That makes two of us (about flike, I mean).
[quote=âChewDawgâ]If Taiwan had a gun culture, do you think the government would have sent thugs into peoplesâ homes, murdered their families, or had the Garrison command in the past throw opponents down flights of stairs or out of windows. Fuck no. Or at least, they likely would have been less cavalier.
[/quote]
Yes- they just would have killed a lot more people doing it.
Mind you, Iraq had widespread possession of guns, mostly war-surplus AK-47s, before the American invasion, which helped them resist the ravaging foreign hordes, though I think that would be a better argument for legalising RPGs.
âGun cultureâ in the Confederacy never seems to have weighed on the Unionâs mind too much- they were too busy worrying about Leeâs armies, though at one point in the war Grant advocated handing out captured rifles to fleeing slaves and then simply pushing them back into their old home areas.
However, I must admit, come the Zombie Apocalypse, thereâs gonna be lot of Euroweenies, Canucks and other anti-gun liberal wimps wishing they had had a 2nd Amendment; Iâd rather be with Shane in Georgia than Shaun at the Winchester.
âThank God for rednecks!â- Tallahassee, in Zombieland
Mike, the widespread possession of weapons in Iraq did not mean resistance to the foreign hordes as much as the increased ability to massacre people for sectarian purposes during their own brand of civil war. Just like in Lebanon too. The loss of civilian life to this and bombs was staggering. A real shame. The invading Americans did not actually kill all that many people.
Did the ak47s get rid of the invaders. No, that was more to do with war fatigue , budgetary constraints, Iranian backed IEDs and a lack of reason for them to remain along with the point that their presence was not particularly welcome.
This is the last post iâll be trading with âcfimages.â Youâre a good example of how 90% of the general population is incredibly DENSE AS HELL and incapable of having an honest debate without letting biased emotions dictate 100% of what the brain hears, sees, and thinks. It wasnât an evacuation situation, they were going door to door âstrongly suggestingâ that people leave. They could of had the boy scouts carry out that particular objective. They were however going to all areas of NO, even areas completely unaffected by flooding, to do a gun sweep of each and every house. If no one answered the door, they busted in with weapons drawn and searched for weapons. This is what the video shows. That was their primary task. If the task was to evacuate people they wouldnât be going down each street decked out like a combat unit in Iraq checking for guns and leaving the people home where they were to begin with. Where in the video does it mention anyone was threatening anyone with guns? âOne guy even said how his gun was bigger than the army guys had - that certainly sounds like a threat.â How is that a threat? In what context was it said? Did he say it after they already showed up to his door asking for his guns? And if someone did threaten someone, does one person making a threat warrant disarming an entire city by force? I love how you can put a video in front of someoneâs face after they keep saying âwhereâs the evidence? whereâs the evidence?â only for them to deny it after you show it to them. It reminds me of someone getting caught on a security camera and denying it was them all the way to jail. But thanks cfimages, you taught me a valuable lesson. Never waste time arguing with retards trying to expose them to a new way of looking at something. Most people refuse to stir their minds in a way different from how itâs already conditioned, itâs a scary thing to have to realize you donât have it all figured out. From many of the posts i read people just like to argue for the sake of reading their own posts. Thank you for helping me see how worthless the whole exercise is.
I think you have proved your point, but not in the way you think. The video offers nothing like the âevidenceâ you think it does.
That wasnât the sole purpose at all. The police and NG in the video were in there to get the holdouts to leave. That was their purpose. Disarming holdouts was to ensure that the main purpose, getting them to leave, could be accomplished. It wasnât a general sweep of the city with the SOLE aim of confiscating weapons.
You are arguing from a sense of conviction, and from having already connected the dots. When others donât make the same leaps you do you accuse them of being retards. Try further persuasion.
Btw, your point about why they were dressed as if for combat shows you donât know much about the militarization of police forces in the US over the last 10 years. Police attend even student protests now in full riot gear. And incidentally this last issue is something the NRA and all the hooahh! guns and freedom crowd should be protesting. But nah, itâs usually liberals who get abuse at protests so why bother.
[quote]
That wasnât the sole purpose at all. The police and NG in the video were in there to get the holdouts to leave. That was their purpose. Disarming holdouts was to ensure that the main purpose, getting them to leave, could be accomplished. It wasnât a general sweep of the city with the SOLE aim of confiscating weapons[/quote].
So in other words they forcibly disarmed everyone and even took guns out of empty houses in order to get them to comply to the wishes of governmental interests? Thanks Mucha Man, i never thought of it like that before, i had you all wrong 
[quote=âlouisfriendâ][quote]
That wasnât the sole purpose at all. The police and NG in the video were in there to get the holdouts to leave. That was their purpose. Disarming holdouts was to ensure that the main purpose, getting them to leave, could be accomplished. It wasnât a general sweep of the city with the SOLE aim of confiscating weapons[/quote].
So in other words they forcibly disarmed everyone and even took guns out of empty houses in order to get them to comply to the wishes of governmental interests? Thanks Muzha Man, i never thought of it like that before, I had you all wrong [/quote]
Your point was that the sole purpose of the police and NG actions was to disarm citizens. It wasnât. It was evacuation of those who were refusing to leave. That such people wouldve armed and potentially dangerous and perhaps mentally unstable was a sound judgment call. And removing weapons from empty houses was also entirely sensible.
What isyour point? That any forcible confication of weapons by the authorities is conspiratorial? There is no allowance for context?
And whatâs with the sarcasm? It does not improve your weak argument.
From the inane to the insipid 
Yes, there is allowance for context. In one of the videos showing them barge into peopleâs houses an old lady was in her kitchen with a small pistol at her side talking to a group of police/military guys when one of them notices she has a gun. He immediately tackles her and the others join in by helping to jump on her. An old lady talking to them without making any threats or pointing a gun or doing anything aggressive whatsoever gets tackled and socked by large men in military gear. Perhaps she had a gun handy because there was no rule of law and was surprised by unknown visitors. Iâm sure she wasnât even thinking about the gun in her hand at the time. Her crime, failing to be mindful enough to put her own gun in her own house away completely out of reach while in the presence of so called peacekeepers. Awesome work guys :discodance: :bravo: Way to keep those delusional and dangerous minded holdouts from making the city dangerous. Talk about a bunch of chicken shit. Is this the kind of context you were talking about?
Good one, louis. I look forward to our next debate. 
You made the claim that
It wasnât the sole purpose which even the video you posted showed. Thatâs the only point Iâve been making. It may have been a secondary purpose, it may have been unplanned, it may have been a side-effect, it may have been anything. The only thing we can be sure about, based on the evidence that you yourself have posted, is that it was not the sole purpose.
I would like to make a peace offering to cfimages and Mucha Man. I accuse people of mindlessly sticking to their views regardless of the facts, but i must admit iâm also guilty of getting caught up in my own arguments and points of view. However, i yield nothing from the particular arguments iâve been giving on this thread 
Nevertheless, i would buy you guys a beer or cup of tea any day and avoid religious and political topics while doing so. Rather, i would just enjoy the moment with you guys and seek the parts of you that i donât find intellectually repulsive. This isnât given out of sarcasm, no oneâs perfect including me but we can still love and respect each other.
[quote=âcfimagesâ]And another one.
edition.CNN.com/2012/08/05/us/wi ⌠index.html
Oh, letâs not get into Sikh violence and in pointing the finger at Americaâs gun culture. I hope they give the death penalty to the white assailant but it is surprising in many respects that it wasnât internal. After all, there are often violent internal politics on display and Sikh terrorism has been on full display in North America in a country that does not have a gun culture. And it was much worse violence. 
I am a naturally-born Canadian.
Is this one of these forums where we got a Canadian guy living in Taiwan arguing how great the USA is because they donât have public health insurance or gun control? I never understood this. We got these guys who have NEVER lived in the USA and only ever lived in places with the most extreme government control arguing that the best places to live are places where the government lets people kill each other guns and then die because they no health insurance.
Why are there so many Canadians like this living here? I can only think that it points to a failure of our school system.
Are you bragging about this loudly and openly? I thought quiet nationalism was our way 
Naturally born? Does that mean you were born at home with a midwife?
That would be a very superficial and shallow reading of the forum. In fact, it would be incorrect because the US has public and private models of health care does it not? Gun control is the same. There are some minor restrictions in place.
I thought you would be sophisticated enough to understand these nuances!
That doesnât surprise me in the least
Extreme control? Iâve lived in a wide range of hybrid medical care countries ranging from more private (e.g., Singapore), to middle of the road (Taiwan) to more public (Canada, certain EU countries). Iâve never had a problem with public insurance, but would like to see more private models within hybrid systems that give consumers more choice. Not very radical at all.
BTW, I think your âwhere the government lets people kill each otherâ statement on guns is pretty stupid. I think saying the US has a gun culture (it does more than Canada I guess) is pretty stupid because in that case what about Guatemala, Honduras, Estonia? They have a lot higher gun violence and yet are never singled out like the US. The US gun homicide rate is very similar to Switzerland and Finlandâsâcountries that are often highlighted as being safe with huge safety nets.
I was only educated partially in the system having attended school in the Uk and Australia as a child/young adult. I think it is people that only have been 100% educated in the system and leave, in other words people such as yourself, that hold to the same, boring anti-US caricatures that Chomsky would love so much (and some boring expats)! 
OK, that was pretty funny.
He was executed at the scene of the crime.
Irreconcilable hairstyles.
Are you sure? According to the UN stats for 2000, the per 100,000 gun homicide rate for the US was 2.97, while in Switzerland it was 0.56 and Finlandâs was 0.43.
One would want to compare to a country where guns are rare also.
Heres a link to a recent Guardian article with stats.
guardian.co.uk//news/datablo ⌠rect=false