Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:54:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1668 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > What about the native americans, were they not armed?
They were. And in general, one injun vs. one settler and I'd bet on the injun.
The problem is that they were locally massively outnumbered. (And not
organized on the larger scale, of course.)
> > As time wore on, they began to depend on European lifestlyes,
This is the traditional way that Britain destroyed indiginous populations the
world over. I read once that Kenyans started committing suicide only after the
colonial Brits introduced currency and made many populations of happy people
broke. Virtually every place that Great Brittain stole from the aboriginal
peoples, they destroyed them economically. (I'm sure if I'm wrong or
overgeneralizing, Lindsay can pop in to smack me around.)
> > The bows were larely useless over large distances, which the
> > guns had no problem with.
Bows had the advantage of silence and ease of manufacture. It just wasn't
enough.
> So the oppressors had better weapons? Hmm, does your big bad government not
> have better weapons also?
That's the whole point of my participation in debates on the second. They
aren't supposed to! The common man and the regular soldier are supposed to be
equally well armed. (Except of course, for the fact that we aren't supposed to
have regular soldiers.)
> > I can't believe you insinuated that the Native Americans had an equal chance
> > just because they had a few rifles and bows.
>
> They were armed. It is you who think that arms can protect you against a
> well trained force - I'm not so sure.
The difference is that in any plausible (which I know is the point of
contention) revolutionary scenario, The People would not be outnumbered by the
villains. The Native Americans were.
> You mean France? They are welcome to invade, I love their cuisine. But it is
> just not going to happen. If I were a paranoid fantasist I might worry about
> it. But I am not, so I don’t. How about you?
Because it was so long ago that one European powerhouse invaded another?
> > Protests will not falter the U.S. govenment.
>
> That is your problem. I suppose partly a product of the fixed term presidency?
I think partly.
> > Ironicly, I find that more
> > preferable to your "we will give up if they protest" type of government.
>
> Why? Your government should serve you. If they don't, send them packing.
Well, with that I hope we all agree.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) The advantage of having a regular army have been proved in WW2. Otherwise, how could Britain have resisted? In comparison, the US took a lot of time to turn the tides of war, and I'd bet a considerable amount of time between Dec '41 and '43 (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) …sounds like globalisation to me? ;) (...) Orginisation is also a factor. (...) I think the last people to invade the UK were the Vikings. But Scotalnd has been invaded a few times since then. But then so has England. ;) Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) So the oppressors had better weapons? Hmm, does your big bad government not have better weapons also? (...) They were armed. It is you who think that arms can protect you against a well trained force - I'm not so sure. (...) You mean France? (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
