EPTWhen the police is doing it's job and crime is low the "spur of the moment murder made easier / possible by guns" argument outweighs that of the "criminals have guns anyway" argument. In a society where the police / goverment / justice system fails I would support the right for citizens to bear arms. What the government often forgets is that by issuing a monopoly on violence they also take the responibility upon themselves to protect its citizens.
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. | ||
|
DisneylandSC
Netherlands435 Posts
When the police is doing it's job and crime is low the "spur of the moment murder made easier / possible by guns" argument outweighs that of the "criminals have guns anyway" argument. In a society where the police / goverment / justice system fails I would support the right for citizens to bear arms. What the government often forgets is that by issuing a monopoly on violence they also take the responibility upon themselves to protect its citizens. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
So yeah, I don't buy that argument that "if a tyrannical government took over then assault rifles would be meaningless anyway". Not every tyrannical coup enjoys the benefit absolute, Stalinesque control over the military and bureaucracy. I mean, sometimes the government isn't even the chief antagonist, but simply lets some other favored group (corporations in the early 1900s, later the kkk) massacre and devastate segments of the population in order to protect the rights of whites or investors or some such justification. Given the ongoing corporatization of and popular dissatisfaction with the government, radicalization of political parties and segments of the populace (ows and the tea party come to mind), and recent economic crises, I would not be so quick to assume the days of gun ownership having a significant impact on us politics and society are over. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 22 2013 08:40 Zahir wrote: I would not be so quick to assume the days of gun ownership having a significant impact on us politics and society are over. Yes, but it's to the benefit of the tyrants | ||
KwarK
United States41976 Posts
Also someone earlier made the point that Jefferson made it unequivocally clear that the right to bear arms was to act as a functional counterbalance to the army, both domestic and foreign. That battle was lost with the development of a modern, mechanised military in the World Wars, a militia couldn't keep pace with the changing nature of the battlefield. But if you're a constitutional purist then stop talking about hunting and self defence and start demanding the right to own tanks, helicopter gunships and all the rest of it. That's what the constitution was talking about. Or you could just not be a constitutional purist. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On January 22 2013 08:48 KwarK wrote: If gun owners, and implicitly the threat of killing those they disagree with, are presently having an impact on the democratic process then that is what we who believe in democracy would define as a problem. That's not really a defence of gun ownership to oppose the government, that's a really big reason to disarm them in the name of freedom. Also someone earlier made the point that Jefferson made it unequivocally clear that the right to bear arms was to act as a functional counterbalance to the army, both domestic and foreign. That battle was lost with the development of a modern, mechanised military in the World Wars, a militia couldn't keep pace with the changing nature of the battlefield. But if you're a constitutional purist then stop talking about hunting and self defence and start demanding the right to own tanks, helicopter gunships and all the rest of it. That's what the constitution was talking about. Or you could just not be a constitutional purist. We do actually have the ability to own all those things. I could buy a mig for like 250k at an air show and load it up with missiles if I wanted to. You have to go though a ton of paperwork and register it with the government and it would be a bitch and a half to maintain and fuel it but there really isn't anything stooping people in america from getting those things other then the huge price tags of them. the first part of your post confused me a lot. Threatening to kill people you don't believe in can happen (and has happened throughout history) with guns is no different then threatening to go down with spears or bows and killing the people you don't agree with. The fact that the mob has a rifle or a pitchfork doesn't really change the situation in anyway. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 22 2013 08:59 Sermokala wrote: The fact that the mob has a rifle or a pitchfork doesn't really change the situation in anyway. Hmm, I think the history of the 20th century is difficult to understand if this is the case... | ||
|
llIH
Norway2142 Posts
He is comparing the UK to the worst states in the US. Several people said that where there are armed civilians there is less deaths from gunfire. I believe so. But there must be some rules and control.... My god this topic is so damn hard to discuss. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On January 22 2013 08:43 sam!zdat wrote: Yes, but it's to the benefit of the tyrants How do you figure? I mean, theres about 2x gun ownership in the south and Midwest and among conservatives as compared to liberals, but all told gun ownership is fairly evenly spread. If you mean the fact that the army has the biggest guns, well, most people view gun ownership and disarmament/pacifism as two different issues. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13738 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:02 sam!zdat wrote: Hmm, I think the history of the 20th century is difficult to understand if this is the case... What do you mean the history of the 20th century is literally referring to 100 years. What part of that time period is difficult to understand? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 22 2013 08:48 KwarK wrote: If gun owners, and implicitly the threat of killing those they disagree with, are presently having an impact on the democratic process then that is what we who believe in democracy would define as a problem. That's not really a defence of gun ownership to oppose the government, that's a really big reason to disarm them in the name of freedom. Also someone earlier made the point that Jefferson made it unequivocally clear that the right to bear arms was to act as a functional counterbalance to the army, both domestic and foreign. That battle was lost with the development of a modern, mechanised military in the World Wars, a militia couldn't keep pace with the changing nature of the battlefield. But if you're a constitutional purist then stop talking about hunting and self defence and start demanding the right to own tanks, helicopter gunships and all the rest of it. That's what the constitution was talking about. Or you could just not be a constitutional purist. I don't think this argument weighs much but someone on another forum argued that if civilians revolted against a US government that went totalitarian and still somehow had the support of the army (lol) then civilians would fights guerilla style without ever engaging directly. I guess that's how you'd put an unnoticeable dent in the absurdly deep US army? I dunno. People don't seem to understand that one outdated Apache could gun down tens of cutesie little rebels at night through dense foliage. It's just ludicrous to even consider. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
On January 22 2013 08:48 KwarK wrote: That battle was lost with the development of a modern, mechanised military in the World Wars, a militia couldn't keep pace with the changing nature of the battlefield. what about the vietnam war. or do you not think the Viet Cong is a militia? i am a bit unsure of the definitions. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:05 Zahir wrote: How do you figure? I mean, theres about 2x gun ownership in the south and Midwest and among conservatives as compared to liberals, but all told gun ownership is fairly evenly spread. If you mean the fact that the army has the biggest guns, well, most people view gun ownership and disarmament/pacifism as two different issues. Who makes money when people buy guns and ammunition? edit: On January 22 2013 09:06 Sermokala wrote: What do you mean the history of the 20th century is literally referring to 100 years. What part of that time period is difficult to understand? How about the Bolsheviks and the Maoists? Could they have done that with pitchforks? | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On January 22 2013 08:48 KwarK wrote: If gun owners, and implicitly the threat of killing those they disagree with, are presently having an impact on the democratic process then that is what we who believe in democracy would define as a problem. That's not really a defence of gun ownership to oppose the government, that's a really big reason to disarm them in the name of freedom. Also someone earlier made the point that Jefferson made it unequivocally clear that the right to bear arms was to act as a functional counterbalance to the army, both domestic and foreign. That battle was lost with the development of a modern, mechanised military in the World Wars, a militia couldn't keep pace with the changing nature of the battlefield. But if you're a constitutional purist then stop talking about hunting and self defence and start demanding the right to own tanks, helicopter gunships and all the rest of it. That's what the constitution was talking about. Or you could just not be a constitutional purist. I believe the better version of what you're arguing against is that an armed populace is the only remaining deterrent to tyranny after the democratic process has already broken down. Which it does, to some degree, every day. The government is imprisoning and ocassionally torturing people without due process at the moment. Not the biggest deal, given the scale, but the point is, not everything the government does is a product of any democratic process. And the government itself is far from the only organized threat that certain victimized elements within the us population have had to deal with. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Aerisky
United States12128 Posts
| ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:09 sam!zdat wrote: Who makes money when people buy guns and ammunition? edit: How about the Bolsheviks and the Maoists? Could they have done that with pitchforks? Haha, touché. But if you're going to look at it in those terms, would not a ban simply shift profits into the hands of guns smugglers? War on drugs hasn't been too successful from an economic liberation standpoint. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
 very kind of you to sayedit: @above, it's true, but I do think guns are a bit easier to control than drugs (and more difficult to hide their manufacture). That's an interesting problem to think about, however. | ||
|
llIH
Norway2142 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:15 sam!zdat wrote: No, the better version is that the democratic process has already broken down, there is already tyranny, and it is because people don't read enough books, not because they don't own enough guns. So true. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On January 22 2013 08:48 KwarK wrote: If gun owners, and implicitly the threat of killing those they disagree with, are presently having an impact on the democratic process then that is what we who believe in democracy would define as a problem. That's not really a defence of gun ownership to oppose the government, that's a really big reason to disarm them in the name of freedom. Also someone earlier made the point that Jefferson made it unequivocally clear that the right to bear arms was to act as a functional counterbalance to the army, both domestic and foreign. That battle was lost with the development of a modern, mechanised military in the World Wars, a militia couldn't keep pace with the changing nature of the battlefield. But if you're a constitutional purist then stop talking about hunting and self defence and start demanding the right to own tanks, helicopter gunships and all the rest of it. That's what the constitution was talking about. Or you could just not be a constitutional purist. A militia can't be mechanized and modern? Does militia automatically mean armed with muskets? I think perhaps people have a stigma attached to the word militia. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 22 2013 09:20 smokeyhoodoo wrote: A militia can't be mechanized and modern? Does militia automatically mean armed with muskets? I think perhaps people have a stigma attached to the word militia. No he's talking about the fact that any "militia" in the US wouldn't be mechanized and modern because of various limits. | ||
| ||
