Sensei's of the left

I’msorry if it sounded like I was suggesting that you would want to selectively arm minorities. I assure you I didn’t mean that and never thought that you would. My point was that the Jews were a minority group and that you wouldn’t advocate arming a minority group in your country. A good parallel to draw with the question of whether or not the German Jews should have been armed would be to perhaps suggest that the American Arabs shoiuld be armed. But above all, neither the Jews of Germany or the Arabs of America would stand in any better stead if they were armed. With all due respects to your opinion, I believe that this notion that the people need to be armed to protect themselves from their government is a bunch of baloney.

I’m afraid I don’t believe for a minute that arming the people is going to serve any purpose of defending themselves against their government. But if it did serve a purpose it would be to ensure that many people would die resisting the armed forces of the country in question, as opposed to someting that would resemble today’s peaceful protests. Indeed, protesters could be used as a good example of why those who oppose their governments should not own guns which they take to the streets to make their point.

For what is the government but a representative of the majority while a faction which would rise up against the government is always a minority. By definition.

Please don’t feel that you need to respond to my comments immediately. I’m not going anywhere for a while.

respectfully, CC.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:41, topic:6261”]
1.I’m sorry if it sounded like I was suggesting that you would want to selectively arm minorities. I assure you I didn’t mean that and never thought that you would. My point was that the Jews were a minority group and that you wouldn’t advocate arming a minority group in your country. A good parallel to draw with the question of whether or not the German Jews should have been armed would be to perhaps suggest that the American Arabs shoiuld be armed. But above all, neither the Jews of Germany or the Arabs of America would stand in any better stead if they were armed. With all due respects to your opinion, I believe that this notion that the people need to be armed to protect themselves from their government is a bunch of baloney.

2.I’m afraid I don’t believe for a minute that arming the people is going to serve any purpose of defending themselves against their government. But if it did serve a purpose it would be to ensure that many people would die resisting the armed forces of the country in question, as opposed to someting that would resemble today’s peaceful protests. Indeed, protesters could be used as a good example of why those who oppose their governments should not own guns which they take to the streets to make their point.

3.For what is the government but a representative of the majority while a faction which would rise up against the government is always a minority. By definition.

Please don’t feel that you need to respond to my comments immediately. I’m not going anywhere for a while.

respectfully, CC.
[/quote]1. I flatly disagree. Hitler knew he couldn’t oppress the Jews until he had disarmed them. I remember an excellent article (I think it was in the 1992 Guns and Ammo Annual) about the corralation between extensive gun gontrol and purges of the 20th Century. The author, by the way, was a member of Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership. I’d say that speaks on his opinion of gun ownership vs. Holocaust.
2. Countering governmental oppression has indeed worked in the past. Look at 1980s Afghanistan. The Afghan rebels played hell with not only their own government, but the Soviets as well. Yes, they got help from us later on in the form of man-portable arms, but that was after they’d already demonstrated their ability to be effective.

Also, particularly in the U.S., there would be another factor. People who often won’t take up a cause for the oppressed will do so when the oppressed are actively challenging their oppressors themselves. Particularly when it’s in their own backyard. The government would find itself in a very unpopular position. And if the oppression is directed at conservatives, the oppressed would find a lot of kindred spirits in the U.S. Armed Forces. At which point it becomes a whole new ballgame.

As long as we have the means to fight government oppression, we don’t need it. When we don’t have it, we do.

Here’s another tidbit for you. Why have the left been talking so much about “assault weapon” bans? By and large, they are *not *the weapon of choice for the criminal; handguns are. But combat rifles are indeed a good choice for resisting an oppressive government. Please give that some thought.

Well I would say that it speaks for his opinion on gun ownership and he is trying to justify it by dredging up a bad example in history to reinforce his pro-gun ideas. In my opinion these kind of people are extremists and they aren’t the kind of people who wuould be in favour of sensible limitations on gun use. These are the kind of people who would advocate no limitations at all and that is not you. You understand that sensible limitations are necessary and in fact we have come to agreement on that. But I wandered a little in addressing your point. The point you were trying to make is that the Jews needed to be disarmed before Hitler could act against them and that is simply not the case. There is plenty of history to rely upon which says that the Jews lined up and went willingly. There is also plenty of history that tells us that very few Jews resisted with guns and in fact very few Jews joined resistance movements. However I would be interested in hearing otherwise with some references if you don’t agree.

  1. Countering governmental oppression has indeed worked in the past. Look at 1980s Afghanistan. The Afghan rebels played hell with not only their own government, but the Soviets as well. Yes, they got help from us later on in the form of man-portable arms, but that was after they’d already demonstrated their ability to be effective.

I just don’t understand why you believe that example strengthens your claim. You will recall that the Soviets were an occupier. If your country was defeated in war and was occupied by a foreign entity then I would grant you that more people being armed would aid in fighting the occupation forces. But that’s not the claim you are making here.

Also, particularly in the U.S., there would be another factor. People who often won’t take up a cause for the oppressed will do so when the oppressed are actively challenging their oppressors themselves. Particularly when it’s in their own backyard. The government would find itself in a very unpopular position. And if the oppression is directed at conservatives, the oppressed would find a lot of kindred spirits in the U.S. Armed Forces. At which point it becomes a whole new ballgame.

As long as we have the means to fight government oppression, we don’t need it. When we don’t have it, we do.

Here’s another tidbit for you. Why have the left been talking so much about “assault weapon” bans? By and large, they are *not *the weapon of choice for the criminal; handguns are. But combat rifles are indeed a good choice for resisting an oppressive government. Please give that some thought.

Coups against governments do take place but coups and revolutions take place in countries where the people are seriously repressed. Not in first world countries such as yours. If you want to argue the point on behalf of the oppressed then you are arguing from a positioin on the left IMO. Do you want to surmise that the left will rise up and overthrow the government with their shotguns? Even though times are tough in your country and the lower and middle classes are somewhat oppressed, the pendulum has now swung and that always happens in first world countries.

I think it’s a huge stretch to think that the reason why some people are asking to control automatic weapons is because the government wants to take the initiative and ensure that it won’t be overthrown in a coup. I think it’s pretty obvious from a sensible view, and yours too, that your 2nd. amendment didn’t intend for people to be able to drive up to the Whitehouse with a hand fired rocket launcher in a pickup truck. I think it’s quite sensible to limit weapons to non-fully automatic weapons. I would also control handgun ownership and use too but that’s from a Canadian pov.

Simply stated, I believe this is a red herring that is being used by the gun lobby which is controlled by extremists.

respectfully, CC.

Jewish Task Force (JTF.ORG): Why Jews Must Oppose Gun Control

But many European Jews were horrified with the notion of Jews bearing arms. So European Jews remained unarmed and defenseless, and when the Germans and the many other European Jew-killers came to murder them in the Holocaust, the Jews were easy targets as usual.

In pre-Hitler Weimar Germany, the Jews frantically pushed for strict gun control legislation.

My point in posting this is to illustrate what actually did happen, not what supposedly could have happened if the Jews had been well armed. This is to reinforce my point that the Jews went willingly.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:43, topic:6261”]
1.Well I would say that it speaks for his opinion on gun ownership and he is trying to justify it by dredging up a bad example in history to reinforce his pro-gun ideas. In my opinion these kind of people are extremists and they aren’t the kind of people who wuould be in favour of sensible limitations on gun use. These are the kind of people who would advocate no limitations at all and that is not you. You understand that sensible limitations are necessary and in fact we have come to agreement on that. But I wandered a little in addressing your point. The point you were trying to make is that the Jews needed to be disarmed before Hitler could act against them and that is simply not the case. There is plenty of history to rely upon which says that the Jews lined up and went willingly. There is also plenty of history that tells us that very few Jews resisted with guns and in fact very few Jews joined resistance movements. However I would be interested in hearing otherwise with some references if you don’t agree.

2.I just don’t understand why you believe that example strengthens your claim. You will recall that the Soviets were an occupier. If your country was defeated in war and was occupied by a foreign entity then I would grant you that more people being armed would aid in fighting the occupation forces. But that’s not the claim you are making here.
[/quote]1. Hardly. History handed him multiple examples, and he didn’t even cite the Mao purges. No matter whether they were disarmed or foolish enough to believe that gun control would benefit them, the bottom line is that they were largely unarmed, and were slaughtered.
2. I would point out that the reason the Soviets were there was because the rebels were already playing hell with their own Afghan government.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:43, topic:6261”]
3.Coups against governments do take place but coups and revolutions take place in countries where the people are seriously repressed. Not in first world countries such as yours. If you want to argue the point on behalf of the oppressed then you are arguing from a positioin on the left IMO. Do you want to surmise that the left will rise up and overthrow the government with their shotguns? Even though times are tough in your country and the lower and middle classes are somewhat oppressed, the pendulum has now swung and that always happens in first world countries.

4.I think it’s a huge stretch to think that the reason why some people are asking to control automatic weapons is because the government wants to take the initiative and ensure that it won’t be overthrown in a coup. I think it’s pretty obvious from a sensible view, and yours too, that your 2nd. amendment didn’t intend for people to be able to drive up to the Whitehouse with a hand fired rocket launcher in a pickup truck. I think it’s quite sensible to limit weapons to non-fully automatic weapons. I would also control handgun ownership and use too but that’s from a Canadian pov.

Simply stated, I believe this is a red herring that is being used by the gun lobby which is controlled by extremists.

respectfully, CC.
[/quote]3. You think the U.S. can’t (and isn’t) deteriorating into an oppressive country? All the time, we get more and more laws piled on that restrict what we’re allowed to do. Only a fraction are overturned. Our form of government is good at slowing the deterioration, but if you think it can’t happen here, then I’m sorry, but you’re foolish. *Nothing *is immune to change, including the very existance of the U.S. I don’t say that we’re going to hell in a hand basket a week from Tuesday or in X number of years or whatever, but to believe that it can’t and won’t happen is foolish complacency. Pendulems do break.
4. I wasn’t stating this as a definite thing. But I certainly take the possibility seriously. Democrat politicians have consistantly pushed for all kinds of gun restrictions (while their own bodyguards pack full auto). The U.S. Bill of Right was based (indirectly, via the Virginia Bill of Rights) on the English Bill of Rights. Every article in the English Bill of Rights was there to address abuses of power by the government that had already been committed. I wish more people knew/remembered that.

Well there is a difference. But I’m sure they would have been slaughtered all the same if they were armed. In fact some sources tell us tht most people who are killed with guns in home invasions are killed when they have their own guns and try to use them. That’s something you may be interested in discussing? Do you really imagine that the Jews could have fought back? I think they would have signed their death warrants more quickly if they did try to fight back when the Germans came to get them. Would you fight back with your guns if the police came for you?

  1. I would point out that the reason the Soviets were there was because the rebels were already playing hell with their own Afghan government.

Rather than disagree any further on that issue I’ll just say that you are partially right but not entirely. I think the Afghanistan example is not going to advance this discussion but if you have more points to make which relate to gun ownership then I am happy to listen.

  1. You think the U.S. can’t (and isn’t) deteriorating into an oppressive country? All the time, we get more and more laws piled on that restrict what we’re allowed to do. Only a fraction are overturned. Our form of government is good at slowing the deterioration, but if you think it can’t happen here, then I’m sorry, but you’re foolish. *Nothing *is immune to change, including the very existance of the U.S. I don’t say that we’re going to hell in a hand basket a week from Tuesday or in X number of years or whatever, but to believe that it can’t and won’t happen is foolish complacency. Pendulems do break.

Im fairly in tune with what’s happening in the US now because I visit quite frequently. I’m within a few miles of the border. I"m also very aware of the oppressive nature of the police in San Diego because I travelled down the coast on my boat a few years ago. Yes, very oppressive in some ways and there were signs everywhere in San Diego warning of $5000 for the slightest of municipal bylaw infractions. Newport beach was nearly unbearable but that’s a differnt subject. But overall, I see Canada resembling your country more than any other country in many ways. I will just say that I don’t consider myself foolish and I still don’t believe that the threat of the US government turning on it’s people. That is, to the extent where the people would need guns to protect themselves from the government.

  1. I wasn’t stating this as a definite thing. But I certainly take the possibility seriously. Democrat politicians have consistantly pushed for all kinds of gun restrictions (while their own bodyguards pack full auto). The U.S. Bill of Right was based (indirectly, via the Virginia Bill of Rights) on the English Bill of Rights. Every article in the English Bill of Rights was there to address abuses of power by the government that had already been committed. I wish more people knew/remembered that.

And I wasn’t attempting to hang you out to dry on this issue. I just respectfully disagree with what you are relating to me as your imagining what could happen if the populace isn’t armed. And for what it’s worth, I don’t see full automatic weapons in the hands of the police as a bad thing. In fact I would definitley advocate that the police be armed to the teeth with the latest in weaponry to enable them to conclusively outgun groups that threaten the peace. I have confidence in the Mounties but I understand that you may not have the same confidence in your police forces.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:46, topic:6261”]
Well there is a difference. But I’m sure they would have been slaughtered all the same if they were armed. In fact some sources tell us tht most people who are killed with guns in home invasions are killed when they have their own guns and try to use them. That’s something you may be interested in discussing? Do you really imagine that the Jews could have fought back? I think they would have signed their death warrants more quickly if they did try to fight back when the Germans came to get them. Would you fight back with your guns if the police came for you?

Rather than disagree any further on that issue I’ll just say that you are partially right but not entirely. I think the Afghanistan example is not going to advance this discussion but if you have more points to make which relate to gun ownership then I am happy to listen.

Im fairly in tune with what’s happening in the US now because I visit quite frequently. I’m within a few miles of the border. I"m also very aware of the oppressive nature of the police in San Diego because I travelled down the coast on my boat a few years ago. Yes, very oppressive in some ways and there were signs everywhere in San Diego warning of $5000 for the slightest of municipal bylaw infractions. Newport beach was nearly unbearable but that’s a differnt subject. But overall, I see Canada resembling your country more than any other country in many ways. I will just say that I don’t consider myself foolish and I still don’t believe that the threat of the US government turning on it’s people. That is, to the extent where the people would need guns to protect themselves from the government.

And I wasn’t attempting to hang you out to dry on this issue. I just respectfully disagree with what you are relating to me as your imagining what could happen if the populace isn’t armed. And for what it’s worth, I don’t see full automatic weapons in the hands of the police as a bad thing. In fact I would definitley advocate that the police be armed to the teeth with the latest in weaponry to enable them to conclusively outgun groups that threaten the peace. I have confidence in the Mounties but I understand that you may not have the same confidence in your police forces.
[/quote]I don’t think there’s anything more I can say. I could respect disagreement on the liklihood of all hell breaking loose here, but to say it can’t happen, or that the arming of the Jews wouldn’t have made any difference? That is totally alien to me.

By the way, I don’t have a real problem with a well-armed police. It’s a systematically disarmed U.S. that I have a problem with, and that has been an often-stated (carelessly or semi-covertly) goal of a number of leftists in power.

Can you give me examples of some of the leftists in power who have stated that their goal is to disarm the US? I’m certainly aware of some leaders who have made it quite clear that they want to control the public’s possession of certain weapons such as automatic weapons but I’ve never heard any leftist or rightist in power state that they are attempting to disarm the US.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:48, topic:6261”]
Can you give me examples of some of the leftists in power who have stated that their goal is to disarm the US? I’m certainly aware of some leaders who have made it quite clear that they want to control the public’s possession of certain weapons such as automatic weapons but I’ve never heard any leftist or rightist in power state that they are attempting to disarm the US.
[/quote]I’ve seen a number that I don’t remember the specifics of or have sources for at my finger tips. One that I remember clearly was when an N.R.A. representitive spoke with then-Senator Howard Metzenbaum in the early '90s, he tried to look for common ground on legislation that would address crime without gun control. Metzenbaum’s response (word for word or damn near): “No, this isn’t about controlling crime, it’s about banning assault rifles and semiautomatic guns.” Around the same time, Sarah Brady said something specific about needing to “disarm those who oppose us.” And she was referring to guns.

YOur examples talk about automatic or semi-automatic weapons and not about disarming America. I think that we have already agreed on some sensible measures which should be taken. Are you not with me on automatic weapons?

I would still be interested in any examples which can verify what you have said about people in power wanting to disarm America. Actually I don’t even know of anybody in Canada who would want to go that far.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:50, topic:6261”]
1.YOur examples talk about automatic or semi-automatic weapons and not about disarming America. 2.I think that we have already agreed on some sensible measures which should be taken. Are you not with me on automatic weapons?
[/quote]1. No, just the most effective weapons readily available to the average citizen.
2. I kind of sit on the fence on full auto. We have a system whereby the prospective buyer has to pay $200 (last I heard) for an FBI background check (more extensive than the instant checks used for lesser firearms). I think I’d like to see that moved from the Federal level to the State level, albeit using a Federal database. And I’d like to see the resumption of sales of new full-auto weapons to civilians (through the background check).

Yes, I understand where you’re coming from on fed vs. state but I don’t want to get into that right now. It’s Americans’ choice. But does this mean that you’re stepping back from your claim that there are some leftists or rightists in power who have said that they want to totally disarm the US.

With all due respects to your opinion on guns and gun ownership, I thought that was a little over the top. I think that kind of rhetoric prevents your country from even beginning to find a common ground. Then of course on the other hand you may not think that any common ground needs to be found. I do and I think that maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I’m quite happy with the status quo in Canada and I’ll fight any move by the pro-gunners to change it. I hope you are happy with what you have in your country too.

I was addressing what I directly quoted, it’s my posting style. When I post, I do post thinking all sides realize generalizations have their exceptions. I think it’s unintelligent discourse to talk about exceptions to the rule.

I understand that is close to ‘as written’ in your Second amendment but I would just add that it is sensible to me to search for a proper clarification of it’s meaning and intent.

Sensible or not, I did examplify a clarity on the definition, even if my own clarification on the issue at hand.

I would refer back to our conversation on transporting a shoulder fired rocket launcher in a pickup truck to the gates of the Whitehouse. All sorts of silly examples can be imagined but when some cowboy decides to be silly then it’s probably time to try to come to an interpretation of what your Second amendment was intended to mean.

You’re certainly right that all sorts of silly examples could be applied, but I do only deal with realistic scenarios. Perhaps with you being a Canadian, you don’t realize how protected the White House is. I find it to be utterly unrealistic someone is going to even get a rocket launcher near the White House unless there’s some government conspiracy. Now, a nuclear bomb would be another issue, or even a dirty bomb; as both could be very easily disguised for something else (re: nuclear suitcase). For a realistic example, a year or two ago, a private airplane almost got shot down by 2x F-16s for flying too close to the White House.

I can’t agree with you on people becoming wild animals, although I recognize that you have expressed yourself rhetorically and that rhetoric is an expression of your anger.

Such rhetoric is not an expression of anger, but one of cold logic. Anger can never be expressed through rhetoric, but through actions and actions alone.

I would however disagree with the disenfranchizement of individuals for any reason and would be prepared to express my views on that issue in an appropriate place and time. Being new to this forum I won’t take the liberty of straying off topic too much at this time with you by elaborating on that issue.

Then create a new topic, I’m not exactly a veteran here myself.

The question at issue for me and as I have expressed with Fantasy, is that granting too many special liberties to some can take away liberties of others.

While true, and I won’t deny that. But the same is true of free speech and the essential unalienable liberties our forefathers gave us…

I think we also need to take into consideration that equality and fraternity need to be considered more relevant in your country. I believe the balance has been lost somehow.

I find the balance still exists, and I think there’s plenty of proof of that in the current transition between president Bush and president-elect Obama. That coming from someone that will never accept Obama as president.

???

I guess you know nothing about political realignments? PM me later then.

Those comments lead me to thinking that you are saying that your government would coerce your people into becoming sympathetic to the government’s cause and then when they are sympathetic the people would hand over their guns. That’s the only interpretation of what you say that I can imagine at the moment. This really does seem to negate the nedd for a gun doesn’t it? Perhaps you can explain further what you imagine happening? Can you present a scenario where your government would attempt to ‘skin the cat’ in another way?

I am saying that’s a valid scenario. But what you’re not seeing is that would be a violation of Individual liberty. You yourself in this quote used the keyword, coerce. So long as people value liberty and, ultimately, their labor (in other words, think for themselves), Marxism simply is not possible for full implementation without tyranny (which Marxists argue themselves is what becomes Communism).

Comment above well taken but I don’t see how it is relevant to the question until you lay out the scenario you imagine happening.

Marxism met America with Woodrow Wilson, then laid eggs with FDR as president. Right now, Marxism is still waging war against America. But most of Europe and South America have become or are closely becoming Marxist. Often times the people cannot defend themselves, so they’re forced into giving their labor to the “common good” of their country. Meanwhile, here in America there’s still tons of resistance precisely because they (the Marxists) know Americans are too Individualistic still. Furthermore, if they were to go to war against America they know they’d lose. So, how else are they supposed to make America a socialist nation? Gain sympathy through the public. Without a gun, there’s absolutely no way to defend yourself against a government or a mob for that matter…

I would have to respectfully disagree with that notion. Suffice to say that we all fought them over there so we didn’t need to fight them over here. Neither Canadians nor Americans being armed was a factor in the outcome of the war or the method in which the war was fought and won.

It isn’t my notion, it was a Japanese military notion upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, as far as I can recall some generals even noted that “America, not Japan, is the one true dragon.” I know another referred to America’s power as “a grizzly bear raged upon learning about the murderer of her cubs.”

You’re right that we fought them over there, but because they didn’t attack us earlier I think. They didn’t want to go to war with America in the first place, probably because many Japanese did fear America’s power. But they thought by bombing Pearl Harbor they would keep us from going to war. (I know that many think it was because of the oil embargos FDR had placed earlier…)

[Also, they had no plans to invading us. The Japanese military were a force to be reckoned with, not because of their strength, but because of they knew how to manage a war. They knew, unlike Hitler, that you cannot fight a war on multiple fronts and expect to win without a high cost of casualties. But we all know why they lost, America played Japan’s own game of deception even better than they could. Perhaps that’s why America is the great dragon.]

Thank you for your comments. respectfully, CC.

nod

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:52, topic:6261”]
Yes, I understand where you’re coming from on fed vs. state but I don’t want to get into that right now. It’s Americans’ choice. But does this mean that you’re stepping back from your claim that there are some leftists or rightists in power who have said that they want to totally disarm the US.

With all due respects to your opinion on guns and gun ownership, I thought that was a little over the top. I think that kind of rhetoric prevents your country from even beginning to find a common ground. Then of course on the other hand you may not think that any common ground needs to be found. I do and I think that maybe we should just agree to disagree.

I’m quite happy with the status quo in Canada and I’ll fight any move by the pro-gunners to change it. I hope you are happy with what you have in your country too.
[/quote]I’m not stepping back from that claim. I’ve already cited what I could clearly remember about it, although I have definitely heard it more than those two examples. I’m not a professional political scholar, so I don’t keep track of where I read/watched/heard everything that I’ve heard of a political nature, even on subjects near and dear to my heart. Thus, I can’t “prove” it to you. But I stand by it.

You’re certainly right that all sorts of silly examples could be applied, but I do only deal with realistic scenarios. Perhaps with you being a Canadian, you don’t realize how protected the White House is. I find it to be utterly unrealistic someone is going to even get a rocket launcher near the White House unless there’s some government conspiracy. Now, a nuclear bomb would be another issue, or even a dirty bomb; as both could be very easily disguised for something else (re: nuclear suitcase). For a realistic example, a year or two ago, a private airplane almost got shot down by 2x F-16s for flying too close to the White House.

Try to keep in mind what we were talking about. Limitations on certain weapons, not airplanes or nuclear weapons or how protected the Whitehouse is.

Such rhetoric is not an expression of anger, but one of cold logic. Anger can never be expressed through rhetoric, but through actions and actions alone.

It’s still rhetoric when people are compared to wild animals.

I find the balance still exists, and I think there’s plenty of proof of that in the current transition between president Bush and president-elect Obama. That coming from someone that will never accept Obama as president.

I don’t quite get how you think that meeting has something to do with equality and fraternity

I am saying that’s a valid scenario. But what you’re not seeing is that would be a violation of Individual liberty. You yourself in this quote used the keyword, coerce. So long as people value liberty and, ultimately, their labor (in other words, think for themselves), Marxism simply is not possible for full implementation without tyranny (which Marxists argue themselves is what becomes Communism).

I think we were originally talking about people handing over their guns to the government which was Fantasy’s idea and I said that would negate the need for guns.??

Marxism met America with Woodrow Wilson, then laid eggs with FDR as president. Right now, Marxism is still waging war against America. But most of Europe and South America have become or are closely becoming Marxist. Often times the people cannot defend themselves, so they’re forced into giving their labor to the “common good” of their country. Meanwhile, here in America there’s still tons of resistance precisely because they (the Marxists) know Americans are too Individualistic still. Furthermore, if they were to go to war against America they know they’d lose. So, how else are they supposed to make America a socialist nation? Gain sympathy through the public. Without a gun, there’s absolutely no way to defend yourself against a government or a mob for that matter…

I really do think that’s all imagined. With all due respects. Expand on it if you like with some kind of evidence and maybe also tell me who you think the Marxists are.

It isn’t my notion, it was a Japanese military notion upon the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, as far as I can recall some generals even noted that “America, not Japan, is the one true dragon.” I know another referred to America’s power as “a grizzly bear raged upon learning about the murderer of her cubs.”

I think we were talking about Japan not invading America and the fact that Americans had lots of guns was not the reason…

You’re right that we fought them over there, but because they didn’t attack us earlier I think. They didn’t want to go to war with America in the first place, probably because many Japanese did fear America’s power. But they thought by bombing Pearl Harbor they would keep us from going to war. (I know that many think it was because of the oil embargos FDR had placed earlier…)

Also, they had no plans to invading us. The Japanese military were a force to be reckoned with, not because of their strength, but because of they knew how to manage a war. They knew, unlike Hitler, that you cannot fight a war on multiple fronts and expect to win without a high cost of casualties. But we all know why they lost, America played Japan’s own game of deception even better than they could. Perhaps that’s why America is the great dragon.[

…which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I don’t believe that you have furnished any evidence to back up your cliaim that: there are some leftists or rightists in power who have said that they want to totally disarm the US.

**I’m just asking you to back that up with some evidence and I don’t think you should make statements which you are not prepared to back up. We can leave it at that if you prefer. **

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:56, topic:6261”]
1.I don’t believe that you have furnished any evidence to back up your cliaim that: there are some leftists or rightists in power who have said that they want to totally disarm the US.

2.** I’m just asking you to back that up with some evidence and I don’t think you should make statements which you are not prepared to back up. We can leave it at that if you prefer. **
[/quote]1. I already told you in the first place that I didn’t have specific sources handy to quote:

  1. I don’t care what you think I should say. I’m a witness to what I read. I’m not making it up, and I’m not going to refrain from saying it just because I can’t prove to your satisfaction that I’m not a liar.

Fine, If you can’t prove what you say that’s just fine. Controlling semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons or automatic weapons is a far cry from disarming America which you originally claimed.

I knew all along it wasn’t a true story so why did you say it if you couldn’t even remember the facts?

Sheeeeeeeesh! And yoiu complain about my behaviour here! I think you have just lived up to your name in high fashion.

[quote=“Canadian_capitalist, post:58, topic:6261”]
Fine, If you can’t prove what you say that’s just fine. Controlling semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons or automatic weapons is a far cry from disarming America which you originally claimed.

I knew all along it wasn’t a true story so why did you say it if you couldn’t even remember the facts?

Sheeeeeeeesh! And yoiu complain about my behaviour here! I think you have just lived up to your name in high fashion.
[/quote]Excuse you, but I read what I read, and it said what I told you it said. Easy to call someone a liar on the internet, isn’t it, dumbass…

Oh, and I didn’t really complain about your behavior- untill now. And you’ve proven yourself a liar and a hypocrite. In many of your posts you claim to give respect, but you just called me a liar (based on an absence of evidence, rather than presence of evidence to the contrary), and mocked my screen name. Kiss off.

I did keep in mind what we’re talking about, you mentioned a cowboy flying down to the White House as evidence to support your argument. I simply refuted that, plain and simple.

It’s still rhetoric when people are compared to wild animals.

I clearly defined why they were compared to wild animals, and what makes “rhetoric” such a dirty word? Perhaps you should look at yourself some.

I don’t quite get how you think that meeting has something to do with equality and fraternity

It has everything to do with your statement that YOU, a Canadian, thinks equality should be more relevant to America. In spite of the fact that America just elected a black/Arabic man.

I think we were originally talking about people handing over their guns to the government which was Fantasy’s idea and I said that would negate the need for guns.??

You’re not getting it, obviously…

I really do think that’s all imagined. With all due respects. Expand on it if you like with some kind of evidence and maybe also tell me who you think the Marxists are.

Woodrow Wilson illegally ratified the 18th amendment (edited). Federal D. Roosevelt created a system that would coerce people into paying into a system for future “benefits” and started involving the government into private affairs. Jimmy Carter used a windfall tax against the oil companies (which proved the biggest historical mistake of any administration to date). Bill Clinton increased taxes on the top wealthy. Bush Jr. gave bailouts to numerous companies without the slightest bit of security (the people getting any money back) after 9/11, and should I have to remind you of the recent bailout-I’ll knock your head out. All of these were ways for the gov’t to spread wealth around. Perhaps you should read from Karl Marx himself, cause even he noted that it was nigh impossible to create his ideal world without some form of brainwashing (Socialism) or violent revolution (Communism).

I think we were talking about Japan not invading America and the fact that Americans had lots of guns was not the reason…

…which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I’m saying that there were multiple reasons, but the two biggest reasons were that Americans clinging to their guns and a multi-front war. I was giving you a tip, though.