It only took a war to get that amendment in the constitution. To take out a "right" that was not in the constitution. So what will it take to make your pipe-dream come true?
Ban every gun
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
M
Magister Moonie
haha, WOAH.
this is such a dumb fucking argument. there are literally amendments to the constitution to change things that are in the constitution that the majority of the country deems necessary
GasBandit
Staff member
Hate to break it to you, but you're not in the majority. Not even close.
So? He didn't say he demanded it be changed now. SPS is trying to make the argument that this consitutional right can't be changed with anything short of a war. That's bullcrap. Obviously, for it to be changed in the constitution, a majority of the political caste would have to see profit in it....I mean, a majority of the population would have to believe this *cough*. CDS is still entitled to his opinion that guns should be banned anywhere everywhere forever (yet again hyperbole!), and he's perfectly within his rights to try and pus this agenda, just as gun nuts are perfectly within their rights to push their agenda. SPS seems to be trying to convince CDS that his opinion is not only wrong, but that he is somehow wrong for advocating his view on the matter. in fact, he's trying to get "the other side" to shut up - he's tring to kill off the vocal opposition - he's trying to rerstrict CDS's freedom of opinion and/or speech. You think everyone's entitled to being wrong and stupid; SPS seems to want to try to either convince people, or if this doesn't work, stop them from arguing against him.
oh, I know there's no chance of any referendum of gun outlawing passing like. probably any district south of the mason dixon line. Maybe not even any districts in America.
In spite of all these mass murder shooting events, I highly doubt there will be one iota of gun control legislation passed nationally in the next 5-10 years.
In spite of all these mass murder shooting events, I highly doubt there will be one iota of gun control legislation passed nationally in the next 5-10 years.
Not while gun lobbies exist.
GasBandit
Staff member
Why should there be any passed? There are already plenty of laws on the books that govern gun ownership and availability. Enforcement of those laws is the issue, and honestly if we can't get the AG of the country to own up to something that his department did what hope do we have for the rest of the system that takes their lead from him.
I wonder why they did not add even more time to that map. It only has 30 years of shootings on it. Why not go all the way back to the 20's. There were a shit-ton of mass killings then.
They probably would have run out of space on the map
There was a really good discussion on this on MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) and this was kind of the consensus, even among the more liberal folks, that there was a real issue with current laws not being enforced properly. Fun thing they brought up: Obama and the NRA have the EXACT same position on gun control not that you will ever hear the NRA say it.
Not only are you not going to hear the NRA say that they have the same policy, but the NRA will/does lie about Obama's position.
I just wish the NRA would quit being so partisan.
I just wish the NRA would quit being so partisan.
The fear of losing your guns to the democrats brings in too much money.
WW1 you got a good argument for USA being the most important factor in the Allies winning (not the only, just the most important). WW2 Russia's got a lock on that - 9 out of 10 Germans were killed on the Eastern Front.
Yeah you got a man on the moon, but is Neil Armstrong really more important than Yuri Gagarin?
Leading cultural force means what exactly? Do you mean in the sense of people from other countries consuming your media? Because I'm not sure that would count. Yeah in the Western world (particularly the part of it that speaks English) American produced movies & TV shows do sell more than Non-American. Although that's arguably more supply than demand. Outside that though, in Asia, or India is that still the case? How many people worldwide see the average Bollywood movie compared to the average Hollywood movie?
Or are you basing cultural force on McDonalds & Starbucks? In which case I'll ask if you know what civilized means.
You can't really give the Soviet Union's Red Army credit for it being fucking cold in Russia.
You need to check to see how many Germans died from our air raids.
Bollywood is not setting the world afire. Not many people watch those films outside the domestic market. So it is not a force of worldwide culture. They get a lot of eyeballs on their films but not over all the continents.
Everyone wants to eat American food, deal with it.
You need to check to see how many Germans died from our air raids.
Bollywood is not setting the world afire. Not many people watch those films outside the domestic market. So it is not a force of worldwide culture. They get a lot of eyeballs on their films but not over all the continents.
Everyone wants to eat American food, deal with it.
As a Belgian, I'd argue both the Beglian and the French army played as much a role in WWI as the American army. By the time the US finally came in, Germany was already having more and more trouble keeping up with the Belgian-French-Canadian-Congolese-Italian (amonst others) armies against them. The US definitely helped the Allies to finish the war more quickly...but the Allies would've won without the US, too.
Comparatively, we'd probably have lost WWII without the US, or the USSR.
But if the war continued much longer after our entry, we probably could have fielded as many soldiers as the Allies had at that point.
Our entry was just the tipping point.
Our entry was just the tipping point.
Necronic
Staff member
US had almost zero affect on WW1. The largest contributing factor in WW2 was probably the Soviet Union, but the US was a close second (or possibly tied for 1st since we weren't defending our own land), but it's undeniable that when we're talking about the Cold War that dominated the next 50 years, USA was #1 100% of the time.
Maybe not but my point is that America was not the major factor in the defeat of the Nazi's. That was Germany invading Russia.
Sooo, whoever kills the most civilians wins? That's your argument? You might have had a point if you'd argued that those air raids took out Germany's manufacturing capabilities. That didn't have the same effect as all those dead soldiers - doesn't matter how many guns, tanks & bullets you've got if there isn't anyone to use them, but at least you'd have had a semi valid argument.
I can't breathe, the air is too thick with American Exceptionalism
Bullshit. Germany had WON on the eastern front (The newly-in soviets gave them a ton of land to get peace), and there was a MASSIVE change in the lines (in Germany's favor) on the western front prior to the USA coming in to it. I don't remember a lot of WWI history, but I remember how the lines were basically static for 3 years, and then all the german soldiers from the eastern front transferred west... and were overrunning the everybody everywhere. And then the USA came in and it pushed back massively again, but in our favor this time.
GasBandit
Staff member
STFU Charlie
Necronic
Staff member
I take exception to your acception of exceptionalits
Killing their civilians took the tanks, bullets and guns away from the German Army. In the end it does not matter how many soldiers that you kill, what matters is that you make your enemy stop fighting.
Not exactly. If I recall correctly, the german Spring Offensive did net them substantial gains by World War I standards, but they weren't exactly kicking butt and taking names. Their offensive was halted due to many factors, the least of which was not their own logistical difficulties. The american troops did play their part in the fighting, though the brunt of the effort was carried by european troops. Perhaps the more significant contribution of US forces came after the offensive, as american manpower and equipment meant the allies could replace their losses, whereas Germany couldn't.
I guess the significance of that for WWII depends on your take of when the outcome of the war was decided, after which Germany no longer had a realistic chance of winning the war. According to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, german war production didn't seem to suffer seriously until around mid-1944. I would argue the war had already been decided by that point.
Russia definitely deserves a lot more credit for their contributions to the war effort in WW2 than they get. They sacrificed so much just to keep Germany out of Russia... by the end of the war, they were literally fielding women because they had nearly run out of eligible men. Yet many Americans don't even know they were on our side during that conflict.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Indeed. Even though I'm from a country that prides itself on keeping the Soviets at bay during the war, I consider it laughable how much of the WWII is portrayed as an American war. It was that in the Pacific, for sure, but the Red Army was a fuckin' machine on the eastern front. To say you shouldn't give them credit because it's "fucking cold in Russia" sounds pretty much bollocks; name me one war, one battle where knowledge of terrain and weather was not an important, sometimes even decisive factor in who came out top. To say it doesn't count would be like saying that air superiority doesn't count, or supply lines don't count.
Granted, the western front does make better stories; eastern front was pretty much a combination of freezing asses off and zerg rushing.
Granted, the western front does make better stories; eastern front was pretty much a combination of freezing asses off and zerg rushing.
To be fair, the zerg rushing (from both sides, by the way) makes for some really awesome stories in its own right. Sending 10 soldiers with 1 gun to share between them, soldiers attacking machine gun nests with steel because their guns are frozen solid, soldiers using each others bodies as cover to reach the enemy.... Not to mention that, oddly enough, the type of "low-profile" heroism (not meant as a slight, for clarity)that gets glorified a lot in American stories (Style Rodger Young), was in evidence throughout, but nobody ever sings songs about them. Even Russians don't like talking about the Eastern Front all that much. It's like everybody together has decided the Western front's more mediagenic.
Up to a point, same is true for the African front, and for the Russian-Japanese battle fields. There have been movies/books about them, but what's the last one you've seen? Guns of Navarone? Nothing since the '90s, pretty much.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Well, everyone knows the commies are the bad guys...
YeahIdidn'taddmuchtothediscussionsueme.
If I remember my Call of Duty 2 properly, they also didn't have enough guns to go around(!).
- Status