|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 23 2012 06:36 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:23 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. I think its fairly imminent. Our constitutional rights have been reduced to a guarantee of kindness from the president. Our rights are lip service now. I disagree. We aren't that far gone yet, even though our rights have the threat of being trampled on, it is not as bad as the conservative blogosphere would have us believe. We should be active in watching, but the sky is not falling yet. That said, I do think something else is emminent: economic collapse. If that happens, our society is too reliant on the 'system as it is' and 'just in time' goods to stay orderly very long. It would be mass chaos and breakdown of infrastructure like the world has never seen. I don't think we're in an unrecoverable position where that is GOING to happen, but I think that the mainstream media telling us that everything is fine and we are starting to pull out of our recession is just a comfort that is staving off panic. No one is willing to acknowledge the fact that we nearly went into a depression 2 years ago, and we did nothing to reverse the trend, in fact we made it worse by jumping in the deep end of debt, and devaluing our dollar by doing so. Drastic changes need to be made in all areas of this nation, not just our government, before we start to pull out of it, but I don't think people are willing to change until it's too late. But that's another thread :D Well I actually agree with you. Culturally and such we arent ready for a very authoritarian Government-- but the problem is we are most likely headed for an economic collapse, and I have no idea which way the culture could shift in that time. I honestly do expect most "liberals" [a disgusting abuse of a word if there ever was one] will push for greater authoritarianism. Things certainly might not end well.
On the other hand the next few years may be the best chance we've had in ages to break the back of the welfare state and general authoritarian policies [drug war etc].On July 23 2012 06:47 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:41 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 06:23 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:
[quote]
.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. I think its fairly imminent. Our constitutional rights have been reduced to a guarantee of kindness from the president. Our rights are lip service now. I know im going to regret asking but what right has possibly been reduced lately? It's just... you are less and less anonymous, whatever you do, you're tracked, checked, double-checked, recorded (and eventually listened), whatever you do, surf, buy or anything. There's barely your home left as a haven. And the Patriot Act was a huge fucking blow, it's amazing what you can pass when public opinion is shocked. Not to mention the national defense authorization act.
|
On July 23 2012 06:47 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:35 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. The founders couldnt even comprehend how powerful our military could possibly become. Unfortunetly the thing I listed is really the only defense because your gun is USELESS against a trained military. Back then your gun was same as there gun and they didnt have fighter pilots or bombers or automatic weapons and body armor and any of the other 200+ things you will never ever get access to as a civilian. Again. You're assuming that the entire force of the military would be turned on the American people. If a few million Americans march up to The Mall in Washington DC and every single one is carrying a rifle, I doubt that bombs would be dropped, and I doubt that they would even have to use their rifles.Their demands would probably be met. Also you're acting as if, if it does come to violence, that every fight is going to happen in an open field, like an old man with an AR is going to fire at a fighter jet. No, it would be something like: there will be a national call issued that all guns are being collected from home to home, and gun owners will issue a polite "No." They aren't going to clusterbomb entire neighborhoods or point a tank at every home saying bring out the guns or you get blown away. It's just about the principal of every American to posses the ability to defend against a man who tries to capture or kill him. No one is naive enough to think united gun owners and militia would survive the full force of the US military if they decided they were going to commit genocide on the American people. If the military sides with the people, which I could never imagine otherwise, the people can just walk into the capitol building and take over. But honestly, I think the tradition and respect for firearms will die out here eventually, and in 4-5 generations, they will just be surrendered voluntarily, as there won't be much need for them anymore.
The military sort of has a thing where they dont side peopel commiting treason. The last major act of treason was 150 years ago and failed and even then they used same guns as the army did basically (with a few exceptions). Even today you see these littlegroups attempting to commit treason quickly arrested and jailed and no one in military decides to side with those guys.
But, lets take your assumpion at face value and assume that in todays world 1 million people could march into DC with rifles into an area that they would be blocked off from nonviolently and that none of the 1 million people in the crowd would fire a shot. Even if we assume all of that to be true there overall plan is "please side with us military" which sort of defeats the purpose of having the rifles in first place.
|
On July 23 2012 06:50 whatevername wrote:
Not to mention the national defense authorization act.
Whats wrong with it?
|
can't we stop with the sophistic argument of "tyranical government", do you guys actually believe in this stupid idea?
no you don't need weapons to protect yourself against your "government" and tbh, the day this shit would happen, weapons or not, it will end bad for you.
so start hiding.
|
On July 23 2012 06:59 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:50 whatevername wrote:
Not to mention the national defense authorization act. Whats wrong with it? Indefinite detention without trial of american citizens.
edit: That provision was apparently shut down by a judge two months ago, I didnt hear of that-- but the administration is attempting to fight it and claiming the interpretation was only for the particular people in the case not as a widespread policy. So we'll have to wait and see where that goes.
|
|
|
On July 23 2012 07:02 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:59 m4inbrain wrote:On July 23 2012 06:50 whatevername wrote:
Not to mention the national defense authorization act. Whats wrong with it? Indefinite detention without trial of american citizens. edit: That provision was apparently shut down by a judge two months ago, I didnt hear of that-- but the administration is attempting to fight it and claiming the interpretation was only for the particular people in the case not as a widespread policy. So we'll have to wait and see where that goes.
Even before that there was a Supreme Court ruling stating that under no circumstances can the government remove the writ of habeas corpus when dealing with American citizens.
Also, when talking about the NDAA you should probably mention which one you're talking about, as there is one every year.
|
On July 23 2012 07:08 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 07:02 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 06:59 m4inbrain wrote:On July 23 2012 06:50 whatevername wrote:
Not to mention the national defense authorization act. Whats wrong with it? Indefinite detention without trial of american citizens. edit: That provision was apparently shut down by a judge two months ago, I didnt hear of that-- but the administration is attempting to fight it and claiming the interpretation was only for the particular people in the case not as a widespread policy. So we'll have to wait and see where that goes. Even before that there was a Supreme Court ruling stating that under no circumstances can the government remove the writ of habeas corpus when dealing with American citizens. Also, when talking about the NDAA you should probably mention which one you're talking about, as there is one every year. 2012 one, and who cares? There was a supreme court decision that said we could segregate schools until that was shot down. It's something to justfiably be concerned about given the general political climate [the very fact that it was passed...] and the supreme court makeup.
|
On July 23 2012 02:04 King.Tut wrote:How serious? Gizmodo even commented on how easy it is.Edit// The fallacy is underestimating crime. The logic is that the law abiding citizen will play by the rules. A criminal is a criminal because they tend to not play by the rules. Not all criminals are stupid, and they definitely are not scarce. There are not enough police to be effective in preventing something as simple as the web page just sited. So the law abiding citizen who does not have the gun to defend himself is now the victim rather than enabled to defend himself intelligently. To believe that laws will prevent guns, is just ignorance. There are laws against drugs, and drugs can be bought anywhere.
Yeah, but you can't order a kilo of cocaine online, the way Holmes could order 6000 rounds of ammunition from a military equipment supplier. (Or maybe you know something I don't).
Drugs can be bought 'anywhere', but not with out significant risk for the buyer, seller and manufacturer.
Now, I'm certainly NOT saying that guns should be prohibited like drugs. But I'm just saying that your specific type of argument that, 'Guns can get bought anywhere, so why not?' is also a bit of a fallacy, and not a justification for lax laws.
It's like saying, "Well, kids are going to end up getting cigarettes anyway, so we might as well sell them to 'em".
|
On July 23 2012 07:09 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 07:08 WTFZerg wrote:On July 23 2012 07:02 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 06:59 m4inbrain wrote:On July 23 2012 06:50 whatevername wrote:
Not to mention the national defense authorization act. Whats wrong with it? Indefinite detention without trial of american citizens. edit: That provision was apparently shut down by a judge two months ago, I didnt hear of that-- but the administration is attempting to fight it and claiming the interpretation was only for the particular people in the case not as a widespread policy. So we'll have to wait and see where that goes. Even before that there was a Supreme Court ruling stating that under no circumstances can the government remove the writ of habeas corpus when dealing with American citizens. Also, when talking about the NDAA you should probably mention which one you're talking about, as there is one every year. 2012 one, and who cares? There was a supreme court decision that said we could segregate schools until that was shot down. It's something to justfiably be concerned about given the general political climate [the very fact that it was passed...] and the supreme court makeup.
Because the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of legislation in the United States. They have the final say in judicial matters, and if they state that you cannot remove habeas corpus then it can't legally be done, regardless of what the NDAA 2012 stated.
|
Kinda funny that this law is such a controversy in the US, and guns are not.
Just let me ask the question, (apart the obvious reason that its kinda against the law) - whats your beef with that law? Whats wrong with it? Do you fear to be inprisoned on a wrong accusation, or..?
|
On July 23 2012 07:12 WTFZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 07:09 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 07:08 WTFZerg wrote:On July 23 2012 07:02 whatevername wrote:On July 23 2012 06:59 m4inbrain wrote:On July 23 2012 06:50 whatevername wrote:
Not to mention the national defense authorization act. Whats wrong with it? Indefinite detention without trial of american citizens. edit: That provision was apparently shut down by a judge two months ago, I didnt hear of that-- but the administration is attempting to fight it and claiming the interpretation was only for the particular people in the case not as a widespread policy. So we'll have to wait and see where that goes. Even before that there was a Supreme Court ruling stating that under no circumstances can the government remove the writ of habeas corpus when dealing with American citizens. Also, when talking about the NDAA you should probably mention which one you're talking about, as there is one every year. 2012 one, and who cares? There was a supreme court decision that said we could segregate schools until that was shot down. It's something to justfiably be concerned about given the general political climate [the very fact that it was passed...] and the supreme court makeup. Because the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of legislation in the United States. They have the final say in judicial matters, and if they state that you cannot remove habeas corpus then it can't legally be done, regardless of what the NDAA 2012 stated. Did you not read my post? I clearly made the comparison with a past decision that was then overturned. The supreme court is hardly reliable.
|
On July 23 2012 06:57 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:47 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:35 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:
[quote]
.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. The founders couldnt even comprehend how powerful our military could possibly become. Unfortunetly the thing I listed is really the only defense because your gun is USELESS against a trained military. Back then your gun was same as there gun and they didnt have fighter pilots or bombers or automatic weapons and body armor and any of the other 200+ things you will never ever get access to as a civilian. Again. You're assuming that the entire force of the military would be turned on the American people. If a few million Americans march up to The Mall in Washington DC and every single one is carrying a rifle, I doubt that bombs would be dropped, and I doubt that they would even have to use their rifles.Their demands would probably be met. Also you're acting as if, if it does come to violence, that every fight is going to happen in an open field, like an old man with an AR is going to fire at a fighter jet. No, it would be something like: there will be a national call issued that all guns are being collected from home to home, and gun owners will issue a polite "No." They aren't going to clusterbomb entire neighborhoods or point a tank at every home saying bring out the guns or you get blown away. It's just about the principal of every American to posses the ability to defend against a man who tries to capture or kill him. No one is naive enough to think united gun owners and militia would survive the full force of the US military if they decided they were going to commit genocide on the American people. If the military sides with the people, which I could never imagine otherwise, the people can just walk into the capitol building and take over. But honestly, I think the tradition and respect for firearms will die out here eventually, and in 4-5 generations, they will just be surrendered voluntarily, as there won't be much need for them anymore. The military sort of has a thing where they dont side peopel commiting treason. The last major act of treason was 150 years ago and failed and even then they used same guns as the army did basically (with a few exceptions). Even today you see these littlegroups attempting to commit treason quickly arrested and jailed and no one in military decides to side with those guys. But, lets take your assumpion at face value and assume that in todays world 1 million people could march into DC with rifles into an area that they would be blocked off from nonviolently and that none of the 1 million people in the crowd would fire a shot. Even if we assume all of that to be true there overall plan is "please side with us military" which sort of defeats the purpose of having the rifles in first place.
As I said, it's more about the principal of having the ability to fight and die fighting instead of being helpless. A united population of armed citizens is difficult to herd into camps or strip of property or break families up without just committing genocide. You can say you're just as helpless with an assault rifle as without in the face of F-22 Raptors and Cruise Missiles from Destroyers off the coast, but its about every American putting liberty before their own lives and since we can't buy anti air rockets and artillery, each of us can just do his best and give his life for freedom. It's basically showing the government 'you'll have to get through every last one of us armed, and if that means using higher tech than we can muster, so be it.'
I joined the military. You are sworn to the Constitution above all else. If the government ever departs from the principles of the Consitution, it is your obligation to the American people first to defend it and them, not to follow orders or military law. Treason is irrelevant when there is no one left to carry out the orders of those calling it that to arrest dissenters. I can't imagine the patriotic American military ever giving into orders from a state that requires them to kill Americans who are defending the Constitution.
|
On July 23 2012 07:24 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 06:57 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 06:47 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:35 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:26 Wegandi wrote:
[quote]
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
If you hand in your weapons there is no means of defense against tyranny, and if history is any indication time is the march of tyranny and enslavement. If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. The founders couldnt even comprehend how powerful our military could possibly become. Unfortunetly the thing I listed is really the only defense because your gun is USELESS against a trained military. Back then your gun was same as there gun and they didnt have fighter pilots or bombers or automatic weapons and body armor and any of the other 200+ things you will never ever get access to as a civilian. Again. You're assuming that the entire force of the military would be turned on the American people. If a few million Americans march up to The Mall in Washington DC and every single one is carrying a rifle, I doubt that bombs would be dropped, and I doubt that they would even have to use their rifles.Their demands would probably be met. Also you're acting as if, if it does come to violence, that every fight is going to happen in an open field, like an old man with an AR is going to fire at a fighter jet. No, it would be something like: there will be a national call issued that all guns are being collected from home to home, and gun owners will issue a polite "No." They aren't going to clusterbomb entire neighborhoods or point a tank at every home saying bring out the guns or you get blown away. It's just about the principal of every American to posses the ability to defend against a man who tries to capture or kill him. No one is naive enough to think united gun owners and militia would survive the full force of the US military if they decided they were going to commit genocide on the American people. If the military sides with the people, which I could never imagine otherwise, the people can just walk into the capitol building and take over. But honestly, I think the tradition and respect for firearms will die out here eventually, and in 4-5 generations, they will just be surrendered voluntarily, as there won't be much need for them anymore. The military sort of has a thing where they dont side peopel commiting treason. The last major act of treason was 150 years ago and failed and even then they used same guns as the army did basically (with a few exceptions). Even today you see these littlegroups attempting to commit treason quickly arrested and jailed and no one in military decides to side with those guys. But, lets take your assumpion at face value and assume that in todays world 1 million people could march into DC with rifles into an area that they would be blocked off from nonviolently and that none of the 1 million people in the crowd would fire a shot. Even if we assume all of that to be true there overall plan is "please side with us military" which sort of defeats the purpose of having the rifles in first place. As I said, it's more about the principal of having the ability to fight and die fighting instead of being helpless. A united population of armed citizens is difficult to herd into camps or strip of property or break families up without just committing genocide. You can say you're just as helpless with an assault rifle as without in the face of F-22 Raptors and Cruise Missiles from Destroyers off the coast, but its about every American putting liberty before their own lives and since we can't buy anti air rockets and artillery, each of us can just do his best and give his life for freedom. It's basically showing the government 'you'll have to get through every last one of us armed, and if that means using higher tech than we can muster, so be it.' I joined the military. You are sworn to the Constitution above all else. If the government ever departs from the principles of the Consitution, it is your obligation to the American people first to defend it and them, not to follow orders or military law. Treason is irrelevant when there is no one left to carry out the orders of those calling it that to arrest dissenters. I can't imagine the patriotic American military ever giving into orders from a state that requires them to kill Americans who are defending the Constitution.
That somehow there would be some obvious cut and dry form of treason that would rival North Korea is sort of laughable and anyones gun isnt the reason it is. Having the illusion of being safe against governemnt doenst make it so it just makes it more dangerous for other people. The biggest practical concern is the jailing without pressing charges of both citizens and non citizens alike but the military supports this so even if you say you are trying to defend constitution military will say they are trying to protect the country.
|
On July 23 2012 07:37 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 07:24 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:57 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 06:47 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:35 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 06:10 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 06:08 Adreme wrote:On July 23 2012 05:50 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 05:33 Adila wrote:On July 23 2012 05:29 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
If EVERY single US non military citizen decided to try and overthrow the government they would lose in less than a month and do nearly no damage. Your gun provides you ZERO defense against tyranny. When second amendment to US Constitution it did because the military used the same weapons as the civilians so it wasnt unrealistic for a overthrow to be possible but that really isnt the case anymore. Pretty much. If the government really wanted to kill you, you wouldn't even know it happened until the flames from the drone missile hit you. You'd have to be pretty damn important to the revolutionary movement to earn your own drone strike. There are a lot of people in this country who wouldn't accept tyranny. I would venture that they well outnumber the number in the police force and military. Numbers dont win a war. The defenses against tyranny arent owning guns in any way and have about as much do with peventing it as I do in resolving the European financial crisis. As long as the elections are protected and as safeguards are placed to keep them from being bought than your worries about tryanny are not a concern. The illusion of freedom is different from actual freedom. They may still offer you a vote, but if all your personal liberties and constitutional rights are stripped through the subtle passing of new law like the Patriot Act, then how truly free are you, and what does your vote really matter? Not saying i think it's imminent, just that it's posssible and we should always be on the watch for our government, as our founders instructed us to. The founders couldnt even comprehend how powerful our military could possibly become. Unfortunetly the thing I listed is really the only defense because your gun is USELESS against a trained military. Back then your gun was same as there gun and they didnt have fighter pilots or bombers or automatic weapons and body armor and any of the other 200+ things you will never ever get access to as a civilian. Again. You're assuming that the entire force of the military would be turned on the American people. If a few million Americans march up to The Mall in Washington DC and every single one is carrying a rifle, I doubt that bombs would be dropped, and I doubt that they would even have to use their rifles.Their demands would probably be met. Also you're acting as if, if it does come to violence, that every fight is going to happen in an open field, like an old man with an AR is going to fire at a fighter jet. No, it would be something like: there will be a national call issued that all guns are being collected from home to home, and gun owners will issue a polite "No." They aren't going to clusterbomb entire neighborhoods or point a tank at every home saying bring out the guns or you get blown away. It's just about the principal of every American to posses the ability to defend against a man who tries to capture or kill him. No one is naive enough to think united gun owners and militia would survive the full force of the US military if they decided they were going to commit genocide on the American people. If the military sides with the people, which I could never imagine otherwise, the people can just walk into the capitol building and take over. But honestly, I think the tradition and respect for firearms will die out here eventually, and in 4-5 generations, they will just be surrendered voluntarily, as there won't be much need for them anymore. The military sort of has a thing where they dont side peopel commiting treason. The last major act of treason was 150 years ago and failed and even then they used same guns as the army did basically (with a few exceptions). Even today you see these littlegroups attempting to commit treason quickly arrested and jailed and no one in military decides to side with those guys. But, lets take your assumpion at face value and assume that in todays world 1 million people could march into DC with rifles into an area that they would be blocked off from nonviolently and that none of the 1 million people in the crowd would fire a shot. Even if we assume all of that to be true there overall plan is "please side with us military" which sort of defeats the purpose of having the rifles in first place. As I said, it's more about the principal of having the ability to fight and die fighting instead of being helpless. A united population of armed citizens is difficult to herd into camps or strip of property or break families up without just committing genocide. You can say you're just as helpless with an assault rifle as without in the face of F-22 Raptors and Cruise Missiles from Destroyers off the coast, but its about every American putting liberty before their own lives and since we can't buy anti air rockets and artillery, each of us can just do his best and give his life for freedom. It's basically showing the government 'you'll have to get through every last one of us armed, and if that means using higher tech than we can muster, so be it.' I joined the military. You are sworn to the Constitution above all else. If the government ever departs from the principles of the Consitution, it is your obligation to the American people first to defend it and them, not to follow orders or military law. Treason is irrelevant when there is no one left to carry out the orders of those calling it that to arrest dissenters. I can't imagine the patriotic American military ever giving into orders from a state that requires them to kill Americans who are defending the Constitution. That somehow there would be some obvious cut and dry form of treason that would rival North Korea is sort of laughable and anyones gun isnt the reason it is. Having the illusion of being safe against governemnt doenst make it so it just makes it more dangerous for other people. The biggest practical concern is the jailing without pressing charges of both citizens and non citizens alike but the military supports this so even if you say you are trying to defend constitution military will say they are trying to protect the country.
American definition of Treason is betrayal of the Constitution. The only treason committed if tyranny was the rule would be the government that denies the Constitution. Police, military, and militia organizations have the werewithall to side with the armed citizens if those citizens are standing for the Constitution and the government isn't. The guns don't do any of the fighting directly, you're correct as I've already acknowledged, armed citizens' guns might as well be clubs and spears in the face of the military might we possess. As I said, they are really just a message, that says 'we will always stand for liberty, you won't take our liberties by force unless you just want to annihilate the American ideal by annihilating (genocide) all people who stand for the Constitution, but you sure as hell won't take us into camps or seize our land by going house to house, because we will put up a fight." They would have to slaughter people because they won't be taking their guns before they take their lives.
It is all based on the principles from the Revolutionary War where we one our independence, where every able man should keep the powder at the ready. It is more figurative now since the playing field of the people is no longer equal to the government.
|
I'm out for now. Great discussion, I'll talk to you all later. I'll leave you with a quote from the one of the wisest in American history:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
|
On July 23 2012 05:24 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 05:22 Infernal_dream wrote:On July 23 2012 05:17 Chargelot wrote:.... You go ahead and shoot at cops, even the bad ones. I double dare you. Good luck, have fun, die well. Cops are well known for not having the greatest accuracy. Not to mention if I pull a rifle vs his handgun I'm gonna win. Plenty of people shoot cops every year and win. Just sayin. Cops are well known for their inaccuracy in movies and television. Not to mention they pretty much have rifles and shotguns in almost every jursidiction. Plenty of cops shoot people every year and win. But seriously, did you watch the video? It'd be easier to siege a police station than shoot a cop there and win.
Cops are well known for their inaccuracy in movies and television. Yeah. Right. Many if not all PDs have qualifications once, maybe twice a year. Many officers do not fire their sidearm except for qualification. That's why you see floods of Glock 22 LEO trade ins with pretty much nothing but holster wear. Get a cop under duress where there's a lot of adrenaline involved and his accuracy droops to the point of an average citizen in a controlled environment.
|
True for all policemen all over the world. And its kinda not surprising, you would need actually at least military training (or actual experience in a firefight) to reduce the stress to that extend that it does not affect your aiming anymore.
Even soldiers have the problem that stress, adrenaline, fear etc impares their aiming (from experience). You cant really expect a police officer to do better than a soldier.
|
Yes, people should be allowed to own or carry guns.
|
On July 23 2012 07:57 StarStrider wrote:
I'm out for now. Great discussion, I'll talk to you all later. I'll leave you with a quote from the one of the wisest in American history:
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
So are you saying most of the EU don't deserve liberty or safety?
your quote is a bad example. Great people aren't awlays perfect.
Its time to give up guns. all you have to do is look at countries with gun control and see the benefits. i dont know why republicans are so stubborn in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
