U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

justo_tx said:
Over the course of the Eastern Front of WW2 Russia fielded an army of 34 million soldiers. The entire population of Switzerland in 1950 (most recent numbers I could find) was 3.4 million. So you're saying Hitler was scared of Switzerland's "militia" (they probably could have fielded a force of about a mill at best if their pols wouldn't have surrendered first anyway) but was willing to take on an army of 4.5 million regulars + 29 million conscripts while simultaneously fighting Britian on the Western Front?

How much is whatever the fuck you're smoking?
Click to expand...

Im smoking my knowledge of history, sir.

I DO think the Nazis could have taken the Swiss, but what a pain in the ass it would have been. It was much easier for Hitler to let them be and use them for their banks then try to wage war with them, they would put up a hell of a fight.

Hitler attacking the soviets is a seriously complicated matter. I dont care to explain it and probably dont have enough knowledge too, but in short, it was all about politics and in the end Hitler betrayed Stalin. And they were able to kill so many of them, because well thats really the only thing the Soviets had going for them at that time, numbers. Im trying to find a quote from a German general that was something along the lines of "The Soviets are like ants, we just keep stepping on them and they just keep coming."
 


BlokBlok said:
Im smoking my knowledge of history, sir.

I DO think the Nazis could have taken the Swiss, but what a pain in the ass it would have been. It was much easier for Hitler to let them be and use them for their banks then try to wage war with them, they would put up a hell of a fight.
Click to expand...

It's all those other factors that go into the "pain in the ass quotient" that needed to be mentioned: Hitler had other ways around the Maginot line, the banks, the fact that the Swiss would sell them parts, high level Nazi sympathizers in the government, the eventual hope to assimilate the Germanic population, etc, etc, etc...

But when you phrase a statement like...

BlokBlok said:
"Why no one will ever invade Switzerland and why Hitler didnt in WWII"
Click to expand...

...to fit the narrative of the thread you latch onto correlation but ignore 90% of causation.
 
justo_tx said:
It's all those other factors that go into the "pain in the ass quotient" that needed to be mentioned: Hitler had other ways around the Maginot line, the banks, the fact that the Swiss would sell them parts, high level Nazi sympathizers in the government, the eventual hope to assimilate the Germanic population, etc, etc, etc...

But when you phrase a statement like...



...to fit the narrative of the thread you latch onto correlation but ignore 90% of causation.
Click to expand...

It stills plays back to my original point about the Swiss and guns. You are trying to argue to argue.
 
lukep said:
Yeah, he does that a bit. Don't worry, he tires out easily too. :D
Click to expand...

Nobody ever changes their opinions in STS regardless of topic, logic or lack there of. It just sometimes takes a few posts to remind myself of how little ROI there is in these discussions.
 
The UN is becoming more and more irrelevant to the US as each day passes. They're nothing but scandals and a waste of tax dollars. Iran is a clear example of how retarded the UN is. With that being said, there's no way their shitty ass laws would ever see the light of day within our country.
 
AllBizNiz said:
The UN is becoming more and more irrelevant to the US as each day passes. They're nothing but scandals and a waste of tax dollars. Iran is a clear example of how retarded the UN is. With that being said, there's no way their shitty ass laws would ever see the light of day within our country.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, I think we will see more and more localization in the world.
 
lukep said:
You're not doing it right then! ;P
Click to expand...

Come on, you know I'm right dude, you just got a hit off an easy pitch the other day by showing CotS to a 20 year old having an existential crisis so that don't count :D

I can't really recall anybody who has been here a while switch view points after arguing with another regular. Who knows, maybe it's just cause we keep seeing different variations on the same old shit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStratham
justo_tx said:
Come on, you know I'm right dude, you just got a hit off an easy pitch the other day by showing CotS to a 20 year old having an existential crisis so that don't count :D
Click to expand...
Actually he was like the 5th so far... But I know, I shouldn't take credit for CotS's hard work... It did the same to me! -It's pretty much unstoppable, especially in a community of smarter-than-average marketers.

justo_tx said:
I can't really recall anybody who has been here a while switch view points after arguing with another regular. Who knows, maybe it's just cause we keep seeing different variations on the same old shit.
Click to expand...
It's damn rare, I agree. But every once and a while something even better happens, like the time shady completely obliterated Hellblazer over the Julian Assange argument last year... I know he didn't change his tune or anything, but SO MANY people now know how wrong his point was. -I find that far more rewarding than a single "conversion" of viewpoints.

Anyway, keep in mind that this is a very public forum. Potentially thousands of people who don't have much knowledge of it one way or the other are viewing and will view each of these conversations in the future and learn about it from us who are 'bickering pointlessly' about it now... So it's not so much the person I argue against, it's the point... For the sake of anyone reading.

(Except when Hellblazer is involved. It's a principle thing with him.) ;)
 
lukep said:
Anyway, keep in mind that this is a very public forum. Potentially thousands of people who don't have much knowledge of it one way or the other are viewing and will view each of these conversations in the future and learn about it from us who are 'bickering pointlessly' about it now... So it's not so much the person I argue against, it's the point... For the sake of anyone reading.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I can agree with that... assuming future readers make it past all the dickrolls first :jester:
 
b_sun said:
If that's the actual music video for that song, "Megadeth" is pretty much biggest fail metal band of all time.
Click to expand...

Dave Mustaine is like a big Alex Jones guy now, so his views in that area might have changed a bit.

MEGADETH = WIN FOREVER

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d4ui9q7eDM]YouTube - ‪Megadeth - Holy Wars...The Punishment Due‬‏[/ame]
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnmatrix
amateursurgeon said:
I don't understand.... why is this such a big deal?
Click to expand...
It was enshrined in the Constitution as the right to protect all others...the tyranny prevention as Jake mentioned.

Of course, as lukep said, because such a large amount of firearms are available to whomever (in spite of existing regulations meant to prevent them being in criminal hands) they should be available to those who wish to protect themselves. As more regulations are piled on, prices of weapons and ammunition go up, and many people say screw it for all the hoops they have to jump through to be legal. Criminals carry without concern for all the rules. In addition, you have people who would rather see the criminal able to commit a crime freely, just so long as no one gets hurt. There is little disincentive for the criminal. Except that they might get shot by one of their victims, most criminals would only continue to get bolder.

GerardWon said:
the US military is now so far advanced, I mean there's no way any number of armed citizens could put up a fight in a no holds barred show down with our troops. I mean I ain't got no drones, no smart bombs, no F22's, I ain't even got one stinkin tank. Any of you guys holdin serious armament?
Click to expand...

This may or may not be the case. I feel pretty strongly that many military folk will not turn their weapons on their own. If forced to pick a side, they may join the "resistance" in which case, it's not an outside possibility that heavier armaments could be acquired. It's also a point, though, to reenforce the idea that larger or faster or scarier-looking guns "with no sporting purpose" should be protected just the same as Grandpa's shotgun.

Lord B said:
Not to rain down on your parade but it is a numbers game -- a policeman has to make that judgement every single day - probably multiple times a day.

An individual - once every few years? SO probably if the "citizen with gun" had to make that judgement call a few times every day, that statistic will be very different.
Click to expand...
Good point, but the civilian has a much simpler judgement to make in order to remain legal: "Is my life in danger?"

Also, police are almost always there AFTER the fact when the action has already happened and the dust has settled (or blood spilled). In addition, the US Supreme Court has ruled that police have no duty to protect individuals, contrary to what most people believe.

What's a law-abiding citizen to do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStratham
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom