1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

United States Gun Control: Gun Control = Fascism Everybody!

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Cipher, Dec 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    I remember some quote about the Japanese military considering and discarding sending any troops to the US to cause problems. The reason? The armed citizens.


    Unless they intend to just kill as many people as possible before dying themselves. Consider the Mumbai attack and the recent subway attack in China that used freaking knives to kill 30 and wound 100 or so people. I wonder why that type of attack hasn't happened in the US?

    Says the guy who links to TV tropes and references movies and TV shows almost all the time.
     
  2. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    I never heard of such a thing.

    Why? Because after it failed, we'd bomb their country back to the dark ages, their allies would desert them for violating every international law in the book, and their leaders would spend the rest of their natural lives in prison, cursing their folly for thinking invading the United States could even be considered a good idea.

    Those who weren't hanged by enraged surviving citizens who rebelled against them because of it, that is.

    This is America, not China. In this country, they'd never reach the subway.

    By the way, how do movies like Air Force One and others where terrorists do absurd things tend to end?
     
  3. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Terrorists wouldn't care about that. That's what the Mumbai group was and that is what the Chinese group was. Al Qaida is still around. Most terrorists would care only about the dead Americans.

    I seem to remember citizens around the world dancing in the streets when the WTC was attacked.

    And what exactly would stop them in the US that couldn't stop them in China?


    The same all good guy vs bad guy movies end. The bad guy inflicts massive casualties on the helpless, unarmed populace till the armed good guy kills him.
     
  4. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    Yup, Al Qaida is still around...

    ...with most of their leaders dead, no political power. Al Qaida once had about 1,000 members, (only around forty guys involved in 9/11) and today, Al-Qaeda proper consists of 300-500 guys holed up somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan living like animals, much like the Taliban, being hunted by our drones, and universally hated.

    And how are those nations doing compared to us? Bin Laden's attempt to cripple America failed miserably. In fact, the Twin Towers wasn't exactly the best choice of targets, if you ask me. It had symbolic value, but nothing else. If he had truly wanted to hurt America, well, to name just two targets in New York alone that he could have hit if he were smart, the Federal Reserve, and Wall Street.

    You see, LDS, there's a term called "terrorists without a cause", and these days, it tends to apply to ALL terrorists. (As terrorism expert Max Abrams points out. It's remarkably common for a terrorist group's policy demands to contradict each other, or to change suddenly for no apparent reason - in particular, if the group's demands are actually met, they almost never disband, but instead switch to a new issue that may be completely unrelated. In several cases, leaders of major terrorist organizations have been unable to explain exactly what they're fighting for when directly asked. So why do people join terrorist groups, if it's not really about the cause? Apparently because they're looking to make friends. No, really.

    I mean, what would happen if a country agreed to Al Qaida's terms? Then what?

    One could argue that the reason these groups are so wildly self-contradictory is because the leaders recruit people using little more than cultural prejudices and peer pressure to ensure that they'll be too fanatical to bother questioning their orders or listen to an outsider. End result: a handful of men can raise an army of servants ready to do whatever they're asked simply to fit in. It's like a grand, horrifying version of high school cliques.

    There's a whole lot of sociology of why terrorist groups get started, why people join them, why their goals change, and so on. It's complicated.

    Add in that's its a whole lot easier to blame and kill them than it is to actually run a country and keep your citizens from throwing you out. It's easier to divert their anger outward.

    Now compare this to the U.S. Armed Forces, who are well-organized, with leaders who cooperate and work together well, with solid goals and contingency plans in mind, with strategies written up and stored at the Pentagon for every possible scenario.


    As someone who lived in New York City, I know that a mass knifing on New York City Transit would be stopped before it could start.


    By the way, LDS, if you can name a situation where the real North Korea has managed to pull off something even close to the scenario in Red Dawn in recent history, I'll donate my life savings to Orly Taitz. In a fight between a unit of NK soldiers and a Girl Scout troop, my bets are on the Girl Scouts.
     
  5. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    And you can prove these claims?

    Don't bother.

    How? Give details.

    If this type of attack happened in the US, there is a great chance that one or more of the intended victims would pull out their gun and start shooting at the attackers.


    Would the Girl Scouts have guns? If not, the soldiers, who grown adults with weapons and some type of military training would win and considering how the NK treats women in their military? Well the outcome would be very bad for the Girl Scouts.
     
  6. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    Civilians packing guns in New York City?? Don't make me laugh! Not since Rudy cleaned the place up. He turned Times Square from a red light district to a kid-friendly tourist attraction, and brought crime down, and one way he did it was to get tough on gun control.

    Many New Yorkers say he did for New York what Bat Masterson did for Dodge City, and btw, I know he was a Republican. He was one of the select members of the GOP I found tolerable.


    Most soldiers do indeed have training and guns. NK soldiers... Let me give you a reality check and describe their army and what their facilities are like.

    They claim to have a huge army, but that's a technicality, because North Korean law says every citizen is in the army. They tell us their army is great, but it turns out a mix of starvation, an utter lack of training, no combat experience other than bayoneting the occasional concentration camp inmate, equipment that in some cases dates back to Cold War, and delusions of inherent superiority over the "spineless and impure yankees/southern traitors" leading to almost hilariously stupid levels of underestimating their opponents do not count for much in actual combat situations.

    Know how you become an officer in the NK army? Another officer tells you your an officer, and abracadabra, your an officer. That has led to a LOT of incompetent officers.

    Christopher Hitchens is quoted as saying, "The Korean People’s Army doesn’t look so frightening when you see it stripped to the waist and digging ditches with worn-out tools."

    They have no nuclear weapons or the ability to build them. That's a blatant lie. Kim Jong-Un claims that the KPA has enough artillery and rocketry aimed at Seoul to destroy the city in minutes, as well as superweapons that can "reduce the South to ashes." Whether he has enough fuel to move his artillery, the technology to guide (or even fire) his rockets or even one rivet of a so-called "superweapon" is doubtful.

    Their navy (if you can call it that) consists of about three diesel submarines, and while they do have a few helicopters, they can't even fly them except for the occasional times they get fuel as gifts from China.

    A trope of Girl Scouts wouldn't need guns. They could beat them with their fists.

    Edit: Here's an article that backs my claim on the decline of Al Qaida

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/05/al-qaida-anniversary-attacks-reduced
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2014
  7. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    There are civilians who legally own and carry guns in NYC.

    Rudy was just the most recent to address the crime in Times Square. A big part of his crime reduction was the stop, talk and frisk program in the high crime areas.

    Yeah. New Yorkers regularly compare politicians to lawman from the 1880s.

    He was also a Democrat and an Independent and as I've said repeatedly, his voting patterns reflect that.


    Yeah. You keep telling yourself that. Any reason why the South Koreans don't remove the threat from their northern border?

    Armed adult soldiers vs unarmed children. Honestly.....

    It doesn't back your claims of them hiding in caves with less 500 people. And it does state that they are still a threat, likely to get stronger and will still be here in 2017.
    A rebuttal
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/al-qaedas-till-a-major-league-threat-102564.html

    Back to Gun Control.

    Care to defend any of your claims? Need another list of them?
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2014
  8. Maedar

    Maedar Banned

    No. Once I type this message, you're going on my ignore list.

    Rudy Giuliani has been a registered Republican since 1980, for the past 34 years. He is known as a moderate Republican.

    Which staunch conservatives in the Tea Party like Cruz and Bachmann call "RINOs".

    They are fooling themselves, because people like Rudy are the true - and sane - Republicans. People like Cruz are practicing McCarthyism and have become demagogues.

    The blatant lies that Bachmann alone spouts could fill a book.

    I'm firmly convinced that you do not respect my opinion or the opinion of any Democrat at all, and will disagree with whatever I say, no matter what evidence I post. And because the mods won't punish you for calling me a bigot, and I can't block you from my PMs and other messages without blocking everyone except my contacts, this is the only way.
     
  9. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Can't defend your own claims so you are ignoring me? Great debating tactic!

    Who votes on certain issues in the same vein as Dems.

    Which he is.

    So you define what a Republican is? Big surprise there.


    You'd be right on that. Mainly because you don't defend your claims.

    I haven't spoken with all Dems so I wouldn't know.

    Except you rarely post evidence and then you ignore the things I post that refute what little evidence you do post.

    You admitted to being a bigot.

    I've PMed you 2 or 3 times, once per Moderator instructions. And only messaged you once that I recall.
     
  10. Peter Quill

    Peter Quill star-lord

    Congrats on being the equivalent of two man-children who can't even handle a discussion with each other.

    Much like the Obama thread, it seems that people in this forum can't handle gun control talks without resorting to petty arguments and the like. I'm tired of this thread, another mod has told me they don't want to look at this thread, I'm closing it. Congratulations Debate forum goers on getting yet another thread shut down! Next time either of you are involved in making a thread such a mess that I have to close it I'm requesting bans for the lot of you. This is getting ridiculous.

    also props to Maedar for apparently being clairvoyant and complaining that the mods don't punish people who disagree with him :rolleyes: (Hint: You can't see what we do behind the scenes so stop being so entitled about what you think we do or not).
     
    Maedar likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page