Weapons

Discussion in 'Himalayan Imports' started by yerik, Jan 24, 2004.

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

    Spectre

    Nov 3, 1998
    Ben,
    If you want to avoid a fight, you don't have to convince the other guy that you will win- just that the cost of winning is more than he'll want to pay.
    John

    MOLON LABE!
     
  2. WarrenR

    WarrenR

    308
    Dec 27, 2003
    Whew! what a debate this has turned into...
    Not even 24hrs and already 4 pages :D ;)
     
  3. Kismet

    Kismet Basic Member Basic Member

    Jan 30, 2002
    Posted by Warren
    Equally remarkable is the civility and reciprocal respect shown by each. Quality shows, in people, as well as craftsmanship.:)
     
  4. munk

    munk

    Mar 22, 2002
    Beenaround- stopped by to stir the pot? The last vat wasn't enough? The Government will do as the populace allows. That is where the battle is being fought today.

    Pan Tau- I should have told you this previously, but I like your posts and look forward to reading them in this forum. I am more concerned about my fellow citizens who without understanding the issue, or the facts, will make popular judgement. Thus storage laws are mandated. It sounds too reasonable to dispute; who could argue against the life of an innocent child? Until one stops to think of outcomes where more people die because they did not have ready access to firearms.

    The availability of 'illegal guns' can't be the cause of our chaos in the world today. legal and illegal guns have always been available. Prior to the Gun Control act of 68 even more available here in the US than now. No Andreas, I think there is a cultural upheaval taking place world wide. You can view this any number of way, technology, TV, 'evolution', but none are satisfying.

    Some people suggest we have always lived in perilous times and man has always been a brute. There is much to this view.

    This chaos today is one very good reason I argue against the modern interpretation of the seperation of Church and State, for instance- because of societal decline I want more holding us together- not less. A secular world promises much less.

    Anyway, you remain in high regard in my book.

    munk
     
  5. Rusty

    Rusty Moderator Moderator

    Mar 8, 1999
    Not to stop the discussion, but you might want to know that Yerik is Jimbo1962, is Cherokeeson2001, is Burafan. The troll.
     
  6. WarrenR

    WarrenR

    308
    Dec 27, 2003
    Good catch Rusty...;)
     
  7. munk

    munk

    Mar 22, 2002
    I saw the banned thread Rusty. I feel pretty stupid being fooled. On the other hand, I'm not sorry to have extended freindliness to a prospective new forumite.



    munk
     
  8. Semper Fi

    Semper Fi

    Feb 23, 2002
    Hereafter I won't respond to any post where the poster has less posts than the posts I have posted previously. :grumpy:












    (naw, just kidding):D
     
  9. Rusty

    Rusty Moderator Moderator

    Mar 8, 1999
    I'm glad so many including myself responded positively to a new forumite, despite the troll.

    We need to continue to offer newbies a welcome. As far as the troll, if anybody wants to send me a stick of dynamite and some KY or petroleum jelly ( a long fuse would be nice also ) for the next time he shows up...
     
  10. Spectre

    Spectre

    Nov 3, 1998
    Well, yeah, Rusty, we all knew that.

    ;)
     
  11. raghorn

    raghorn

    Feb 23, 2002
    It's rare that an online community will unconditionally welcome new members. That's what makes the Cantina a special place... and that is what our little friend has exploited.

    We'll get back to our old (ab)normal selves soon enough.
     
  12. StmmZaum

    StmmZaum

    293
    Dec 12, 2003
    Slight issue with this one, the weapons donated by US citizens were issued to home guardsmen, civilians who were formed into military units in order to defend the nation (so yeah, homeland defense not home defense) if there was an invasion, actually the main reason they were issued these weapons was so that the better weapons could be issued to proper soldiers. The weapons were melted down after the war because they were in the hands of civilians, they had to be gathered in and disposed of because they could not be returned to their original owners (most of them were deposeted at collecting stations with no personal details recorded) and could not be left in the henads of civvies. Incidentally, it was mostly a morale issue, very few of the weapons were used as there was no reliable source of ammunition for them (rather similar to the collection of scrap iron and iron railings for 'aircraft construction', thousands of tons were collected and most were dumped in the ocean by vessels travelling to the US). Sorry, went on a bit of a tangent there. I think most people agreed with their collection since they were issued to defend against a specific threat, once the threat was gone civilian militias were not needed and the army could defend the nation.

    As for the Gun control > genocide issue, well the Armenian genocide was not preceeded by gun control measures. In Germany gun control legislation as reguards 'un-aryan' and 'a-social' groups didn't change throughout the holocaust (though since it was illegal for Jews to own property after 1938 IIRC that was hardly an issue). Frankly, when faced by a squad of armed, equipped and trained soldiers who are going to take you somewhere (you don't know whats going to happen there specifically) I think most people would go along, rather than getting them and their families killed on the spot. Anyhow, not wanting to get into this issue.

    John, the fact is that over here criminals do have the advantage, they are willing to break the law which gives them a decisive advantage over law abiding citizens. Anyone who is willing to break the law has an advantage over those who are not (particularly if the ciminal is willing to kill, which most civilians are not). I know it may not be a direct causal link but it is worth keeping in mind that I live in a nation where gun crime is relatively low and where at worst your average mugger will carry a knife. It is fairly certain then that the situation over here is different to that in the US.

    Anyhow, enough of that, nice catch Rusty. I think most of us assumed it was Burafan (Munk, you really made me laugh in that other thread when one of his previous incarnations tried to bid for a Bura AK, my Bura AK no less ;) , and you said 'ahh, are you a fan of Bura', ok, so I am easy to entertain) but were seeing if he was going to act responsibly as others had suggested he should. Good job he didn't make much of a rucus, just shows the quality of some of the folks round here, that they can debate on such a contientious issue with respect and responsibility.
     
  13. Semper Fi

    Semper Fi

    Feb 23, 2002
    Do you just think this or do you know it to be true??

    Thanks for proving the point. The Jews were not allowed to own guns. I call that gun control.

    Are you saying that the Jews were sheeple? Armed soldiers come to take you and your family away and you just go along for the ride? I must not be like the "most people" that you generalize about. Some of those soldiers will not go home to their families if I have the means to resist.

    Your arguments are absolutely absurd. Now let me make a "generalization": People who think as you do cause genocides.
     
  14. StmmZaum

    StmmZaum

    293
    Dec 12, 2003
    Well since the weapons were held at peoples homes with no registration (some people did keep them with no concequences) and people were requested to hand them in, which they did, then yeah, I guess it is fair to say that the weapons were given up willingly. Maybe it is just parf of the British mindset, that if you join a military organisation and are issued a weapon to defend your nation if it is invaded, when you are requested to give up the weapon, you do.


    There were other groups who were allowed to hold firearms, they did not fight back.


    No, I am saying that like most civilians, if faced with a strong authority figure supported by armed men they will go along with whatever they say (ok, no I am not saying Jews are sheep, I am saying people are sheep, this has been proven through experimentation). Take Crystal nacht, most of the participants were not armed with firearms and still the number of incidents where the victims fought back is remarkably low, its not a question of being a sheep, its a question of not getting yourself and your family killed on the spot.

    What? How? Sorry, I find that VERY offensive. How about a little explanation? Maybe I spoke too soon when I spoke of respect and responsible debate? You also need to redress your original point, the genocide in Bulgaria during the middle of the 19th century was not preceeded by gun control, the Armenians were murded in their thousands despite having some weapons. Incidentally, whilst you are throwing around accusations like that, maybe you would like to consider the fact that the SA (paramilitary wing of the Nazi party) had its roots in a bunch of civilians who kept firearms and weapons for 'homeland defense' in order to fend off he various communist groups that were forming? Not saying that there is any relationship but you may want to reconsider your accusation in the light of that information.
     
  15. Semper Fi

    Semper Fi

    Feb 23, 2002
    You find it offensive that I think your arguments are absurd?? I don't care.

    You find it offensive that I made a statement that was clearly labeled a "generalization" that people who think like you do cause genocides?? Again, I don't care.

    We clearly are on opposite ends of the spectrum. You will never convince me and nor I you. Let's just agree to disagree and end the discussion.

    Besides, I would rather spend my time here learning more about the khukuri.
     
  16. munk

    munk

    Mar 22, 2002
    Slight issue with what?:


    During WWll England had to ask US citizens to donate guns for homeland defense. The Americans responded en masse. After the war, Britan destroyed the weapons.

    my original post




    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Your response:

    Slight issue with this one, the weapons donated by US citizens were issued to home guardsmen, civilians who were formed into military units in order to defend the nation (so yeah, homeland defense not home defense) if there was an invasion, actually the main reason they were issued these weapons was so that the better weapons could be issued to proper soldiers. The weapons were melted down after the war because they were in the hands of civilians, they had to be gathered in and disposed of because they could not be returned to their original owners (most of them were deposeted at collecting stations with no personal details recorded) and could not be left in the henads of civvies. Incidentally, it was mostly a morale issue, very few of the weapons were used as there was no reliable source of ammunition for them (rather similar to the collection of scrap iron and iron railings for 'aircraft construction', thousands of tons were collected and most were dumped in the ocean by vessels travelling to the US). Sorry, went on a bit of a tangent there. I think most people agreed with their collection since they were issued to defend against a specific threat, once the threat was gone civilian militias were not needed and the army could defend the nation.>>>>> Stumzaum

    The point is Britain did not have enough weapons for their own homeland defense- I beleive because of measures taken after WWl , but I could be wrong about that. But in my former post, everything is true. Next time your disarmed citizens need guns, buy them from Big Five Sporting Goods.


    As for very few of the weapons were used, so it was mostly a moral issue, how many regiments of Nazis were wandering around the Island? In the US, one factor proven by after war documents seized from Japan was the difficulty in attacking America because her people were armed.

    You say the weapons had to be melted down- why? So next time you could ask for more? Doesn't something seem odd about this? The chance for invasion was real enough for American citiznes to give you their own arms but that danger is over now because 60 years have passed?

    Please- don't tell me- it can't happen again?

    I admire the friendship our two nations bear one another. I disagree with Blair's internal politics,(his party) but I believe History will vindicate his stand on the Iraq war. It is all the more remarkable he was able to make a stand for meeting evil head on instead of waiting when so many of his countrymen disagreed with him and thought as you apparently do about arms.

    Historically, isn't is true that the aristocracy had arms and the common man few or none, because of a variety of factors, including law, expense, and difficulty in use? (over private lands) I ask this question because it seems self evident to you that naturally the arms had to be destroyed after WWll as they were in civilian hands.

    munk
     
  17. munk

    munk

    Mar 22, 2002
    BTW Stmmzaum, in one of his last incarnations, Bura fan said no, he wasn't Burafan, he was a fan of Kumar.

    I don't know about you, but it took me several weeks to sort out the different Kamis and features of the Khuks, and here was a brand new poster already a fan of Kumar?

    But this last time I wanted to believe there really was a Russian immigrant.


    munk
     
  18. Pan Tau

    Pan Tau

    750
    Sep 3, 2002
    I like to read your posts too, munk and I am happy you are back, because I know you differentiate and think in a fine and intelligent way and your posts follow a logical path - and this is not "respect for the contrahent" as I do not see us as contrahents - we work together on the same thing to collect information and opinions - and we know what we can and what we cannot. We will not find out THE truth that is true without regard to the surrounding but we can broaden the horizonts.
    Thank you.

    Semper Fi,
    it was not clear for a long time what was going on in the extermination-camps in the east (Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka etc.) so the Jews that were deported often had the hope that they would be able to survive in a kind of work-camp (in the last year of the war they hoped to survive until the red army would free the camps). There were just rumors - later it was found out that this was true. In the US the truth about the extremination camps (not identical with the concentration camps) was published first by the "Aufbau" a newspaper in German for Jewish refugees in New York. But the Jews in the "Reich" were often cut off of information as they were not allowed to own radios or other media. So if you have the choice to die with your family "right now" or to be deported together with your family and maybe survive (in reallity this chance was smaller by far, but the Jews did not know) - what would you choose?

    The Jews were not sheeple, not at all - read about the Warshaw-Ghetto if you want the proof. And even before this heroic fight some did resist, some of them had been higly decorated German soldiers in WWI.

    And I find it offensive too to tell Stmmzaum "people like him would cause genozide". This does not fit this forum - but I guess you donĀ“t care.

    It is clear that BF wanted to spread dissent among us forumites with the "weapon-question". Now, that his identity has been revealed his plan seems to work. It did not work as long as he was "yerik". This seems to be strange. :(

    Andreas
     
  19. Thomas Linton

    Thomas Linton

    Jun 16, 2003
    I'm with Pan Tau. The unmentionable must be purring to see the hostility. Verbally stomping the snot out of the guy with the contrary view may give satisfaction; it does not convince the other guy or those in the middle.

    For my part, I think history teaches that the world has always been a "rough neighborhood." I simply do not believe in uniltateral disarmament.
     
  20. StmmZaum

    StmmZaum

    293
    Dec 12, 2003
    Semper Fi, I agree that it is probably best to agree to disagree (hows that for a sentence!?), though what I took offense with was your suggestion that people who do not agree with everyone having the right to own firearms being responsible for events like the holocaust when actually it was people who armed themselves for the defense of their 'fatherland' who carried it out. Anyhow, yeah, lets get back to Khuks.

    Munk, fair enough on the Kamis thing, when it comes down to it you can hardly make a judgement unless you have an example of each mans work anyhow (that or you have one of the Sgt Karka Khuks, but lets not go into that one again:D ). As for the weapons thing, they had to be melted down because after the war Britain was skint, the civilians were requested to hand in the weapons and they did, they were melted down because they had to be disposed of. They could not be kept in store because it would be a lot of expense, particularly at a time when the armouries were bulging with ex-military weapons. What is the point in keeping a load of civvy hunting rifles and shot guns which have no stable source of ammo etc when you have literally thousands of .303 rifles knocking about? Oh, and it wasn't a question of disarmed civilians needing guns, it was a matter of needing weapons to arm a militia so that they would feel useful despite the fact that if there were an invasion they wouldn't have been able to scratch the enemy.

    You can not honestly tell me that Germany did not invade Britain because of the Home Guard, that is rediculous. A bunch of old men and boys armed with a smattering of ex military rifles, the odd WW1 Lewis gun and a stash of shot guns, hunting rifles and broomsticks with knives on the end? Come off it, there were other more important concerns (like the Royal Navy, loss of the Battle of Britain, lack of landing craft and an invasion force that was far too small to achieve anything anyway, Hitler never wanted to invade Britain otherwise he would have actually have made some reasonable plans and not been preparing for the invasion of Russia). I have a nagging suspiscion that there were more important factors in preventing the Japanese invasion of the US, like the size difference, the distance from the US mainland to Japan, the Japanese never wanted to invade the US, they were ambitious (too ambitious) but not stupid.

    We are never going to ask for more, no one could invade Britain any time in the near future, there is no way any European nation would invade the UK and our armed forces are more than a match for any that might try. The threat of invasion has passed, the last time the British mainland was successfully invaded was nearly a milennium ago, it isn't going to happen again and it is paranoia to think that it will.

    I don't see any connection between Iraq and arms, actually Blair is fairly anti-small gun ownership (the laws are becoming more and more strict which is annoying to those of us who actually use firearms on a regular basis). The other thing is that historically the 'common man' was armed, be it with a knife, bow and arrow or flint lock pistol, the aristocracy hasn't been armed as such since the end of fudalism, the government may have been armed (which is as it should be) but not the aristocracy. And as I said, the arms did not have to be destroyed because they were in civilian hands, they had to be destroyed because they were issued through a military unit (we didn't just hand out shotguns to everyone, only to members of the home guard and HG Auxhilliary units) and so when that unit was disbanded they had to be collected in and disposed of because storage was not a viable option (because it would be pointless and expensive).

    Cheers Andreas. I guess part of the problem is that over here, particularly on the continent, we have seen what harm an armed population can do.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page