Thread: guns

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Yeah, those Europeans didn't need guns at all from 1932-1945. It's not like a socialist dictator tried to take over or anything.

lol. I hope you do know the difference between national-socialism as in the NSDAP, and 'real' socialism, especially in it's 21th century quite-liberal incarnations. Socialism can be silly, but certainly isn't comparable to Nazis. (Also, Stalin wasn't a socialist.) Actually, I might be wrong on this, but it is simply not the case that Hitler is referred to a socialist by historians today.

Okay, now once we got the meaning of that 'complicated' and very 'dirty' and 'scary' word clear.

I highly doubt that the European citizens would have enough guns to really change the outcome of the war. Also, the second world was was one of the last war that was based on the, then already expired, conviction that a great nation needs and benefits of more land for resources and as lebensraum. As a lot of European countries found out, great recourse and slave sources such as Surinam and The Antilles for the Netherlands, in the 20th century became an economical burden.

Simply said, if someone wanted to become economically more powerful or even 'defeat' Europe, they would never march in with armies. Occupation and conquering countries simply has no benefit in the 21th century (a few oil-rich countries aside). Basically, Europe will get nuked into oblivion far before being invaded. Thus, citizens carrying guns do not help at all against fascist forces in the 21th century. At least not as far as Europe is concerned.

Originally Posted by Neruo

lol. I hope you do know the difference between national-socialism as in the NSDAP, and 'real' socialism, especially in it's 21th century quite-liberal incarnations. Socialism can be silly, but certainly isn't comparable to Nazis. (Also, Stalin wasn't a socialist.) Actually, I might be wrong on this, but it is simply not the case that Hitler is referred to a socialist by historians today.

Socialism is socialism.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I highly doubt that the European citizens would have enough guns to really change the outcome of the war.

I guess you've never heard of the Maquis?

Originally Posted by Neruo

Also, the second world was was one of the last war that was based on the, then already expired, conviction that a great nation needs and benefits of more land for resources and as lebensraum. As a lot of European countries found out, great recourse and slave sources such as Surinam and The Antilles for the Netherlands, in the 20th century became an economical burden.

Simply said, if someone wanted to become economically more powerful or even 'defeat' Europe, they would never march in with armies. Occupation and conquering countries simply has no benefit in the 21th century (a few oil-rich countries aside). Basically, Europe will get nuked into oblivion far before being invaded. Thus, citizens carrying guns do not help at all against fascist forces in the 21th century. At least not as far as Europe is concerned.

I'm not talking about outside invasion; I'm talking about the existing governments becoming even more tyrannical than they are now.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Socialism is socialism.

Then you are an idiot. The NSDAP is about as far from 21th century socialistic parties as possible.

I guess you've never heard of the Maquis?

The French army probably was properly armed in all the wars against England too. They lost all or almost all of them. I don't think a few more armed peasants would help against the Wehrmacht.

I'm not talking about outside invasion; I'm talking about the existing governments becoming even more tyrannical than they are now.

Well, then you shouldn't have mentioned Hitler's invasion.

As far as tyrannical governments, it's probably America, not Europe, that is growing close to that. As I told before in this topic, armed populous doesn't prevent a government tyranny in the 21th century.

Some people need to watch V for Vendetta.