Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Guess where Mexico gets most of its illegal guns from

Guess where Mexico gets most of its illegal guns from (Page 4)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
In that case, I've gone cart before the horse. How does a military dictator get into power?
You need a few specific starting conditions.

A big threat is required. The citizenry has to be scared enough they're willing to give up the built-in protections against a military dictatorship. One of the big ones being not allowing the military to conduct operations on US soil.

That's the tipping point. Once that happens, the military becomes its own political entity. Candidates start wanting clandestine support of the military, so they're willing to make deals. Once they make a deal, the military has dirt on the candidate, all the better when it's time to make the next deal.

Before you know it, you're Pakistan, where no one gets elected without the military's say so, and if you try, you get a suicide bomber assigned to you.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:24 PM
 
Also note I'd see a population without guns being far quicker to demand military protection from a hypothetical threat than one with guns. IOW, faster trip to the tipping point.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You need a few specific starting conditions.

A big threat is required. The citizenry has to be scared enough they're willing to give up the built-in protections against a military dictatorship. One of the big ones being not allowing the military to conduct operations on US soil.

That's the tipping point. Once that happens, the military becomes its own political entity. Candidates start wanting clandestine support of the military, so they're willing to make deals. Once they make a deal, the military has dirt on the candidate, all the better when it's time to make the next deal.

Before you know it, you're Pakistan, where no one gets elected without the military's say so, and if you try, you get a suicide bomber assigned to you.
Or you create a second military that not called a military so it is allowed to operate on US soil.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:29 PM
 
I will call this new military "drones".
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You need a few specific starting conditions.

A big threat is required. The citizenry has to be scared enough they're willing to give up the built-in protections against a military dictatorship. One of the big ones being not allowing the military to conduct operations on US soil.

That's the tipping point. Once that happens, the military becomes its own political entity. Candidates start wanting clandestine support of the military, so they're willing to make deals. Once they make a deal, the military has dirt on the candidate, all the better when it's time to make the next deal.

Before you know it, you're Pakistan, where no one gets elected without the military's say so, and if you try, you get a suicide bomber assigned to you.
I don't see how guns stop this. They certainly aren't right now.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also note I'd see a population without guns being far quicker to demand military protection from a hypothetical threat than one with guns. IOW, faster trip to the tipping point.
I'd say 9/11 proved that as bunk.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:43 PM
 
How so?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How so?
I'm under the impression the Patriot Act is pretty shit, things haven't gotten better (rights-wise) yet we're as armed as they come.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 02:54 PM
 
I didn't say piss away civil liberties, I said let the military operate on US soil.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:07 PM
 
So we'd have to be invaded? Luckily for us, also not likely.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:10 PM
 
No. Some dirty bombs or suitcase nukes would do it IMO.

What's in our favor on that front is they're hard to hide if you're looking for radiation.


In the realm of possible terrorist attacks, 9/11 was weaksauce.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:18 PM
 
Re: getting invaded.

After WWII, there was discussion about planning for a possible war with Britian.

The point of this is a lot can change in 50 years.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:21 PM
 
So let's see if I'm keeping up. We've gone from guns to protect us from the government (which would need the military), to protect us from the military (which would need to lose civilian oversight), to protect us from our own military post invasion from a foreign entity?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:41 PM
 
Before I answer, is there any reason you are focusing on the less probable "Red Dawn" scenario, rather than on the far more probable terrorist attack?

I'm feeling a lot of take and not much give in this debate.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:44 PM
 
I'm trying to keep up, dear. Should I add, "to protect us from terrorists with dirty bombs" to the sentence. Are we talking preventative or reactionary protection?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:53 PM
 
I know I may not be the clearest communicator, but if you think I'm saying "guns protect us from terrorists from dirty bombs", I don't buy that you're really trying as hard as you claim.

Rather than rephrase three posts you feel you're lost on into one big cluster for me to un****, why don't you pick one piece, and we'll start with that.

Fair?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I know I may not be the clearest communicator, but if you think I'm saying "guns protect us from terrorists from dirty bombs", I don't buy that you're really trying as hard as you claim.

Rather than rephrase three posts you feel you're lost on into one big cluster for me to un****, why don't you pick one piece, and we'll start with that.

Fair?
Well, I'm adding my counterpoints as we progress. Let's rewind back to my first response from today. I mused the guns really protect us from the military not the government. Do you want start again from there?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 05:27 PM
 
Absolutely!

I'd say it's accurate insofar we have a cultural and legal separation between the government and the military.

In my opinion, this is because we've been successfully attacked only twice in living memory (I'm not counting Oklahoma City or the first WTC attack). Were the rate of successful attacks to be significantly higher than once every 50 years, I think you'd get pressure to tear down that legal and cultural barrier.

Of course, the likelihood of another Pearl Harbor is going to be insignificant within our lifetimes, but a lot can happen in 50-80 years. This was my point about our post-WWII attitude about England. It's crazy to imagine we were planning for the possibility of going to war with them. Things have changed, and they will change again. We've been on top of the world since the 40's, so there are a lot of things which are pretty unimaginable at the moment (like a land invasion).

I can guarantee you this superiority won't last forever. Maybe for 200 more years, maybe 2,000. Both are a long time, neither are forever.


Taking our leave of science fiction, multiple devastating terrorist attacks, while improbable, are well within the realm of possibility.

If this were to happen, I believe whether the guns are acting as a check against the government or the military would start to get a lot hazier.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2013, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Battle rifle:



Again, more dangerous than an M-16.
M1 Garand correct? You can buy one from the government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2013, 07:50 AM
 
M14.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2013, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
M1 Garand correct? You can buy one from the government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program
Exactly, it's not banned, and way more powerful then so called "assault weapons." the 30.06 round can go through three people easily vs 5.56 which has way less stopping power. Check it out - The middle is the NATO 5.56 round which most of the weapons classified as "assault weapons" ar-15/m16) use. Guns such as the m14, m1, and several modern counterparts use the 30-06 but are not under attack from the liberal left.

     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2013, 10:17 PM
 
All three would go right through that paper towel.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2013, 10:20 PM
 
Yes but can you name the brand
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2013, 12:26 AM
 
If it's not Brawny, you're a pussy™
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2013, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Before you know it, you're Pakistan, where no one gets elected without the military's say so, and if you try, you get a suicide bomber assigned to you.
Pakistan candidate targeted, killed, official says - CNN.com

Note the Pakistani military has strong ties to the Taliban. They virtually run the thing in Afghanistan.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Absolutely!

I'd say it's accurate insofar we have a cultural and legal separation between the government and the military.

In my opinion, this is because we've been successfully attacked only twice in living memory (I'm not counting Oklahoma City or the first WTC attack). Were the rate of successful attacks to be significantly higher than once every 50 years, I think you'd get pressure to tear down that legal and cultural barrier.

Of course, the likelihood of another Pearl Harbor is going to be insignificant within our lifetimes, but a lot can happen in 50-80 years. This was my point about our post-WWII attitude about England. It's crazy to imagine we were planning for the possibility of going to war with them. Things have changed, and they will change again. We've been on top of the world since the 40's, so there are a lot of things which are pretty unimaginable at the moment (like a land invasion).

I can guarantee you this superiority won't last forever. Maybe for 200 more years, maybe 2,000. Both are a long time, neither are forever.


Taking our leave of science fiction, multiple devastating terrorist attacks, while improbable, are well within the realm of possibility.

If this were to happen, I believe whether the guns are acting as a check against the government or the military would start to get a lot hazier.
I see what you're saying, but I have trouble really imagining the situation. Do you have any modern analogues to point to? Egypt perhaps?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 01:53 PM
 
Modern analogues to what?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 01:55 PM
 
Democratic government with legal and cultural separation from the military losing that separation thanks to domestic attack and the new found military power than turning against its citizens.*

*assuming my summary was accurate
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 02:14 PM
 
Ah.

There's only been one 9/11-scale terrorist attack in history, so one shouldn't expect for there to be an analogue to multiple larger attacks.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 02:15 PM
 
I thought it didn't have to specifically be terrorist based, though. Just a loss of internal security that would move the populace to cede large amounts of authority to the military.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 02:28 PM
 
Of all the ways that could happen, a bunch of big terrorist attacks seems the most likely and plausible.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 03:26 PM
 
Well I was trying to help you out there.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2013, 03:30 PM
 
I'm just trying to make clear I'm not saying we get invaded by Mexico or something.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2013, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm just trying to make clear I'm not saying we get invaded by Mexico or something.
To a certain extent we are being invaded by Mexico...it's not a bum rush but more of a slowly steady trickle. Over time you have 11M+ illegal Mexican immigrants who are slowly changing our country.
"Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to stay on my toes." Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2013, 08:50 AM
 
Nothing wrong with that in my book. The changes immigrants make are on the whole a good thing.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2013, 05:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Nothing wrong with that in my book. The changes immigrants make are on the whole a good thing.
I agree, but I wish they would consider themselves "Americans." It's bough to fully support a group who refuse to follow our laws but then get free services/stuff in return. Reminds me of an old friend who would come to my dorm room, eat my food, drink my beer, play my Sega Genesis, ask for rides, etc. then bought a brand new car cash (after I dropped him off 500 miles away). He got a leg up by milking me and other friends. We did it out of the kindness of our hearts and because we could own him in Mortal Kombat...but he was a mooch and that's how many people see the illegal immigrants...let's fix that then let them help America.
"Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to stay on my toes." Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2013, 03:39 PM
 
Maybe I'm missing what you mean, but it seems to me the problem isn't immigrants thinking they aren't Americans, it's Americans thinking that which is the problem.

My guess is the vast majority would be thrilled to be Americans.
     
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2013, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Maybe I'm missing what you mean, but it seems to me the problem isn't immigrants thinking they aren't Americans, it's Americans thinking that which is the problem.

My guess is the vast majority would be thrilled to be Americans.
Yeah. America = lots of immigrants but we need people who come here to follow the laws of the land, that's all. If they come here illegally and then mooch off the system we'll have a problem.
"Like a midget at a urinal, I was going to have to stay on my toes." Frank Drebin, Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2013, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by cgc View Post
To a certain extent we are being invaded by Mexico...it's not a bum rush but more of a slowly steady trickle. Over time you have 11M+ illegal Mexican immigrants who are slowly changing our country.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Nothing wrong with that in my book. The changes immigrants make are on the whole a good thing.
Until we become the majority.
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2013, 02:17 PM
 
And then what?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2013, 02:21 PM
 
White people extermination camps, I guess
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2013, 02:32 PM
 
Never mind.

Doesn't translate to text only.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:45 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,