EPT
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On January 21 2013 14:45 Millitron wrote: 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. The idea isnt "Hope a tyrant doenst show up" its "make sure it doesnt get to that part because if it does you are doomed". We are on a starcraft so I will give a good analogy for this, the other day I had a friend ask me for help with his TvZ. He said he was having trouble beating BL/Infestor/Corruptor and offered me a replay and asked for my help. Now the replay he showed me he was on 2 base against an unharrassed 4 base zerg who basically moved his 200 supply army against a much much smaller terran army and rolled him. I tell this story because I feel the same lesson applies and thats that the problem wasnt the BL/Infestor because at that point he had lost and there was nothing he could do to beat that. The problem was that there many many other things he could have done to prevent that situation that he didnt do. We have a system that is currently relatively safe against tyrranny and the only way such a thing could take hold is slowly over time as people do nothing to stop it but if it reaches that point than theres nothing you can do. The goal is to prevent it from reaching that point thru the means that our system provides and not have some last ditch impossible idea that just will not work. | ||
|
iplayBANJO
United States129 Posts
On January 21 2013 14:58 Aerisky wrote: + Show Spoiler + 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. Note: Spoilered quote for readability. American government is representative democracy. Our secret ballots put people into power, but what decisions and actions are taken by the government once in power are very much out of the hands of the people. For good reason. The political mood of the general population swings far too easily in response to uncommon occurrences in a way that makes governing impractical. The point is that there is a window of opportunity for real injustices to occur within the American political system. The Patriot Act is a good example of this, actually it's a fairly good example of emotional reactions to uncommon situations in governments as well. It was extended in 2010 (at least in part), long after it became an unpopular piece of legislation. Now it is true that we do hold power over our government through regular elections which are cemented in our constitution. A document some people don't wish to see easily changed, while others do. What happens to not be in the constitution though are term limits, or many limits to executive powers while in war time situations. As far as missile defense grids and government agencies, you're blowing the issue to an extreme that lies outside the realm of the issue being discussed. And please don't try to describe guerrilla warfare without knowing anything but basic generalities of people's army vs state's army. People have talked hypothetically about guerrilla's living in the woods and avoiding any nearby civilizations but this is far from how guerrilla warfare is waged. Guerrilla fighters hide within the population because they tend to have the support of a large percentage of them. They don't quit their jobs, hide in jungles and become savages. They don't reject all products and services of the powers they are fighting against. In fact, many of them have historically been employed in service of the military they are fighting against in some civilian manner. That's not even discussing the absurdity of your implication that every industrial or agricultural advancement is a product of government. On January 21 2013 14:56 Adreme wrote: 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. No one denies that the US military has the power to wipe out entire populations of people. I can go back to my previous statement about guerrilla warfare though, and say that guerrilla fighters hide within, and have the support of the general population. Without the support of the general population guerrilla warfare fails. With their support though, it becomes practically impossible to eradicate the guerrillas without eliminating the rest of the population, or at least a majority of it. This has happened several times, mostly in Latin America. There are many more examples of guerrilla warfare failing than there are of it being successful, but in occasions where it is used it is often the only military option available. In hindsight, many of those times it is probably the worst option available as well. That's taking into account the atrocities that were required for the state military to defeat the guerrillas though, and that's about as far as I'm willing to discuss this as a possibility in the United States. On January 21 2013 15:08 Adreme wrote: The idea isnt "Hope a tyrant doenst show up" its "make sure it doesnt get to that part because if it does you are doomed". We are on a starcraft so I will give a good analogy for this, the other day I had a friend ask me for help with his TvZ. He said he was having trouble beating BL/Infestor/Corruptor and offered me a replay and asked for my help. Now the replay he showed me he was on 2 base against an unharrassed 4 base zerg who basically moved his 200 supply army against a much much smaller terran army and rolled him. I tell this story because I feel the same lesson applies and thats that the problem wasnt the BL/Infestor because at that point he had lost and there was nothing he could do to beat that. The problem was that there many many other things he could have done to prevent that situation that he didnt do. We have a system that is currently relatively safe against tyrranny and the only way such a thing could take hold is slowly over time as people do nothing to stop it but if it reaches that point than theres nothing you can do. The goal is to prevent it from reaching that point thru the means that our system provides and not have some last ditch impossible idea that just will not work. And yet there's a timing for viking production to fight Broodlords in TvZ. Maybe it's not a guarantee to win, but it's something done to prepare for that situation. How interesting, and yet absurdly unimportant. Just because we are in a community that came to prominence around the game of StarCraft, does not mean that the game is a useful comparison for controversial political topics. Please don't patronize us, we're trying to have an intelligent conversation here. | ||
KwarK
United States42640 Posts
On January 21 2013 10:55 Dawski wrote: 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? The majority of gun deaths are not part of mass murders. Limiting the ability to kill another person in the heat of the moment would prevent some of those deaths as, while it is possible to find other ways to kill people, the moment may expire. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On January 21 2013 14:58 Aerisky wrote: 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. You can't bomb what you can't find. Look how long it took to get Bin Laden. It's not so easy to stamp out guerrillas as you think. Civilians can make, and even own explosives already. All it takes is a $200 ATF tax stamp and a little paperwork. Same for fully automatic weapons. I also find the idea that if you're against the military you're against the soldiers to be reprehensible. How does not wanting to send them off to some foreign war make me against them? How does wanting to prevent them from getting killed mean I hate them? What makes you think people can't go without services if they have to? Plenty of people already live off the land, why would that be suddenly impossible? You can make your own ethanol for your car or generator, and it doesn't take a lot of land to grow enough food for yourself. I also find it funny you assume I like the government supporting the auto and the airlines industries. They should've been allowed to fail. Last, I don't think a revolution will happen any time soon, but why not be prepared? Do you plan on getting into a car wreck? No? Then why do you have airbags? On January 22 2013 01:32 KwarK wrote: The majority of gun deaths are not part of mass murders. Limiting the ability to kill another person in the heat of the moment would prevent some of those deaths as, while it is possible to find other ways to kill people, the moment may expire. And the majority of gun deaths are not with "Assault Weapons". In fact, hardly any crimes are committed with "Assault Weapons". Why don't we see more hand-gun laws instead of "Assault Weapon" legislation? Because its all emotional. It's all a knee-jerk reaction from Sandy Hook. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 22 2013 02:01 Millitron wrote: Plenty of people already live off the land, why would that be suddenly impossible? Two useful concepts for you to add to your conceptual toolbox: population pressure carrying capacity | ||
|
ELA
Denmark4608 Posts
Ban or no ban on guns, you guys really need to sort out this mess | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
On January 22 2013 04:57 ELA wrote: Unconfirmed, but there seems to be rumours that at least 5 people have been shot at parade honoring Martin Luther King Jr. in New Orleans Ban or no ban on guns, you guys really need to sort out this mess Can you see how presumptuous and ridiculous this reads? It is fairly plain for all to see that our (and the world's, but I digress) political system faces immensely difficult to solve problems in representational conflict and partisan entrenchment. Do you really think saying "you guys need to sort out this mess" helps in any way? Believe me, some of us are trying. | ||
|
ELA
Denmark4608 Posts
On January 22 2013 05:00 farvacola wrote: Can you see how presumptuous and ridiculous this reads? It is fairly plain for all to see that our (and the world's, but I digress) political system faces immensely difficult to solve problems in representational conflict and partisan entrenchment. Do you really think saying "you guys need to sort out this mess" helps in any way? Believe me, some of us are trying. After reading this thread, I find that quite a few people considder your gun culture almost 'holy ground' and even discussion about moderating it in some way or form, is blasphemous. I didn't intend to sound 'preachy' though, I appologize; you must understand however, that reading about these shootings happening in the US almost daily is borderline surreal to some of us. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: also, if anybody's ever read John Brunner's "Stand on Zanzibar"... | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
On January 22 2013 05:06 ELA wrote: After reading this thread, I find that quite a few people considder your gun culture almost 'holy ground' and even discussion about moderating it in some way or form, is blasphemous. I didn't intend to sound 'preachy' though, I appologize; you must understand however, that reading about these shootings happening in the US almost daily is borderline surreal to some of us. I agree with you on all counts, and I am just as frustrated by this thread as you are, but do not mistake the lack of dissent amongst US posters here as any sort of indication that gun nuts are winning the debate, rather that a nod towards pragmatism suggests that winning an online debate with someone who is going to simply say "2nd amendment" and "fight tyranny" repeatedly is probably not worth it. I will now resist the urge to go off of Sam's cue and expound on the terror of the applicability of postmodern cultural theory.  | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On January 22 2013 02:01 Millitron wrote: You can't bomb what you can't find. Look how long it took to get Bin Laden. It's not so easy to stamp out guerrillas as you think. Civilians can make, and even own explosives already. All it takes is a $200 ATF tax stamp and a little paperwork. Same for fully automatic weapons. I also find the idea that if you're against the military you're against the soldiers to be reprehensible. How does not wanting to send them off to some foreign war make me against them? How does wanting to prevent them from getting killed mean I hate them? What makes you think people can't go without services if they have to? Plenty of people already live off the land, why would that be suddenly impossible? You can make your own ethanol for your car or generator, and it doesn't take a lot of land to grow enough food for yourself. I also find it funny you assume I like the government supporting the auto and the airlines industries. They should've been allowed to fail. Last, I don't think a revolution will happen any time soon, but why not be prepared? Do you plan on getting into a car wreck? No? Then why do you have airbags? You should really do some research on the impact of agriculture on human history as well as population control and carrying capacity. More specifically, the only reason we can live in such high-density populations is because there are highly efficient farming and livestock areas that are capable of mass-producing food for the general populace. If every family was forced to grow their own food, homestead-style, you quickly run out of space, and the prime areas with fertile soil and clean water become premium real-estate. And since you have eschewed protection from your government in order to live this way, who is going to stop people from taking your land from you? Do you trust your gun enough to keep your family safe in that situation? You'll likely need it frequently. There is a reason human civilization has moved away from this paradigm, it's not comfortable and people like the convenience of supermarkets and not having to constantly defend themselves and their family from unscrupulous individuals. We don't live in the wild west anymore. As for your airbag analogy, that's just silly and you know it. It costs a car owner almost nothing to have airbags installed in their vehicle, and protects them and their family in the event that they get in a crash, whether it is their fault or not. In addition, installing airbags in your vehicle will not kill people in other vehicles when you get in a crash. The same cannot be said for purchasing a gun, just in case you need to start a revolution. There was no doubt a need for violent revolution in 1776, but a lot of time has passed since then. I see little chance of those circumstances being repeated, and highly doubt any sizable portion of our fat, lazy populace could be arsed to rise up in revolution and participate in guerilla warfare. I put some stock in the self-defense and hunting arguments (with limitations) for gun ownership, but when people start talking about revolution it makes me want to grab my tinfoil hat. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: guns don't kill people, capitalism kills people! | ||
|
Xain
Canada94 Posts
On January 22 2013 01:32 KwarK wrote: The majority of gun deaths are not part of mass murders. Limiting the ability to kill another person in the heat of the moment would prevent some of those deaths as, while it is possible to find other ways to kill people, the moment may expire. Yes. Exactly that. People tend to look only at the extreme cases and make a rule out of it. A lot of people who end up shooting someone else would not have gone through the trouble of acquiring illegally a gun. Yes, gun control laws may not solve every problems and mass murders may still happen, but to say that it wouldn't make a difference is being willfully blind to the empirical/statistical evidence out there. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 22 2013 05:27 sam!zdat wrote: At any rate, it's true that the problem is not guns. The problem is social inequality and atomized society. edit: guns don't kill people, capitalism kills people! Atomized society is a result of increased power of the state. People turn to it for answers to society's problems rather than seeking community driven solutions that bring people together. A certain degree of social inequality is inherent to capitalism, and is in my opinion not a bad thing but actually a just thing. However, our government artificially inflates this inequality. Corporations lobby them for favors, be they subsidies or regulations designed to block competition, especially from small businesses. Our monetary system is setup in such a way that big banks have access to cheap 0% interest loans that no one else can get. Every dollar the fed spits out must be returned to them. That's right, the dollar in you pocket is debt. It is owed back to the federal reserve. To get there, its got to go through big banks first. This funnels our wealth upwards, and it gravitates there. Its the state that kills people. They are responsible for virtually every problem we face. We must shatter our faith in it, and find faith in ourselves. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit; this is the basic fallacy of libertarianism, and is how the ruling order co-opts (by a sort of ideological judo-throw) the revolutionary discontent which it represents. | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On January 22 2013 06:34 sam!zdat wrote: You are operating under a false notion that capitalism and the state which supports it can be separated in any meaningful way. Isn't that the way you are operating? Your implication was to remove capitalism, was it not? edit: just taking this from your "capitalism kills" remark | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 22 2013 06:37 kmillz wrote: Isn't that the way you are operating? Your implication was to remove capitalism, was it not? Yes, you would have to create a different sort of state, and a different sort of social order entirely. The challenge which we face today is the immense representational problem of imagining what sort of a thing this would be. edit: this is the same challenge which was faced by your revolutionary heroes, but their version of the problem was much, much simpler | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
On January 22 2013 06:38 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, you would have to create a different sort of state, and a different sort of social order entirely. The challenge which we face today is the immense representational problem of imagining what sort of a thing this would be. edit: this is the same challenge which was faced by your revolutionary heroes, but their version of the problem was much, much simpler At least you agree that the problem isn't guns  | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 22 2013 06:42 kmillz wrote: At least you agree that the problem isn't guns | ||
| ||
