Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers



Politics and General Debates Thread

paul1598419

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Messages
18,419
Points
113
for how long was he on the neck vs the shoulder? The bottom line is if its clear in the video that he put the knee on the neck and suffocated him, he is guilty. If he was only on the neck for a moment but mostly on the shoulder, then that is different story I would say.

He was on George Floyd's neck for all of the 9 and a half minutes, but even if he weren't it was testified that being on a prone positioned man's back while he is handcuffed behind his back is considered deadly force. The muscles needed to expand the chest are severely inhibited by that force.

Arming the public to stave off a government out of control is a false narrative. In really it boils down to you either love guns or you don't. The public will never be effective against a government out of control. The chances of you even being able to defend yourself in public is pretty iffy. Most public guns are not able to get control of situations as police fail at this often enough.
 
Last edited:



RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,357
Points
113
skijohn
1st Don't tell me I said something that I didn't, and do you conflate things like this simply to troll or do you have an interest in the future of our nation ?
Do you understand what a command structure is ? A chain of command ? Each soldier does not decide what orders to obey or not, but if ordered to violate the families from which they come, the citizens they serve to protect, that would be a bridge too far, but that doesn't mean all tyranny will be avoided, we are talking about your premise of the military vs the citizenry in a fight, not the police vs. the freedom of the people where unjust laws are concerned.

---------
Paul you don't know what you are talking about, people defend themselves with guns every day, you just don't hear about it where you take your news/propaganda.
 
Last edited:

skijohn

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2018
Messages
558
Points
43
Do you conflate things like this simply to troll or do you have an interest in the future of our nation ?
Do you understand what a command structure is ? A chain of command ? Each soldier does not decide what orders to obey or not, but if ordered to violate the families from which they come, the citizens they serve to protect, that would be a bridge too far, but that doesn't mean all tyranny will be avoided, we are talking about your premise of the military vs the citizenry in a fight, not the police vs. the freedom of the people where unjust laws are concerned.
Well then define where this tyranny will come from that all the regular people can fight if they only have guns, as you say the chain of command isn't the men and women, sons and daughters that carry the guns, we are!

And if we the people in the military do follow the chain of command against the regular people then what chance do regular armed people have against that???

Your tyranny argument just doesn't hold up in today's world, You talk about a time when regular people and the military basically were armed the same, that just isn't the reality today...

And give the whole "troll" defense a rest and just stick to the debate about tyranny and how regular people will be able to fight it if they are armed...
 
Last edited:

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,357
Points
113
You're talking in circles, try educating yourself, take a look at how people live in places like N.Korea where you can be killed for speaking out against the government, where young girls are snatched from their families to serve as sex slaves for the great ruler and killed when no longer wanted, where your family can be imprisoned if you jump the fence because you are starving.
 

skijohn

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2018
Messages
558
Points
43
I'm not talking in circles, your answering in circles, places like N.Korea's tyranny is supported by their military, and do you think if all the regular people there were armed they could fight that tyranny???

I want you to define where this "tyranny" here would come from that all the regular people here need to be armed against???

Your whole argument stems from the premise that regular people need to be armed to fight tyranny should it arise, I want to know where you say this tyranny will come from???
 

skijohn

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2018
Messages
558
Points
43
You are a troll. It's not a "defense". It's a fact. Learn to spell also.
It is when you try to use it to defect from an argument, and I have spell check so my spelling is just fine, you learn to spell...

Oops, I missed one word out of thousands, weak, I can't count how many grammar mistakes you've made... but I don't feel the need to point them out...

I still want an answer to, places like N.Korea's tyranny is supported by their military, and do you think if all the regular people there were armed they could fight that tyranny???

I want you to define where this "tyranny" here would come from that all the regular people here need to be armed against???

Your whole argument stems from the premise that regular people need to be armed to fight tyranny should it arise, I want to know where you say this tyranny will come from???
 
Last edited:

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,357
Points
113
skijohn is attempting to bait me into saying something that can be misconstrued as " extreemist " so he can label me.
The fact is an armed people are citizens where as unarmed people are subjects.
Our Bill of Rights does not need to be validated by your metrics, we have our rights for a reason and that reason is we escaped tyranny and want future generations to be free, to not have to fight, to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we should have a mutual respect as we are one in the same, we grant our elected representatives the authority to make law, under our collective authority and that ends where our rights begin, we do not have a KING who makes ROYAL DECREES.
We do not hold people as guilty until proven innocent.
We do not limit peoples rights because someone could do something awful.
We do not punish the innocent.
 
Last edited:

skijohn

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2018
Messages
558
Points
43
Never mind, It's clear you are trying to talk your way out of the corner you painted yourself into about the "tyranny" that the people must be armed against...
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,357
Points
113
Not at all, 100 million armed citizens present a deterrent to the more eager power mongers who would abuse their authority, it has happened before, Hitler disarmed the German people then rounded up the Jews and the people let it happen, if they had been armed they could have saved themselves from the death camps, sure many would have died fighting, but the strength is in the numbers and when one side is armed and the other isn't the numbers must be much greater to stop a holocaust.
Often being able to put up a fight means you don't have to, it's called a deterrent.
It doesn't take an army to do unimaginable horrible things when people are unarmed, just a small group of thugs, but it will not even be attempted when there's a large enough deterrent.
 
Last edited:

skijohn

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2018
Messages
558
Points
43
Hitler had the German military which even if the people weren't disarmed couldn't stand against, BUT we are not talking about the German military of the 40's, we are talking about where the tyranny today will come from if we the people are the military as you say?

Or if the military will follow orders as you suggested, then what deterrent would armed regular people be to our military???
 

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,357
Points
113
Better than unarmed people. ;)
But this is hypothetical, what are your orders that people would need to stand against and that our military would follow ?

If your'e asking me I say tyranny could start much smaller and I expect would, at any rate bullies are much less likely to abuse someone able to mount a defense.

Maybe in a time of unrest when cities are being looted and burned people living there would like to not be looted and burned ?

Do you think armed citizens stand a better chance of avoiding death in a time of civil unrest ?

Why do you think gun sales are at an all time high ?
 
Last edited:

Ears and Eggs

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Messages
2,632
Points
113
Certainly in the Hong Kong case it could have had some deterrent effect and even some strategic. In many cases such as the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan a small but determined force was able to defeat a much larger and technically superior opponent through guerrilla warfare and attrition.

The Chinese government is also very careful about their image and looking like they are powerful and in control. They simply might not have risked it if they thought cracking down on Hong Kong would lead to a bloody and protracted conflict as opposed to just mauling unarmed protesters.
 

skijohn

Active member
Joined
Sep 8, 2018
Messages
558
Points
43
Certainly in the Hong Kong case it could have had some deterrent effect and even some strategic. In many cases such as the Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan a small but determined force was able to defeat a much larger and technically superior opponent through guerrilla warfare and attrition.

The Chinese government is also very careful about their image and looking like they are powerful and in control. They simply might not have risked it if they thought cracking down on Hong Kong would lead to a bloody and protracted conflict as opposed to just mauling unarmed protesters.
In the case of China, I think that they were concerned that if they cracked down too harshly the world would get involved and if the people were armed that would just give them an excuse to use their military against them which they were just itching to do, China has become very efficient at crushing any uprising using their military, armed people wouldn't stand a chance if you have control of today's militaries, think Syria, it would take the world to say no which it hasn't...

Tyranny needs the control of the military to take hold, and it needs no one from the outside to intervene, and with that regular people don't stand a chance even if they are "armed"...
 
Last edited:

RedCowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
10,357
Points
113
Yea, that's why we won in Vietnam against much smaller guerrilla forces.....ohh wait a minute.
 




Top