Myanmar and gun control

[aociswundumho]

As we sit here, the police in Myanmar are murdering protesters. Killing people is one thing that governments are very good at. Here is a typical news story posted yesterday:

At least nine dead in Myanmar as police open fire with live rounds across several cities

Myanmar’s neighbours in southeast Asia have failed to find any resolution to the crisis so far

www.independent.co.uk

Police in Myanmar opened fire on protesters in several cities on Wednesday with live rounds, witnesses and local media reported, killing at least nine people and leaving many others wounded. The nine protesters were shot dead during separate agitations in different cities, including Mandalay, Yangon, Myingyan and Monywa.

The piece of shit politician responsible for these murders and the many more to come is Min Aung Hlaing, the same guy who committed the Rohingya genocide.

So why don't the people fight back? They don't shoot back because the government has disarmed them:



Governments murdering people is something that has happened over and over and over again, throughout history, but idiot progressives will tell you not to worry, because "it can't happen here". Giving up your firearms to the rotten government is a mistake you get to make only once, which the people of Myanmar and Hong Kong are finding out the hard way.

 

[Waddy]

If those "protesters" would just quit protesting they wouldn't get shot now would they. So it's their own fault. If I ran the government of Myanmar I wouldn't allow people to own guns either. They might point them my way. As the great Chairman Mao once said, "political power comes from the muzzle of a guin". No truer words were ever spoken. And that's why government needs to keep guns out of the hands of citizens. How can you control the great unwashed masses if they all got guns? Shyte, things could get dangerous for the ruling class. They would need armed body guards and probably build walls around their compounds. Then legislate guns out of the hands of those common, ordinary citizens that pose such a danger to their rule. They can't be trusted to just do what they're told is they have guns of their own. Good on that Myanmar president for being so forward looking.

 

[Rich2018]

As we sit here, the police in Myanmar are murdering protesters. Killing people is one thing that governments are very good at. Here is a typical news story posted yesterday...

And gun ownership stops military coups how ?

 

[aociswundumho]

And gun ownership stops military coups how ?

It doesn't stop them, it disincentivizes them, in the same way getting a big dog disincentivizes burglars from robbing your house.

 

[Rich2018]

It doesn't stop them, it disincentivizes them, in the same way getting a big dog disincentivizes burglars from robbing your house.

How ?

Do you really think that armed citizens can stand up to a military ?
Perhaps they could in the 18th century, but not now.

Think of the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the armed Iraqis who faced them.

Who won ?

 

[aociswundumho]

How ?

By raising the cost, obviously.

Do you really think that armed citizens can stand up to a military ?

Yes. Governments are set up to battle other governments. It's entirely different when the state turns on its own people.

Think of the US led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the armed Iraqis who faced them.
Who won ?

That is the most inaccurate analogy in the history of the world.

 

[Waddy]

By raising the cost, obviously.



Yes. Governments are set up to battle other governments. It's entirely different when the state turns on its own people.



That is the most inaccurate analogy in the history of the world.

I'd say in the long run the Iraqi insurgents won. They killed lots of us until we left with our tails between our legs. We never did conquer that country. Same in Afghanistan; the armed insurgents beat us. Before that they beat the Russians. Before that the English.

 

[Rich2018]

By raising the cost, obviously.

Cost in lives ?

I doubt that would be a factor
Even if it was, I doubt that it would be a deterrence to a military so unresponsive to popular sentiment, as to be determined to impose martial law on its citizens

Yes. Governments are set up to battle other governments. It's entirely different when the state turns on its own people.

You mean it's generally easier
(that is for countries where a military takeover is possible)

That is the most inaccurate analogy in the history of the world.

So who won ?

 

[Tigerace117]

As we sit here, the police in Myanmar are murdering protesters. Killing people is one thing that governments are very good at. Here is a typical news story posted yesterday:

At least nine dead in Myanmar as police open fire with live rounds across several cities

Myanmar’s neighbours in southeast Asia have failed to find any resolution to the crisis so far

www.independent.co.uk

The piece of shit politician responsible for these murders and the many more to come is Min Aung Hlaing, the same guy who committed the Rohingya genocide.

So why don't the people fight back? They don't shoot back because the government has disarmed them:

View attachment 67321355

Governments murdering people is something that has happened over and over and over again, throughout history, but idiot progressives will tell you not to worry, because "it can't happen here". Giving up your firearms to the rotten government is a mistake you get to make only once, which the people of Myanmar and Hong Kong are finding out the hard way.

Yawn. Hoarding guns wasnt enough to stop tyranny in the 1940s; the fact that people actually think it would be enough to stop it today is laughable.

The Chinese government has no qualms about running people over with tanks. Tanks, in case you missed it, crush small arms every time.

Oh, and there are numerous(heavily armed) insurgencies in Burma/Myanmar going back decades....so your premise is even more laughable.

 

[Tigerace117]

If those "protesters" would just quit protesting they wouldn't get shot now would they. So it's their own fault. If I ran the government of Myanmar I wouldn't allow people to own guns either. They might point them my way. As the great Chairman Mao once said, "political power comes from the muzzle of a guin". No truer words were ever spoken. And that's why government needs to keep guns out of the hands of citizens. How can you control the great unwashed masses if they all got guns? Shyte, things could get dangerous for the ruling class. They would need armed body guards and probably build walls around their compounds. Then legislate guns out of the hands of those common, ordinary citizens that pose such a danger to their rule. They can't be trusted to just do what they're told is they have guns of their own. Good on that Myanmar president for being so forward looking.

What a pathetic joke of an argument. “It’s your own fault for getting murdered because you aren’t willing to accept(yet another) military dictatorship running your country”

Again, Myanmar has numerous numeorus heavily armed insurgencies going back decades. That didn’t stop it from falling into dictatorship. But I get that you lot get your information from Red Dawn fantasies as opposed to actual history

 

[Rich2018]

Yawn. Hoarding guns wasnt enough to stop tyranny in the 1940s; the fact that people actually think it would be enough to stop it today is laughable.

The Chinese government has no qualms about running people over with tanks. Tanks, in case you missed it, crush small arms every time.

Oh, and there are numerous(heavily armed) insurgencies in Burma/Myanmar going back decades....so your premise is even more laughable.

I'm reminded of the fabled French Resistance, in WWII

They barely took a shot at a German soldier until after D-Day when it was clear the Allies were going to win. I don't blame them...private citizens can do little against a totalitarian military, regardless of how many guns the citizenry have.

 

[Waddy]

What a pathetic joke of an argument. “It’s your own fault for getting murdered because you aren’t willing to accept(yet another) military dictatorship running your country”

Again, Myanmar has numerous numeorus heavily armed insurgencies going back decades. That didn’t stop it from falling into dictatorship. But I get that you lot get your information from Red Dawn fantasies as opposed to actual history

not good at sarcasm, are ya'?

 

[Tigerace117]

I'm reminded of the fabled French Resistance, in WWII

They barely took a shot at a German soldier until after D-Day when it was clear the Allies were going to win. I don't blame them...private citizens can do little against a totalitarian military, regardless of how many guns the citizenry have.

The French Resistance was more active than that; but they also didn’t have a hope of driving the Germans out on their own.Which is why many of the groups tended to stick to helping smuggle downed Allied pilots to safety in those early years and built up their strength.

 

[Tigerace117]

not good at sarcasm, are ya'?

Your attempt at it was feeble.....at best.

 

[AmNat]

What a pathetic joke of an argument. “It’s your own fault for getting murdered because you aren’t willing to accept(yet another) military dictatorship running your country”

If the police warn you over and over that you'll be shot if you don't comply, it's your own fault if you end up getting shot.

I'm sure you agree with this reasoning as regards the unarmed protestors killed by USG's security forces in January.

 

[Tigerace117]

If the police warn you over and over that you'll be shot if you don't comply, it's your own fault if you end up getting shot.

I'm sure you agree with this reasoning as regards the unarmed protestors killed by USG's security forces in January.

Considering that the military in Myanmar is actively committing genocide, they have no room to wail “but the people didn’t listen” when folks oppose their coup.

Treason has consequences bud. But I’m not surprised fifth columnists like you can’t grasp that.

 

[Waddy]

Your attempt at it was feeble.....at best.

you're just not a good judge.

 

[Antiwar]

As we sit here, the police in Myanmar are murdering protesters. Killing people is one thing that governments are very good at. Here is a typical news story posted yesterday:

At least nine dead in Myanmar as police open fire with live rounds across several cities

Myanmar’s neighbours in southeast Asia have failed to find any resolution to the crisis so far

www.independent.co.uk

The piece of shit politician responsible for these murders and the many more to come is Min Aung Hlaing, the same guy who committed the Rohingya genocide.

So why don't the people fight back? They don't shoot back because the government has disarmed them:

View attachment 67321355

Governments murdering people is something that has happened over and over and over again, throughout history, but idiot progressives will tell you not to worry, because "it can't happen here". Giving up your firearms to the rotten government is a mistake you get to make only once, which the people of Myanmar and Hong Kong are finding out the hard way.

"Idiot" progressives don't want US militarism like almost everyone else that accepts it.

Some "idiotic" questions for the supergeniuses:

G. Were there no freedoms prior to guns?

H. How many governments kill their own versus don't (1) historically and (2) currently based on private gun ownership?

I. I know aochasthebestplatform says she's anti-war, but are @TurtleDude (another right-libertarian) and @Waddy? If the government decides to go after you, your freedoms, your gun collection, your art collection, etc, then they have the big guns. Don't bother with the unlawful orders notion, enough are conditioned to blindly follow orders and the Holy Constitution. And some military weapons trickle down to the fuzz.

N. What about international protection? Nukes for every country or no nukes. Oh, you want the US to be the totalitarian world government?

 

[Tigerace117]

"Idiot" progressives don't want US militarism like almost everyone else that accepts it.

Some "idiotic" questions for the supergeniuses:

G. Were there no freedoms prior to guns?

H. How many governments kill their own versus don't (1) historically and (2) currently based on private gun ownership?

I. I know aochasthebestplatform says she's anti-war, but are @TurtleDude (another right-libertarian) and @Waddy? If the government decides to go after you, your freedoms, your gun collection, your art collection, etc, then they have the big guns. Don't bother with the unlawful orders notion, enough are conditioned to blindly follow orders and the Holy Constitution. And some military weapons trickle down to the fuzz.

N. What about international protection? Nukes for every country or no nukes. Oh, you want the US to be the totalitarian world government?

As usual, “Antiwar“ is far more concerned about the poor poor dictatorship and sniveling about the US than they are about the actual facts

 

[Rich2018]

The French Resistance was more active than that; but they also didn’t have a hope of driving the Germans out on their own.Which is why many of the groups tended to stick to helping smuggle downed Allied pilots to safety in those early years and built up their strength.

Not really, they may have been involved in passive resistance (like smuggling out downed allied airmen) but their activities only really took off after D-Day.

That's actually my point, that the French hadn't a hope of driving out the Germans on their own, even if every adult French citizen kept a firearm. Citizen resistance doesn't stand a chance against a tyrannical occupation.

 

[AmNat]

Considering that the military in Myanmar is actively committing genocide, they have no room to wail “but the people didn’t listen” when folks oppose their coup.

I'm not aware of them doing any complaining. They seem more like men of action.

Treason has consequences bud.

Indeed. Unlike you, I understand why a regime (any regime, whether I think it good or bad) has to defend itself against its enemies.

 

[Tigerace117]

I'm not aware of them doing any complaining. They seem more like men of action.

Indeed. Unlike you, I understand why a regime (any regime, whether I think it good or bad) has to defend itself against its enemies.

Calling them “men” is a bad joke. “Scum of the earth” fits rather more neatly. The incompetent thugs in the Tatmadaw haven’t been able to defeat the actual rebels in fifty plus years of fighting.

Always funny watching an einsatzgruppen wannabe expose himself. We crushed your heroes, leaving only fifth columnists like yourself to snivel and wail.

 

[Antiwar]

As usual, “Antiwar“ is far more concerned about the poor poor dictatorship and sniveling about the US than they are about the actual facts

You're good at making claims. Can you back them up?

 

[Antiwar]

Calling them “men” is a bad joke. “Scum of the earth” fits rather more neatly. The incompetent thugs in the Tatmadaw haven’t been able to defeat the actual rebels in fifty plus years of fighting.

Always funny watching an einsatzgruppen wannabe expose himself. We crushed your heroes, leaving only fifth columnists like yourself to snivel and wail.

Do you have a deep dramatic narrative voice?

How do you fit into this "we" that defeated something? That's likely where your motivations stem from.

 

[Tigerace117]

You're good at making claims. Can you back them up?

I already have....repeatedly.