of the government as far was food, water, and general resources are concerned.
6 million Jews sent to their deaths is an oversimplification of an example of government tyranny? Good to know.

The rest of your quote, I'm struggling to understand what that has to do with government tyranny.

Again you're ignoring the differences in the level of development of each case. Would guns help in Rohingya and Kurdish areas? Yeah probably because those aren't well developed areas. Would guns help in the case of Catalan? I'm not particularly convinced that they would. It would be a long and ugly civil war that would result in another Syria causing a mass exodus.
I already said the three examples were different points along a spectrum and I acknowledged the Catalan situation as unique in that it's occurring in an already democratic nation. Yet it still provided a chilling example of governments preventing their own citizens from exercising free will.

Again, two scenarios that occurred at a time when the reliance of resources on technology was low. In addition when discussing the Vietnam War you're forgetting the military influence of two outside major foreign powers (China and USSR).
Outside influences was not part of your argument, you basically just came out and argued Goliath will always beat David. History proves you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

You know you are basically making the case for repeal of any gun control measures and to allow US citizens to own anything up to ans including nukes.

Aside from that look at Iraq and all the trouble we had there fighting insurgents, guerrila warfare is very difficult to defend against.
If taken to the extreme, sure, but that's not my intent. Mine is merely to provide arguments for arming the general public.
 
Last edited:

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,105
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
That is not true of insurrection. The two sides aren't squaring off across any distance, and at least one side sees themselves in full control of the territory and will fight to keep it that way. Shays wanted to overthrow a tyrannical Massachusetts government, look how well that turned out for him. The Confederacy wanted to leave the Union, look how well that worked out for them. The IRA in Northern Ireland, FARC in Colombia, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Communist vs Nationalist Chinese, Chechnya, etc etc. It's not simply a game of waiting out until the other side gets tired and goes home because they already are home. To win requires either the upper hand in numbers, like the Communist Chinese did since the war against Japan was more costly on the Nationalists, or foreign support, and the willingness to see a brutal fight through.
Not sure what you're getting at. I never said bearing arms guaranteed victory against an oppressor. But no arms always guarantees defeat.

It's why I think the Kurds will rise up and the Catalans won't, weapons handy or not. The Kurds could gather foreign support for themselves and would fight more or less as one entity against separate powers for their independence and self-determination from countries that have kept them separate and oppressed, whereas the Catalans are wealthy, part of a first world nation, and isolated; neither the EU nor the US would come to their aid if it came to war with Madrid, and other foreign powers that may or may not want to help would be risking an awful lot to ship arms to the Iberian peninsula, to say nothing of the devastation such a war would bring.
You may want to rethink your Kurdish prediction. Right now, the entire western world is trying to convince the Kurds that it isn't in their best interests to go forward. It's bullshit, but business as usual. As to the Catalans... again, I brought it up to show how government tyranny starts out in a democratic nation: people were kept from voting by the Spanish police.

For crissakes, even in Canada we allowed Quebeckers to have their separatist referendum in 1995, without preventing anyone from voting. Having said that, the Canadian government were likely guilty of other, more covert tactics to ensure the "Yes" side lost.
 

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '13 FIAT, '03 Ranger XLT Supcab
On the other hand, look at the ugly mess that was created after Yugoslavia started falling apart; that kind of pokes a few holes in your ideas. They can be viewed as simultaneous insurrections.
Eh, yes and no. Grand unifying theories only exist in hard sciences, everything else has exceptions. You could see it as simultaneous insurrections or merely the dissolution of a union that was no longer felt as needed. I guess it depends on whether the constituent peoples considered the other areas "home" or, as in the Soviet Union, not, and I don't know enough about late Yugoslavian history to say. I will say Yugoslavia came into existence as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (thereby having disparate peoples in its very name) in a very trying time for Europe at the end of the Great War. Then World War II came along and the Cold War right after. Not exactly stable times, and one where it helps to have friends. Were it not for that, perhaps Yugoslavia would not have lasted nearly as long in the first place. See Czechoslovakia for the other fork in that road: a union of two separate peoples for a mutual benefit, but like Yugoslavia, not unifying enough, and dissolved (peacefully this time) when it was seen as no longer necessary.

The Catalans may not care enough about those concerns or may just really want out. They wouldn't be the first.
They wouldn't be, but I still have my doubts; they would have to want independence really badly to give up a first world lifestyle to fight a war for it, and I just don't see them wanting it that badly right now even after the Spanish police response.

Said lone wolf would have to have many millions of dollars just to acquire one and its launcher. The financial hurdle alone would be hard to clear. Not impossible, though.

And, I hate to tell you, in some of the nastier parts of the world, you *can* actually buy one. There's still missing Soviet nuclear warheads, for example. Quite a lot went missing in the fall of the USSR and even today it's possible to buy some impressive Russian weapons systems through direct purchase or bribery. Including cruise missiles.
I don't deny it, I'm just glad it's not the norm with cruise missiles manufactured for consumer purchase. You know if it were, that purchase price would go down to make it more affordable.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I don't deny it, I'm just glad it's not the norm with cruise missiles manufactured for consumer purchase. You know if it were, that purchase price would go down to make it more affordable.
Have you seen Russia's latest consumer export offering?


Self contained cruise missile launching system in a CONEX. They're ?10 millon per box of four missiles - and they don't really care about end user certificates.
 
Last edited:

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '13 FIAT, '03 Ranger XLT Supcab
Not sure what you're getting at. I never said bearing arms guaranteed victory against an oppressor. But no arms always guarantees defeat.
What I'm getting at is that it's a lot easier to tire out a foreign invader with militias and guerrilla warfare than it is to defeat the home government. Pointing to American independence or Vietnam and saying "see, militias can win against occupiers" in the context of secession is more of an apples to oranges comparison.

You may want to rethink your Kurdish prediction. Right now, the entire western world is trying to convince the Kurds that it isn't in their best interests to go forward. It's bullshit, but business as usual. As to the Catalans... again, I brought it up to show how government tyranny starts out in a democratic nation: people were kept from voting by the Spanish police.

For crissakes, even in Canada we allowed Quebeckers to have their separatist referendum in 1995, without preventing anyone from voting. Having said that, the Canadian government were likely guilty of other, more covert tactics to ensure the "Yes" side lost.
I can still see the Kurds going for it, but maybe holding off until the IS is defeated. As for Catalonia, from what I've read about it, the referendum was unconstitutional in the first place, which does complicate things relative to other referendums; Scotland and Quebec both had the OKs from the parent government. Madrid did not give that OK. Where's the line between having the right to vote kept from you and voting against the laws of your nation? Depending on viewpoint, one can see the same action as either tyranny or insurrection.

Even if it fizzles out, as I expect it will, I can see a bit of violence in Madrid's future. It's no surprise that Marylander John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln after what the Union did to Maryland.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you seen Russia's latest consumer export offering?

Self contained cruise missile launching system in a CONEX. They're ?10 millon per box of four missiles - and they don't really care about end user certificates.
Ok. Import it. Not a nation-state or a military organization, you an individual American consumer. The article mentions nations interested in it, which isn't what I was glad wasn't the norm, but John and Jane Richfucks who decide to buy one instead of whatever else rich people want to spend tens of millions on.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Ok. Import it. Not a nation-state or a military organization, you an individual American consumer. The article mentions nations interested in it, which isn't what I was glad wasn't the norm, but John and Jane Richfucks who decide to buy one instead of whatever else rich people want to spend tens of millions on.
Ah, but you can't import it to the US.

The issue here is that there are actual good reasons to have at least the anti-ship version of this system and put it on a privately owned container ship in self defense - piracy around Africa and Asia is definitely on the rise, so you might want one of these to protect your ship. (Which was the actual reason why the original American merchantmen were heavily armed in the first place - to see off African and Asian pirates.) But you'd have to store it in some third party nation any time you wanted to bring your ship home to the US and hope it didn't get stolen.
 
Last edited:
Top