Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How about apartheid in South Africa? They tried to organize all the time, it's just that their leaders and members were imprisoned or executed. Do you think they could have gotten away with it if the tiny amount of Whites were looking at an armed (and not a small number) majority?

Off topic.

@jfrazell - just going through your list of effective guerilla actions.

USA. Yup - with the help of the French, Pirates (sorry, Privateers) and a British economy which could not at that point sustain an effective military across 3,000 miles of ocean.
France (vive le Napoleon!). No - that was a military coup, not a guerilla action.
Russia.
Ireland. Only if you ignore the fact that there had been considerable political will in sections of the British government for nearly 40 years for Irish home rule.
Vietnam.
Mexico. Definately the only success story!
Nicaragua. True, but the guerillas have generally been drug lords, so not a good thing.
Most countries within Africa. And look where its got them - Mugabe anyone?
Balkans. With a little help from NATO.
Afghanistan (several times). See Nicaragua.

After eliminating ones which were not genuinely unsupported guerilla forces fighting for a political cause (with no associated criminal motivation) we're left with Mexico and the communists.

I have to say I'm not entirely convinced its always been a good thing in the long run...


Back on topic.

@sebster. You're absolutely right, laws are far more important than guns. But surely the point of laws is that they can be changed?

The framers could never have envisaged the vast majority of US laws as the years have gone by, nor the various amendments to the constitution. What they did provide in their wisdom was a mechanism for those laws to be changed to better reflect future society.

If a law (or in this case a constitutional amendment that can in itself be altered or repealed) is a contributing factor in so many deaths each year (it is an undeniable fact that if guns were illegal and conommitantly rare there would be fewer gun-related deaths in the US), then surely there is a case for that to be changed?

Is it not a better way of honouring the foresight of the founding fathers to use their mechanism of change, rather than a law which no longer has the relevance it possessed 200 years ago?

It must be remembered that when the United States were created, it was by no means certain that the union would prevail as a harmonious political arrangement. Therefore state militias were an important part of asserting the rights of individual states. The constitution was written at that time and was undoubetdly influenced by that climate.

That said, the way the issue (and other issues such as abortion and Intelligent Design) continue to raise such hackles, is in itself an indicator of the admirable degree of political freedom and debate that goes on in the US. I am put in mind of the current repression of completely harmless photography in the UK, which continues almost without comment.

It is interesting to contrast the gun cultures of the USA, Canada and Switzerland. Canada has fairly similar gun laws to the USA, and the gun crime rate is much lower. Switzerland has very different laws. It is compulsory to be armed to the teeth, since Switzerland has a real citizen militia army, so every citizen has at least an assault rifle at home. Once again the gun crime rate is very low. This seems to indicate that the availability of guns and laws concerning them is strongly modified by social attitudes.

The fact is that gun culture has deep roots in the USA. There are reckoned to be well over 200 million weapons in circulation. They are not going to disappear overnight, nor is the popular culture going to change suddenly.

I don't know whether being armed is a good defensive strategy. The knife crime stats in the UK show clearly that people carrying knives are much more likely to die in knife fights than unarmed people. Of course this is no doubt influence by social attitudes and may not apply to guns in the USA.

Ahtman wrote:How about apartheid in South Africa? They tried to organize all the time, it's just that their leaders and members were imprisoned or executed. Do you think they could have gotten away with it if the tiny amount of Whites were looking at an armed (and not a small number) majority?

Ah, Mandela led the armed resistance in South Africa, undertook sabotage and trained in paramilitary operations. The guerilla campaing led to the deaths of a lot of civilians were killed and human rights abuses were committed by the black resistance fighters. The effect of these operations in hastening or prolonging the end of apartheid is a contentious issue.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:@sebster. You're absolutely right, laws are far more important than guns. But surely the point of laws is that they can be changed?

The framers could never have envisaged the vast majority of US laws as the years have gone by, nor the various amendments to the constitution. What they did provide in their wisdom was a mechanism for those laws to be changed to better reflect future society.

If a law (or in this case a constitutional amendment that can in itself be altered or repealed) is a contributing factor in so many deaths each year (it is an undeniable fact that if guns were illegal and conommitantly rare there would be fewer gun-related deaths in the US), then surely there is a case for that to be changed?

Is it not a better way of honouring the foresight of the founding fathers to use their mechanism of change, rather than a law which no longer has the relevance it possessed 200 years ago?

Yeah, laws can be changed. Basic laws require a simple majority of representatives to change, other laws such as those in the constitution are much tougher to change. Being part of the constitution, the US right to arms is in that second category, and so has a far more demanding method for change. Ultimately, if 2/3 of states wanted to remove or restrict the right to arms, then things will and should change.

Personally, I think the US would be better off enforcing the gun laws it already has and working to reduce gun crime through programs designed to reduce gang numbers, rehabilitate criminals, reduce poverty and develop sensible drug laws. Gun control is ultimately neither the solution nor the problem.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:How about apartheid in South Africa? They tried to organize all the time, it's just that their leaders and members were imprisoned or executed. Do you think they could have gotten away with it if the tiny amount of Whites were looking at an armed (and not a small number) majority?

Ah, Mandela led the armed resistance in South Africa, undertook sabotage and trained in paramilitary operations. The guerilla campaing led to the deaths of a lot of civilians were killed and human rights abuses were committed by the black resistance fighters. The effect of these operations in hastening or prolonging the end of apartheid is a contentious issue.

Sounds like a lot of National Party propaganda to me.

reds8n wrote:Helpful as ever.


Much as I deplore the unwarranted spread of CCTV in the Uk in general, it's a pretty safe place.

I asume you've extemsively trawled through all parts of London then ? Oh, wait...

We generally stopped calling them coppers in the late 1970s. Still good to see your slang is as up to date as your knowledge of what the situation actually is over here.

Now, I believe you were saying something about apples and oranges...

Wait, I have to be helpful?

I've traveled through London.

Enjoyed my time there when I was in the Navy.

Oh wait, I didn't.

I can call your cops lots of things. Idiots, morons, pigs, asshats, the blue crayon...I mean, which adjective meets with your approval?

YOU DON'T GET A VOTE!

Especially with how ignorant you seem to be about how safe your country is (handgun crime up? WTF?!) and how wonderful sunny London is.

Try googling some actual statistics. Your government has them available online, so does your media. They're sad. Like you, really.

CCTV LONDON NO CRIME DETERRENCE

UK HANDGUN BAN GUN CRIME UP

Bloody twit.

Do you "get" that one, mate?

sebster wrote:Personally, I think the US would be better off enforcing the gun laws it already has and working to reduce gun crime through programs designed to reduce gang numbers, rehabilitate criminals, reduce poverty and develop sensible drug laws. Gun control is ultimately neither the solution nor the problem.

Never happen. Our absolutely horrible police/justice/prison system has waaay too much money coming in keeping blacks incarcerated to ever do any of that nonsense.

See, I'm just a equal opportunity ripper.

Bull is bull.

Ahtman wrote:Sounds like a lot of National Party propaganda to me.

It can sound like whatever you want it to. It's a matter of national record identified at the Truth and Reconciliation hearings.

Mandela and his fellow anti-apartheid fighters were great people and it does none of them proper respect to pretend the fight was happier or more pleasant than it really was.

Stelek wrote:Never happen. Our absolutely horrible police/justice/prison system has waaay too much money coming in keeping blacks incarcerated to ever do any of that nonsense.

See, I'm just a equal opportunity ripper.

Bull is bull.

Ooh that's another good one. Moving away from privatised prisons with zero incentive to prevent repeat offence, and towards government run prisons with rehabilitation programs.

sebster wrote:It's a matter of national record identified at the Truth and Reconciliation hearings.

Those hearing lacked both Truth and Reconciliation. It did however make for good press.

The government RUNS the prisons now.

Did we just pass in the night? lol

Ahtman wrote:Those hearing lacked both Truth and Reconciliation. It did however make for good press.

Aah, okay, that’s certainly a fairly common criticism, albeit one I don’t agree with. There’s plenty of points to be made for either case.

Still doesn’t change the fact that there was armed resistance in South Africa, contrary to your earlier argument. You can look at plenty of other sources besides Truth and Reconciliation, it isn’t a disputed point.

Stelek wrote:The government RUNS the prisons now.

Did we just pass in the night? lol

An increasing number of prisons in the US are run by private operators. The result is a lower cost per prisoner, but prisoner conditions and rehabilitation programs tend to suffer. The argument is that this increases recidivism, resulting in a long term increased cost to the taxpayer.

Of course, even under government control prisons are still pretty crappy. And like you said, racism.

Oh right, you mean like the camps they've got since they can stick 500 bastards out in a field with some wire and guns to keep them in?

Yeah, it's not good times.

Stelek wrote:
Wait, I have to be helpful?

Well there's a first time for everything, we live in hope...

I can call your cops lots of things. Idiots, morons, pigs, asshats, the blue crayon...I mean, which adjective meets with your approval?

Of late the "hippest" term is babylon, the faux patois thing is the way at the moment. Other people use " the filth"

Ahtman wrote:Well they used to steal our sailors and were still pretty bitter about that.

Not the people in Louisiana. We had an anger management meeting with the redcoats about 1814. After that we were just fine

jfrazell wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Well they used to steal our sailors and were still pretty bitter about that.

Not the people in Louisiana. We had an anger management meeting with the redcoats about 1814. After that we were just fine

I guess that's taking the lemons to make lemonade.

In a war where the aggressor got kicked back home and had thier capital sacked and burned celebrating the win after the war had already ended (and ignoring the subsequent loss at Mobile) I guess is making the best of a bad situation.

What does that matter? Its not like the Yankees ran the redcoats out the first time either. It was in the South with those gun totin wackjob militia types that the redcoats ran into trouble.

And I hope we’ve learned a lesson today. Swamp rats (the 18th Century’s pickup driving’ rednecks) + pirates + Napoleonic refugees lined up for a little payback vs. redcoats equals fun time had by all. Except the redcoats.

Remember its all fun and games until someone pokes their eye out. Then its fun and games with really bad depth perception.

Well lets also not forget all the Natives that helped Jackson out and then right after the battle were kicked out of their homes and land for the trouble.

This is true. Eventually the pirates were put out of business as well. The French speaking creoles were eventually repressed as well, with their language and culture banned from being spoken in schools.

Still beats having to eat blood pie though.

jfrazell wrote:

Still beats having to eat blood pie though.

Curse you and your use of facts !

mmmm, Blood Pie....

jfrazell wrote:Still beats having to eat blood pie though.

Amen to that brother.

Blood pie eh? I had never heard of it, and assumed ye were talking about blood pudding which is awesome. I love black and white pudding, so much.
But I didn't want to go displaying my ignorance in case blood pie was something else, and I found this on a quick search (the rest of the links were to klingon cuisine, which I figured wasn't what ye were discussing )

A Blood-pie for a Side-dish.
On those days that young Turkeys, fat Pullets and other sorts of Fowl are kill’d, some of their blood may be preserv’d, to the quantity only ofa large Glass full. It must be put into an Earthen Pan, with some Filets of a Hare and of Veal: Let these Filets be larded with Gammon and thick slips of Bacon, and steept in the Blood; seasoning them a little. To make the Godivoe*, you are to provide some Flesh of Chickens and Partridges, a good piece of a Leg of Veal, some Bacon, Marrow, and a little Sewet; with Parsly, Chibbol**, A Clove of Garlick and Truffles, all well season’d, enrich’d and chopt small: Let the Blood be put into this Farce and temper’d with it. In the mean time, let two sorts of Paste be prepar’d, viz. one ordinary, of a greater quantity, and the other less, consisting of Eggs, Butter, Flower and Salt, all well workt, without any Water. Thus two large pieces are to be roll’d out of the common Paste, and two lesser ones of the finer sort: Let the great piece for the Bottom-crust be put upon Paper, and the lesser on the top of it: Take one half of your Godivoe, and spread it neatly upon those two pieces of Paste; then let your Filets in order, and the rest of the Farce upon them; covering all with Bards or Slices of Bacon, and afterwards with a small piece of the fine Paste; wetting the greater round about: At last, the other large piece being put on the top, to compleat the Lid or uppe Crust; the whole Pie is to be wash’d over with an Egg, and baked in the Evening, for the space of eight or ten Hours: For it must be left all Night till the same Hour next morning, taking care that the Oven be not over-heated. It must be served up hot to Table, after having poured a Partridge-cullis*** into it, and both the Meat and Crust ought to be eaten with a Fork.

from this website:
http://theoldfoodie.blogspot.com/2007/04/blood-pie.html

Whats blood pudding? That sounds ichy also.

You might also call it blood sausage?
We have it with a fried breakfast. Sausage, egg, rashers of bacon, tomato, bread (toasted or fried), maybe some mushrooms and some slices of black or white pudding. Delicious!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_pudding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_pudding

Think I'll have some tomorrow actually!

Well they always said, never watch politics or sausage being made. Probably tastes excellent.

Off topic, but for the mini thread within this thread...

An excellent example of our "justice" system serving blacks so very well.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/2-1-2&fp=486a5ec61e5c1e28&ei=oWRqSN3dGoeoggOV14TmAg&url=http%3A//www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_9747943&cid=1224622738&npp=POP&usg=AFQjCNHNgrd28_6CMCwcnho36G3NCs24_A

Oh and yes, I've read the Federalist papers.

Definitely not a republican or a democrat...