|
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 21 2013 13:09 CapnAmerica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 09:24 Introvert wrote:On January 21 2013 09:19 CapnAmerica wrote:On January 21 2013 09:06 Falling wrote:
Well speaking of stats vs emotions and keeping to the facts- I have a question.
I've seen a couple news pieces in CNN and CBS recently that the NRA has been actively hindering research from being conducted through the CDC amongst other things. Is there truth to this? Because it seems to me if it truly is about stats and facts, then the NRA shouldn't be worried about more research to the extent to which they try to block it. I can't speak to this directly, but it's generally accepted in the U.S. that the NRA is full of nuts. There are plenty of reasonable people who are members as well, but those in power are on par with the heads of the current conservative Republican party. Bad politics. Actually, the NRA has a higher favorability rating than Congress and the president (41%ish). I don't know where you get your news to think that is "generally accepted." Most people that I know who are in favor of people owning firearms of any kind (this is anecdotal) feel that the NRA is a negative political organization outside of the fact that it happens to unite people who would like to own a gun. Bringing in stats for the President and Congress is a little silly to me, as I would never say that the current President or Congress are fanatical or totally inept. Except in jest. Also, I was never polled on what I think about the NRA -- where and when a study like that is performed and who is included have a huge impact. And, as an aside, 41% still means the majority is not in favor of it... Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 10:55 Dawski wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 21 2013 10:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 10:24 kmillz wrote:On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. Getting rid of guns does not prevent massacres. Any attempt to say otherwise is misinformed at best, malicious at worst. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre7 dead, 10 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre8 dead, 15 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banjarsari_massacre21 dead, 12 injured, no gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antakin15 dead, 3 injured, no gun. Exactly, it's not like people who have 'moments of madness' think "I feel like killing someone, too bad I don't have a gun, guess I'll just go read a book or something"... The process you just attempted to ridicule and dismiss as absurd is called "calming down" and it's pretty well documented. Wait, do you honestly think anyone who commits these mass murders with guns or not was just in a momentous rage and had a possibility of "calming down" without the mental help they really needed? I think the point that he's making is that it's much harder to stay irrationally angry for extended periods of time without the means to commit crimes easily. Guns don't commit crimes, but they make it way easier to inflict more damage in less time for less effort, and without as much of a visceral connection with your victims as, say, a knife. Taking the guns out of the equation won't eliminate the fact that someone needs help, but it will temporarily reduce how much damage they can do. Like building missile turrets in your base against drops. Gun control is actually StarCraft risk management.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159578/nra-favorable-image.aspx
More favorable than unfavorable. Most people I know have a favorable view. What makes them so bad? I for one am happy that there is at least one organization that will continue pushing the view (apparently held by their millions of members) of the second amendment's importance. I hold them in higher regard than all the teachers unions, large labor unions, etc. Those are all lobbying groups as well (yes, I know they aren't gun related). If there wasn't such a fight over guns they wouldn't have to lobby. (that's the way it works. One group/person begins it then all the others have follow suit to protect their own interests.)
I don't know why it must be continually clarified that a supporter of a person or organization doesn't have to agree with EVERYTHING they say.
Can someone PLEASE tell my what makes them so bad? The suspense is killing me.
I would say the current President and the Congress is inept. (In different ways.) but that is off-topic.
|
On January 21 2013 13:31 Introvert wrote:
If there wasn't such a fight over guns they wouldn't have to lobby.
I'm afraid you have this exactly backwards
|
On January 21 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 12:18 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 11:52 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. I found this part of your argument a bit surprising. On what basis can you claim that people who have enough resources to acquire something are therefore responsible enough to have it? I mean if you're talking in general, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone like North Korea's leader to have a nuke because he's somewhat unstable. Or any other rogue nation, for that matter. Syria's "leader" Bashar Al-Assad could potentially unleash chemical weapons on his own population; clearly he's not responsible. If you're just talking about an American citizen, it still isn't clear why what you're saying is true. I just don't see the correlation between being powerful and being responsible. I think maybe if you define the people specifically as "crazies" then maybe you're right. But there are lot of people who may be brainwashed or have very warped thinking, that will with determination find a way to pursue their extreme agenda. Personally, I'd be ok with any nation having nukes. By this I mean I would not find it morally reprehensible. The US isn't some bastion of good will and justice when it comes to foreign affairs, so if we can have nukes despite our failings, why can't Iran or North Korea? I would prefer if they did not have them, but I don't believe I can say they should not be allowed to have them. But that's for another thread, or PM's. As for civilians, in order to become that powerful, you had to be reasonable. Remember, nukes are so hard to get, entire countries have trouble doing it. This is not the kind of task an irresponsible person is capable of. Any psycho can drive a car through a crowd of people, or shoot up some public gathering, but it takes just such a huge amount of money and connections, that even sane civilians would have trouble succeeding. In any case, regardless of my opinion on it, all this nuke talk is pretty blatantly just a strawman. It's not a strawman. It illustrates a valid point. "Arms" is a very generic term, which, given the extremely life-threatening capabilities of modern technology, has already been compromised on in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Thus, most of us can't own lots of various arms that the military uses, such as artillery. Or nukes. What happens when "arms" takes a new turn as it did when semi-automatic guns were invented? Most of the handguns today would devastate the common weapons of the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries. Are we to take this generic "objects don't kill people" approach into the indefinite future? There are guns today that can bring down airplanes. These are generally exceptional, hard to get, and hopefully tracked by government agencies. But perhaps the handguns (if they're "guns" at all) of future generations will be just as capable of such devastation. Should everyone have one? Should they be common household items? Will that save lives? Should the common sense of the time not override the ideology of the 17th century slave-owners? Guns in 1776, in Europe and America, were only just beginning to be commonplace. It was only just recently that armies began using them. They could have no idea where the technology would go. Guns were the best - and the only - weapon. Artillery, high-explosives, and the such did not occur to them. In 1776, America was actually forbidding itself a standing army. All they had was militia. And they had slaves to control - not a slight problem in the least. So guns were it. They were the only weapon that mattered, and they were the defense of our nation. I don't mean to lecture, but it's pretty obvious that the mentality of that early America is almost completely irrelevant. We have a standing army now, to say the least, which is something our ancestors considered sacrilege. We've compromised on the concept that everyone can own whatever weapon they want. They can't. You can't own any weapon you might wish for, such as nukes. There are limits, and perhaps we should create some more, as our technology continues to develop.
Actually, civilians totally can own artillery, and tanks even. At least as far as the Federal government is concerned. All it takes is a $200 ATF tax stamp for owning a "Destructive Device" and a little paperwork. None of the legal issues are anywhere near as difficult as actually getting the money and finding a seller.
Guns weren't all that new in 1776, they'd been around in Europe since the 1400's or so, and pretty common since the 1600's. Artillery wasn't new either. They had cannons and mortars that fired miles, though not nearly as accurately as modern weapons. And plenty of civilians owned these cannons and mortars as well. Anyone with a reasonably large ship needed cannons. The founding fathers had seen these weapons get more accurate, and more powerful constantly since their invention, there is no way they didn't know that that would continue.
In any case, I still say nukes are a strawman because no one is saying they want nukes. The discussion is not about nukes, its about guns.
|
On January 21 2013 13:39 Millitron wrote:
there is no way they didn't know that that would continue.
No. You are projecting an anachronistic understanding of the nature of technological progress.
|
On January 21 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 13:39 Millitron wrote:
there is no way they didn't know that that would continue. No. You are projecting an anachronistic understanding of the nature of technological progress.
The founding fathers were educated men. They knew history pretty damn well. They must've known that pretty much everything was less effective and efficient in the past. It doesn't take a psychic to make the connection that things would continue improving.
Further, the race to develop better weapons and better counters to those weapons has been going on since the dawn of civilization. It is so deeply ingrained in world history you'd be hard-pressed to find an educated person who had no concept of the idea.
|
No, people did not think about things in this way until fairly recently. I would be interested if you could find any contemporary source exhibiting a conception of technological progress such as you describe. This is more properly a mid-19th century phenomenon, at the earliest.
edit: you will find that things always look much more obvious in hindsight. Of course I cannot prove this to you in the present situation, but I promise you they did not think of things in this way.
edit: just think about Malthus and you will see that I am right.
|
On January 21 2013 13:17 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 12:18 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 11:52 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 21 2013 10:04 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 07:32 Nouar wrote:
Oh god, why can't we ever get out of this "guns don't kill, people do" argument ?!
Ok, guns don't kill people. But it eases the act of killing so much it's indecent. A normal guy can have a moment of madness, if at this moment, he doesn't have a firearm at his disposal, there's so much less chance he kills someone...
It's putting the wrong tools in the hands of the (potentially) wrong person.
Oh hey, nuclear bombs don't kill, it's the guy who launches it who kills ! So why can't everyone own his own nuke ? Hey, fair idea, right ? I absolutely hate the nuclear bomb strawman nonsense. If you have the money and connections to get one, you are responsible enough to have one. Being crazy and having the money and connections needed to acquire a nuke are mutually exclusive. I found this part of your argument a bit surprising. On what basis can you claim that people who have enough resources to acquire something are therefore responsible enough to have it? I mean if you're talking in general, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want someone like North Korea's leader to have a nuke because he's somewhat unstable. Or any other rogue nation, for that matter. Syria's "leader" Bashar Al-Assad could potentially unleash chemical weapons on his own population; clearly he's not responsible. If you're just talking about an American citizen, it still isn't clear why what you're saying is true. I just don't see the correlation between being powerful and being responsible. I think maybe if you define the people specifically as "crazies" then maybe you're right. But there are lot of people who may be brainwashed or have very warped thinking, that will with determination find a way to pursue their extreme agenda. Personally, I'd be ok with any nation having nukes. By this I mean I would not find it morally reprehensible. The US isn't some bastion of good will and justice when it comes to foreign affairs, so if we can have nukes despite our failings, why can't Iran or North Korea? I would prefer if they did not have them, but I don't believe I can say they should not be allowed to have them. But that's for another thread, or PM's. As for civilians, in order to become that powerful, you had to be reasonable. Remember, nukes are so hard to get, entire countries have trouble doing it. This is not the kind of task an irresponsible person is capable of. Any psycho can drive a car through a crowd of people, or shoot up some public gathering, but it takes just such a huge amount of money and connections, that even sane civilians would have trouble succeeding. In any case, regardless of my opinion on it, all this nuke talk is pretty blatantly just a strawman. It's not a strawman. It illustrates a valid point. "Arms" is a very generic term, which, given the extremely life-threatening capabilities of modern technology, has already been compromised on in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Thus, most of us can't own lots of various arms that the military uses, such as artillery. Or nukes. What happens when "arms" takes a new turn as it did when semi-automatic guns were invented? Most of the handguns today would devastate the common weapons of the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries. Are we to take this generic "objects don't kill people" approach into the indefinite future? There are guns today that can bring down airplanes. These are generally exceptional, hard to get, and hopefully tracked by government agencies. But perhaps the handguns (if they're "guns" at all) of future generations will be just as capable of such devastation. Should everyone have one? Should they be common household items? Will that save lives? Should the common sense of the time not override the ideology of the 17th century slave-owners? Guns in 1776, in Europe and America, were only just beginning to be commonplace. It was only just recently that armies began using them. They could have no idea where the technology would go. Guns were the best - and the only - weapon. Artillery, high-explosives, and the such did not occur to them. In 1776, America was actually forbidding itself a standing army. All they had was militia. And they had slaves to control - not a slight problem in the least. So guns were it. They were the only weapon that mattered, and they were the defense of our nation. I don't mean to lecture, but it's pretty obvious that the mentality of that early America is almost completely irrelevant. We have a standing army now, to say the least, which is something our ancestors considered sacrilege. We've compromised on the concept that everyone can own whatever weapon they want. They can't. You can't own any weapon you might wish for, such as nukes. There are limits, and perhaps we should create some more, as our technology continues to develop.
This nuke thing is really angering now. Firearms protect individuals (the Bill of Rights is dedicated this idea). Nukes protect nations. That is the difference. A citizen cannot protect himself with a nuke, but a nation can protect itself with one. That applies to all of these ridiculous comparisons. Comparing fusion/fission and combustion is not fair, anyway.
Well, considering you have't proposed any other way of determining what is ok and what is not, I say stick with that ideology, especially since it is still applicable. Also, I have no idea what the ad hominem attack was for (slave owners? How is this relevant?). You give them so little credit, anyway. They knew technology would advance. They knew things would become more advanced, that a militia or army would never be just a group of farmers. Instead of performing a form Chronological Snobbery, why don't you engage their points. I am saying you are performing a fallacy because I see you are from the US, so you SHOULD know the rational for the second amendment, and how it had nothing to do with how many people a gun could kill. If they only meant (and only thought) in terms of muskets, they would have used the word "muskets." I guess criminals should have the latest glock while the good guy is restricted to a past era pistol?
US Constitution: article 2, section 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,...." They didn't object to armies, far from it.
Your post is filled with little things which serve no purpose than to cast those in favor of gun rights as crazy, stupid, or outdated. You can't dismiss pages and pages and hours and hours of debate, discussion, and study with the phrase "common sense." Please stop. It's funny though, as gun control has no record of success, continuing to demand it seems more ideological than anything else.
|
On January 21 2013 13:46 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 13:39 Millitron wrote:
there is no way they didn't know that that would continue. No. You are projecting an anachronistic understanding of the nature of technological progress. The founding fathers were educated men. They knew history pretty damn well. They must've known that pretty much everything was less effective and efficient in the past. It doesn't take a psychic to make the connection that things would continue improving. Further, the race to develop better weapons and better counters to those weapons has been going on since the dawn of civilization. It is so deeply ingrained in world history you'd be hard-pressed to find an educated person who had no concept of the idea.
There is a very big difference between understanding that technological improvements do happen over time versus being able to predict how quickly or which direction the technological improvements will go.
The former is what you're stating everyone with an education should be aware of, while the later is really what is important and would have impacted the situation had it been known.
|
On January 21 2013 13:54 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 13:46 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 13:39 Millitron wrote:
there is no way they didn't know that that would continue. No. You are projecting an anachronistic understanding of the nature of technological progress. The founding fathers were educated men. They knew history pretty damn well. They must've known that pretty much everything was less effective and efficient in the past. It doesn't take a psychic to make the connection that things would continue improving. Further, the race to develop better weapons and better counters to those weapons has been going on since the dawn of civilization. It is so deeply ingrained in world history you'd be hard-pressed to find an educated person who had no concept of the idea. There is a very big difference between understanding that technological improvements do happen over time versus being able to predict how quickly or which direction the technological improvements will go. The former is what you're stating everyone with an education should be aware of, while the later is really what is important and would have impacted the situation had it been known.
Fair. The founding fathers may not have known exactly how far things would progress, but I would contest that they haven't progressed all that far. No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. They do the exact same things, just more effectively. They had guns, explosives, and artillery just like we do today.
|
On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do.
Ridiculous
edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors
|
On January 21 2013 14:11 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. Ridiculous edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors
Which were military-grade arms. The founding fathers didn't really care about hunting or shooting burglars or whatever. They were worried about tyranny. A disarmed populace is an easily-dominated populace. For the citizenry to maintain their rights they needed weapons equally as effective as those of the military.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
It doesn't get any clearer than that.
|
On January 21 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:11 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. Ridiculous edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors Which were military-grade arms.
You've missed the point, but it's kinda just a philosophy joke so we can let it rest.
edit: the point is that if you think the function of tyranny today has anything to do with small arms, you've missed the boat. Jefferson would think different things today.
edit: I mean, if you are worried about tyranny today (as you SHOULD be), the fight against it has nothing to do with small arms. The fight against it has to do with books.
|
On January 21 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:11 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. Ridiculous edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors Which were military-grade arms. The founding fathers didn't really care about hunting or shooting burglars or whatever. They were worried about tyranny. A disarmed populace is an easily-dominated populace. For the citizenry to maintain their rights they needed weapons equally as effective as those of the military. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson It doesn't get any clearer than that.
The populace is easily dominated right now. If that is the sole argument for owning guns than it is a false one because whatever guns you want to legalise it is a fact that if somehow the government became tyrannical and had the militaries support there is nothing that could be done about it. The only true way to prevent that is to allow the system and its checks and balances to do its job.
|
On January 21 2013 14:23 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 14:11 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. Ridiculous edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors Which were military-grade arms. You've missed the point, but it's kinda just a philosophy joke so we can let it rest. edit: the point is that if you think the function of tyranny today has anything to do with small arms, you've missed the boat. Jefferson would think different things today.
I'm not saying guns are the end-all be-all deterrent to tyranny, just that they're a good last resort. The American Revolution is a great example of how it should go. The colonies tried to negotiate time and time again, and Parliament just kept blowing them off. Then, fearing an uprising, they tried to seize the arsenals at Lexington and Concord. Britain escalated to violence first instead of being reasonable and actually negotiating with the colonies.
Likewise, I would expect modern freedom fighters to try peaceful means as long as possible, but the minute the government tries to disarm them or use force, they've shown their intent. They want a tyranny, and the freedom fighters have every right to defend themselves.
How else do you propose to defend against tyranny?
On January 21 2013 14:32 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 14:11 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. Ridiculous edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors Which were military-grade arms. The founding fathers didn't really care about hunting or shooting burglars or whatever. They were worried about tyranny. A disarmed populace is an easily-dominated populace. For the citizenry to maintain their rights they needed weapons equally as effective as those of the military. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson It doesn't get any clearer than that. The populace is easily dominated right now. If that is the sole argument for owning guns than it is a false one because whatever guns you want to legalise it is a fact that if somehow the government became tyrannical and had the militaries support there is nothing that could be done about it. The only true way to prevent that is to allow the system and its checks and balances to do its job.
Guns ARE one of those checks and balances. What makes you think the military is unstoppable? The Vietcong won, the warlords in Mogadishu won, and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't get crushed. The US military IS great at fighting a conventional army. It's not so good at fighting a guerrilla war.
|
You're thinking in an obsolete paradigm. If you wanna fight against tyranny, start reading books.
edit:
On January 21 2013 14:38 Millitron wrote:
The American Revolution is a great example of how it should go.
too bad it's not fucking 1776
|
On January 21 2013 14:42 sam!zdat wrote:You're thinking in an obsolete paradigm. If you wanna fight against tyranny, start reading books. edit: Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:38 Millitron wrote:
The American Revolution is a great example of how it should go. too bad it's not fucking 1776
As I said, what do you propose?
If you've got a better idea than just "Hope a tyrant doesn't show up" I'd love to hear it.
|
I propose you start reading as many books as possible.
I have a better idea that "hope a tyrant doesn't show up." It's "stop pretending the tyrant isn't already here." The tyrant is inside your head, telling you that you think you understand things and that the world works the way you think it works. You can never get rid of the tyrant, and every day he swells up a little bit, but you can reduce the swelling by bashing him in the head with books. But he's a tricky bastard and he learns to defend against each different book after he's been hit once by it, so you have to keep getting new ones to throw at him.
|
Yes, but they shouldn't want to.
|
On January 21 2013 14:38 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:23 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 14:11 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. Ridiculous edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors Which were military-grade arms. You've missed the point, but it's kinda just a philosophy joke so we can let it rest. edit: the point is that if you think the function of tyranny today has anything to do with small arms, you've missed the boat. Jefferson would think different things today. I'm not saying guns are the end-all be-all deterrent to tyranny, just that they're a good last resort. The American Revolution is a great example of how it should go. The colonies tried to negotiate time and time again, and Parliament just kept blowing them off. Then, fearing an uprising, they tried to seize the arsenals at Lexington and Concord. Britain escalated to violence first instead of being reasonable and actually negotiating with the colonies. Likewise, I would expect modern freedom fighters to try peaceful means as long as possible, but the minute the government tries to disarm them or use force, they've shown their intent. They want a tyranny, and the freedom fighters have every right to defend themselves. How else do you propose to defend against tyranny? Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:32 Adreme wrote:On January 21 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:On January 21 2013 14:11 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. Ridiculous edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors Which were military-grade arms. The founding fathers didn't really care about hunting or shooting burglars or whatever. They were worried about tyranny. A disarmed populace is an easily-dominated populace. For the citizenry to maintain their rights they needed weapons equally as effective as those of the military. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson It doesn't get any clearer than that. The populace is easily dominated right now. If that is the sole argument for owning guns than it is a false one because whatever guns you want to legalise it is a fact that if somehow the government became tyrannical and had the militaries support there is nothing that could be done about it. The only true way to prevent that is to allow the system and its checks and balances to do its job. Guns ARE one of those checks and balances. What makes you think the military is unstoppable? The Vietcong won, the warlords in Mogadishu won, and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan didn't get crushed. The US military IS great at fighting a conventional army. It's not so good at fighting a guerrilla war.
To put it kindly if a massive armed uprising happpened in the US and it didnt have the support of the military it would last a month.
You cited Vietnam and the difference between our current military and Vietnam is like night and day. The military learned a lot from that war and most of the things they did would not work in modern war anymore. They saw what happened in Vietnam and learned from it and several of the advantages the Vietcong had a at home insurgency wouldnt have.
You then cited Afghanistan and that is probably best case scenerio for any rebellion. They arent winning or close to winning and at best they are disrupting and inspring fear but thats about the best you can do against the US military because it is unquestionably the most powerful military force int he history of the world. Also they are still again fighting on foreign soil and to an extent respecting the laws of rules of the people of Afghanistan (a probably a dictatorship wouldnt have)
This overconfidence that somehow a bunch of people with no military training and far less equitment could somehow take out the US military on its home turf is one of the most delusional things I have ever heard in my life and I am stunned when people say it. I dont deny there are legitimate reasons why people should own guns but this is not one and to an extent I almost consider it insulting the military of the US that people think its possible.
|
On January 21 2013 14:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2013 14:11 sam!zdat wrote:On January 21 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:
No weapons do anything the weapons of the 1700's couldn't do. Ridiculous edit: I think one should insist upon a intentionalist reading under which the 2nd amendment only refers to those objects originally intended under the extension of "arms" by the authors Which were military-grade arms. The founding fathers didn't really care about hunting or shooting burglars or whatever. They were worried about tyranny. A disarmed populace is an easily-dominated populace. For the citizenry to maintain their rights they needed weapons equally as effective as those of the military. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson It doesn't get any clearer than that.
As sam said, Jefferson would surely think differently today. There's a reason we rely on the "necessary and proper clause" so heavily, and how it's absolutely essential to the function of government as we know it.
Also, let's try an argument by reductio ad absurdum. The crux of your argument seems to be that the government must fear its citizens for tyranny not to exist. In order for this to be accomplished, you argue that citizens need to possess arms so as to protect them from the possibility of said tyranny, i.e. citizens need to be able to arm and protect themselves militarily.
Okay. Then, do you really think the government fears citizens bearing firearms in a day and age in which there are weapons capable of destruction on a much greater scale, without allowing for protracted warfare or struggles? In that case, it seems logical that citizens would have to protect themselves from explosive ordinance and other related modern weaponry. They're not going to fear some people standing around with handguns, or even fully automatic weapons (which are outlawed anyway), when a tyrannical government could conceivably just drop a bomb on a dissenting group and not have to worry about anything resistance but the paperwork. Does it not follow, then, that citizens must have access to a form of missile defense system? How could a government fear a public that cannot defend themselves from a missile strike. Shouldn't the public have access to remote-controlled weaponized drones? As a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government, firearms are laughable protection, so don't we need more effective forms of self-defense?
But wait! Somehow I think we do have influence over government. Last I checked, it governs for our sake, and we have an Australian/secret ballot unconditionally open to citizens. In fact, all things considered, it seems that modern American government is decidedly untyrannical, doesn't it? I don't think tyrants have to campaign so hard for Ohio, nor (last time I checked) do hey show up for presidential debates (shamelessly borrowed from Jon Stewart). I mean, why does the Department of Homeland Security exist? Perhaps a clever trick, along with the NATO missile shield, or maybe those kinds of weapons are intended to protect the populace?? Oh, but what about our dangerous standing army? I highly respect all of our brave men and women who serve and protect American freedoms EXCEPT fuck you for having weapons and threatening to impose on our freedoms.
By the way, I was wondering about the context in which Jefferson stated that (I assumed that this was stated in the midst of an anti-federalist argument soon after the end of the American Revolution, when right to arms was still very much in the public mind because of contemporarily perceived need for protection), so I looked it up. It's actually a misattribution:
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation
http://www.thefaulkingtruth.com/cgi-bin/Printable.cgi?LettersToEditor&1059
I don't pretend to be a bastion of logic and infallibility, but just my two cents.
The times, they have a'changed.
edit: A guerrilla war in America is absurd. I wonder whom the freedom fighters, spread out 3,794,000 sq miles, would take as their leader to address the tyrannical government that they elected within 4 years ago (presidentially, varies for legislature obviously). I suppose they would eschew living in houses, for the power companies and utilities owned by their local and state governments are similarly tyrannical as a result of government influence. Instead, they might live in the woods, denying the nourishment or refreshment which can be easily purchased in local supermarkets (whose ingredients are liable to have been enabled through government subsidies) and living on fresh, unadulterated running water/venison. None of that meat, carbohydrate, vegetable nonsense made possible by the modern green revolution. Those who live far away from the woods would just have to deal with stagnant or total lack of food, water and shelter. Perhaps they could migrate to the midwest among the rolling plains, as most forested areas are now near large population centers anyway. It might be difficult travelling without gas or automobiles or plane, though, as our government plays a key role in obtaining natural resources, supporting the automobile industry in the face of market failures, and not to mention is practically keeping airlines alive as a public service (they are no longer profitable). It would seem rather hypocritical to criticize the government while taking advantage of the technological offerings made available because of the government. Just how close are we to tyranny, anyway? Any day, now, it seems like we must be going over the brink. Supposedly one does not know the time of the coming of tyranny, but one must always be eternally ready for the inevitable second coming of revolution... you know, just in case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
