|
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 January 16 2013 04:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:11 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. What's so crazy about it? Democracies have turned tyrannical many times in the past. The Reign of Terror in France in the 19th century, the election of Fascists in Spain and Italy in the early 20th century, and more recently it looks like it might happen again in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood bullying its way in. The US Government has murdered American Citizens. Look up Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Kent State. The government is not some perfect, angelic institution. It's made up of the same people who many feel cannot be trusted with "Assault Weapons". If I can't have "Assault Weapons", they shouldn't either. On January 16 2013 04:01 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:54 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:51 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:46 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia. Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it. "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling. Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war. Why doesn't it make sense? Because having a central, easily targeted organization throws away many of the advantages of guerrilla warfare. It's easy to fight an easily-identified, organized foe. Predator drones would be over the militia HQ in minutes. It's much harder to fight a foe who could be anyone anywhere, who also has a fluid, difficult-to-disrupt or even nonexistent chain of command. What? You're saying a militia can't engage in guerrilla warfare? Why? They can, and I expect that the few militia groups around would. But they will not be as effective as disparate individuals. Militias have a chain of command that can be disrupted, they have logistics that can be attacked or denied. Individuals don't have either of those problems. That's what our current military has. Right, which is why individuals are better off. The US military is great at disrupting chains of command or bombing logistics. It's not so good at hunting down individual guerrilla fighters. I'm totally in favor of having an actual militia, I just don't think they're the answer if it comes to blows against the US military. I wish there was one close enough to me so I could join up.
I think you're mixing up conversations, I was discussing why the U.S. should not have a standing army, and rely on militias for national defense. Your response was strange as militias would be less centralized than the U.S. military.
|
On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)"
All those vets focused on killcounts, which as I've explained previously, isn't what war is about. The NVA lost at least 10 times as many people as the US military, yet they still won. It isn't about who runs out of soldiers first, its about who loses the will to fight first. If the guerrillas are ok with pretty severe casualties, it doesn't really make a difference how scary and powerful the military is.
While any individual is unlikely to make much of a difference, there's 100,000,000-300,000,000 guns in the US (depending on whose stats you believe). That's at least one gun for every three people. I find it hard to believe that they'd be pushovers.
On January 16 2013 04:21 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:18 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:11 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. What's so crazy about it? Democracies have turned tyrannical many times in the past. The Reign of Terror in France in the 19th century, the election of Fascists in Spain and Italy in the early 20th century, and more recently it looks like it might happen again in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood bullying its way in. The US Government has murdered American Citizens. Look up Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Kent State. The government is not some perfect, angelic institution. It's made up of the same people who many feel cannot be trusted with "Assault Weapons". If I can't have "Assault Weapons", they shouldn't either. On January 16 2013 04:01 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:54 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:51 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:46 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia. Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it. "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling. Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war. Why doesn't it make sense? Because having a central, easily targeted organization throws away many of the advantages of guerrilla warfare. It's easy to fight an easily-identified, organized foe. Predator drones would be over the militia HQ in minutes. It's much harder to fight a foe who could be anyone anywhere, who also has a fluid, difficult-to-disrupt or even nonexistent chain of command. What? You're saying a militia can't engage in guerrilla warfare? Why? They can, and I expect that the few militia groups around would. But they will not be as effective as disparate individuals. Militias have a chain of command that can be disrupted, they have logistics that can be attacked or denied. Individuals don't have either of those problems. That's what our current military has. Right, which is why individuals are better off. The US military is great at disrupting chains of command or bombing logistics. It's not so good at hunting down individual guerrilla fighters. I'm totally in favor of having an actual militia, I just don't think they're the answer if it comes to blows against the US military. I wish there was one close enough to me so I could join up. I think you're mixing up conversations, I was discussing why the U.S. should not have a standing army, and rely on militias for national defense. Your response was strange as militias would be less centralized than the U.S. military.
OOOOHHHH, gotcha. Yeah, my mistake. I totally agree that the U.S. shouldn't have a standing army. We don't need it. Imagine if all the money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had gone to NASA instead. We'd have cities on Mars by now.
|
There's at least 300,000,000 guns in the country. I'm going to duck out of this thread, you've derailed it into craziness yet again...
|
On January 16 2013 04:16 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:10 iplayBANJO wrote:On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. The arguments against the "fight the fed" argument as you call it have to my knowledge been: no disorganized force armed with small arms and improvised weapons can stand against the might of the US military, and the US government will never turn against the population. The first part has been refuted by evidence in place such as Afghanistan and Vietnam, and the second part is just as hypothetical, with less evidence of the possibility, as the situation when the US government changes in a manner to oppress it's people. You're clearly not understanding my post or just flat out didn't read it.
I read it just fine. You said any situation where an armed uprising is hypothetical, then said that "countless" other people have dismissed the arguments as crazy and essentially left the discussion. I don't think the problem with that lies with those of us who articulate our arguments in an attempt to be understood. I think the problem lies with those who choose not to have a discussion with someone who doesn't agree with them on everything. Just because it's "hard to take seriously" doesn't mean that it is not a meaningful part of the issue.
On January 16 2013 04:26 heliusx wrote:
There's at least 300,000,000 guns in the country. I'm going to duck out of this thread, you've derailed it into craziness yet again...
We could argue about the feasibility of removing those 300,000,000 guns from the population if you wanted. Some people would decide that people are stupid for thinking it's possible, and leave the conversation. Others would decide that people are stupid for not wanting to try, and leave the conversation. This doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed as part of the issue.
|
On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country?
|
On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)"
Hey, can't hurt.
|
On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country?
They don't.
|
On January 16 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country? They don't.
You just said they do. You said resistance would be utterly futile. Also you didn't address the second part.
|
On January 16 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country? They don't.
...so... You (smokeyhoodoo) think the reason guns should be legal is to defend yourself from your government? There is a huge difference in army and militia. No country would ever disarm their army. But having trained, professional soldiers carry weapons is a whole other story than your average joe carrying around hand guns... Sorry for being so scandinavian - and clichée... But look at the numbers... Guns won't defend you from guns... You're more likely to die/kill if you own a gun than if you don't.
|
On January 16 2013 04:35 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country? They don't. You just said they do. You said resistance would be utterly futile. Also you didn't address the second part.
No, I said the imagined scenario of a civilian guerilla force whose power of influence hinges on having small arms before the fact is the work of childish fantasy. Go ahead and read again.
|
I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve.
And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world.
Here's a worldwide statistic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
US homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000
UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000.
In other words, over three times higher.
Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’+ Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa
Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation.
Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives.
On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche.
If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people.
Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it.
Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values.
|
Someone in the New York legislative debate just suggested that a magazine round limit was reasonable because if you need more rounds you can always have more guns. He said it in defense of the bill when another representative asked what someone should do when they miss while defending their home. I think a better point would have been that a responsible gun owner would have enough experience using their firearms that they wouldn't miss a target as large as a human being, and as close as in view inside a home.
This New York State assembly debate is worrying to me. Not necessarily because of the bill, but because of how misinformed or unprepared most representatives seem to be about the bill, or even their own opinions about the bill.
|
On January 16 2013 04:39 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country? They don't. ...so... You (smokeyhoodoo) think the reason guns should be legal is to defend yourself from your government? There is a huge difference in army and militia. No country would ever disarm their army. But having trained, professional soldiers carry weapons is a whole other story than your average joe carrying around hand guns... Sorry for being so scandinavian - and clichée... But look at the numbers... Guns won't defend you from guns... You're more likely to die/kill if you own a gun than if you don't.
Trained professionals murdered that family at Ruby Ridge. Trained professionals murdered those people at Waco. Trained professionals fired on students at Kent State.
Just because they're official, uniformed, and trained doesn't make them angels.
|
United States24673 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:44 iplayBANJO wrote:
Someone in the New York legislative debate just suggested that a magazine round limit was reasonable because if you need more rounds you can always have more guns. He said it in defense of the bill when another representative asked what someone should do when they miss while defending their home. I think a better point would have been that a responsible gun owner would have enough experience using their firearms that they wouldn't miss a target as large as a human being, and as close as in view inside a home.
This New York State assembly debate is worrying to me. Not necessarily because of the bill, but because of how misinformed or unprepared most representatives seem to be about the bill, or even their own opinions about the bill.
Most of them haven't even read it yet, and someone just said the senate voted before many of them even read it fully. The governor is trying to rush this through, and rushing through a poorly crafted bill is not the way to deal with an issue when you claim the issue in so important that we must deal with it immediately. Many different things are also being grouped together to try to pass more controversial things on the coattails of less controversial ones.
I don't agree with what you said though: "a responsible gun owner would have enough experience using their firearms that they wouldn't miss a target as large as a human being, and as close as in view inside a home." Maybe if you are the world's most veteran player of Goldeneye for N64 and you can hit an enemy on your first try in that game.
It was just one legislator who suggested one bullet though, and in most situations 7 bullets for someone who actually has done some basic training/practice with their home defense gun would be sufficient. Still I also facepalmed when he suggested multiple guns, implying lara croft style shooting XD
|
|
|
On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given?
Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU.
|
On January 16 2013 04:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:35 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country? They don't. You just said they do. You said resistance would be utterly futile. Also you didn't address the second part. No, I said the imagined scenario of a civilian guerilla force whose power of influence hinges on having small arms before the fact is the work of childish fantasy. Go ahead and read again.
Fair enough, I misunderstood. Other people were saying that, not you.
|
On January 16 2013 04:39 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:34 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:31 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:19 farvacola wrote:On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army? No.
Why should the state have at their disposal the power to completely suppress their own people, or those in another country? They don't. ...so... You (smokeyhoodoo) think the reason guns should be legal is to defend yourself from your government? There is a huge difference in army and militia. No country would ever disarm their army. But having trained, professional soldiers carry weapons is a whole other story than your average joe carrying around hand guns... Sorry for being so scandinavian - and clichée... But look at the numbers... Guns won't defend you from guns... You're more likely to die/kill if you own a gun than if you don't.
I'm saying there shouldn't be an army (at least not a permanent one) and national defense should be handled by the citizens. This leads to accountability of the state, and a lack of foreign wars.
|
On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU.
Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it.
User was warned for this post.
Alcohol is not an instrument designed for killing.
|
On January 16 2013 04:57 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:50 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 04:43 bardtown wrote:I never said it was. Anybody who's lived in a rough part of the UK knows that it can be incredibly violent. We have our own problems to solve. And for crying out loud, of course the US isn't on a chart of EU statistics. Being 13th for homicides in the EU is actually not bad, given that the UK is one of the biggest countries there and that European states have the lowest crimes rates in the world. Here's a worldwide statistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rateUS homicide rate: 4.8 per 100,000 UK homicide rate: 1.2 per 100,000. In other words, over three times higher. Violent crime is not murder. I lived in the north east of the UK for 10 years, in a town where 'robbery, burglary, sexual assault, violent crimes and car theft are all more than twice the UK average.’ + Show Spoiler +http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204127/Middlesbrough-really-worst-place-live.html#ixzz2I4bAaUsa Believe you me, I'm fucking thankful we don't have guns on the streets there, and believe you me, I'd pick it over the roughest estates in the US without hesitation. Correct me if I'm mistaken but weren't assault weapons used in the Sandy Hook shooting? And I know there have been instances prior to that. You completely ignore what I said, try to counter with some bullshit 'you're just as bad' response. I really don't care about the distinction between assault weapons and other types, what I care about is people trying to justify gun ownership despite a fucking wall of evidence and at the expense of peoples lives. On January 16 2013 03:27 Kimaker wrote:
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for gun ownership except 'we want our guns'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of guns results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Yes, teaching is required, understanding is required for mental health, but ultimately the avenue of turning to guns should not be one that is available and especially not so engrained in the national psyche. If only we could settle the issue through argument. Legislation is necessary for the protection of innocent people. Guns can be discarded just as easily as clothing, you just won't accept it. Believe me, if the government and US military turns on you, you're dead regardless of whether you have weapons or not. But be realistic. The US military consists of US citizens; they will not turn on the people of their own country because they share your values. This is such a pitiful argument. We do not live in a fucking utopia. People do not listen to argument. There is no case for alcohol ownership except 'we want our booze'. That is not sufficient justification for something that endangers the lives of so many people. If it isn't enough for you that the legality and availability of alcohol results in the death of children, what argument can possibly be given? Oh, and South Africa is on that chart, and they aren't in the EU. Once again avoid everything I say. Your country is full of murder, and you're facilitating it.
I have not shot anyone. No one has ever been shot with a gun I own. How am I facilitating it?
4.8 in 100,000 is hardly "Full". Especially when you consider that the majority of those are just criminals killing each other, fighting over drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
