|
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 28 2013 13:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 13:07 feanor1 wrote:On January 28 2013 12:42 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 06:33 feanor1 wrote:The President makes some rather insightful comments about gun control in the United States http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gun-control-advocates-listen-more-060727333--politics.html"And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he says.
The president says it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting.
"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes," he says.
Has Obama himself ever fired a gun?
"Yes," the president says, "in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time." I'm torn on this. On one hand, he supports an AWB and magazine capacity limits, on the other, he says gun-control advocates need to actually listen to the other side. Still, the Second Amendment is not, and has never been about hunting. Pretending it is is pretty dishonest. While true the firearms that the second amendment were referring to were nothing like the handguns and rifles of today, pretending that the people who wrote the second amendment planned for the increase in firepower is also dishonest. First, they must've known guns would improve. They saw the transition from matchlocks to flintlocks, and must've at least known about other weapon-technology advances. Saying they couldn't have known guns of the future would be better severely underestimates the Continental Congress. In any case, weapons being better does not invalidate the idea that a government should fear its people.
When did we make the jump from talking about the guns the forefathers imagined we would have in the future, to talking about why the government should fear it's people.
In any case the government shouldn't fear it's people and the people shouldn't fear their government. Should be a harmonious relationship.
|
On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better"
More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better.
On January 28 2013 13:49 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 13:43 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:07 feanor1 wrote:On January 28 2013 12:42 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 06:33 feanor1 wrote:The President makes some rather insightful comments about gun control in the United States http://news.yahoo.com/obama-gun-control-advocates-listen-more-060727333--politics.html"And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake. Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas," he says.
The president says it's understandable that people are protective of their family traditions when it comes to hunting.
"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes," he says.
Has Obama himself ever fired a gun?
"Yes," the president says, "in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time." I'm torn on this. On one hand, he supports an AWB and magazine capacity limits, on the other, he says gun-control advocates need to actually listen to the other side. Still, the Second Amendment is not, and has never been about hunting. Pretending it is is pretty dishonest. While true the firearms that the second amendment were referring to were nothing like the handguns and rifles of today, pretending that the people who wrote the second amendment planned for the increase in firepower is also dishonest. First, they must've known guns would improve. They saw the transition from matchlocks to flintlocks, and must've at least known about other weapon-technology advances. Saying they couldn't have known guns of the future would be better severely underestimates the Continental Congress. In any case, weapons being better does not invalidate the idea that a government should fear its people. When did we make the jump from talking about the guns the forefathers imagined we would have in the future, to talking about why the government should fear it's people. In any case the government shouldn't fear it's people and the people shouldn't fear their government. Should be a harmonious relationship.
We didn't really make a jump. We were discussing the 2nd Amendment. Weapons being more effective does not invalidate the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Which is to ensure that people can always hold the government accountable, even when peaceful measures fail.
I would be all for a harmonious relationship, but I'm not sure that's a possibility. I'll be all for gun control and civilian disarmament when the government disarms too.
|
On January 28 2013 13:58 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better" More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better.
Those things don't describe the transformation between 1776 arms and 2013 arms. Do you admit I'm right yet?
|
On January 28 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 13:58 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better" More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better. Those things don't describe the transformation between 1776 arms and 2013 arms. Do you admit I'm right yet?
Then what does?
|
On January 28 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 13:58 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better" More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better. Those things don't describe the transformation between 1776 arms and 2013 arms. Do you admit I'm right yet? Then what does?
Don't think in terms of the object. Thing in terms of qualitative differences in tactical capability.
|
On January 28 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 13:58 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better" More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better. Those things don't describe the transformation between 1776 arms and 2013 arms. Do you admit I'm right yet? Then what does? Don't think in terms of the object. Thing in terms of qualitative differences in tactical capability.
There really aren't that many. The whole "line-up-and-shoot-at-each-other" thing was an artifact of the lack of communication on a battlefield. Commanders couldn't issue orders effectively over long distances, so groups had to stay big, and they had to say together.
The Colonials in the south fought much the same as modern soldiers. They advanced through the woods in loose skirmish lines, took cover, and used small-team tactics.
New guns haven't really changed how battles are fought. Even the Maxim gun didn't really. The whole firing line style was already dying, the maxim gun was just the final nail in the coffin.
In any case, you're dancing around the issue which is that the people should never have to fear their government, regardless of the weapons they require to make it so.
|
On January 28 2013 14:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 13:58 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better" More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better. Those things don't describe the transformation between 1776 arms and 2013 arms. Do you admit I'm right yet? Then what does? Don't think in terms of the object. Thing in terms of qualitative differences in tactical capability. There really aren't that many. The whole "line-up-and-shoot-at-each-other" thing was an artifact of the lack of communication on a battlefield. Commanders couldn't issue orders effectively over long distances, so groups had to stay big, and they had to say together. The Colonials in the south fought much the same as modern soldiers. They advanced through the woods in loose skirmish lines, took cover, and used small-team tactics. New guns haven't really changed how battles are fought. Even the Maxim gun didn't really. The whole firing line style was already dying, the maxim gun was just the final nail in the coffin. In any case, you're dancing around the issue which is that the people should never have to fear their government, regardless of the weapons they require to make it so.
I'm not talking about large-scale military conflict, that's not why anybody cares about gun control except people who have some puerile fantasy of armed resistance to tyranny, because they don't understand the nature of modern power.
|
On January 28 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 13:58 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better" More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better. Those things don't describe the transformation between 1776 arms and 2013 arms. Do you admit I'm right yet? Then what does? Don't think in terms of the object. Thing in terms of qualitative differences in tactical capability.
Here is my main point, in 1776 you could have a farmer with a rifle and he was just as well armed as you typical soldier of his day. This is as far from our current situation.
And the second amendment was not written with the people rising up against their government in mind.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We no longer accept, as the authors of the now obsolete Second Amendment did, that “a well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Rather than leaving national defense to citizens’ militias, we now, for a variety of compelling reasons, cede the right of national defense to certain state-authorized professional institutions: the Army, Navy, and so on.
Anyhow that isn't a realistic view of the United States in today's world.
Individuals with handguns are no match for a modern army. It’s also a delusion to suppose that the government in a liberal democracy such as the United States could become so tyrannical that armed insurrection, rather than democratic procedures, would be the best means of constraining it. This is not Syria; nor will it ever be.
|
On January 28 2013 14:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 14:11 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 13:58 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better" More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better. Those things don't describe the transformation between 1776 arms and 2013 arms. Do you admit I'm right yet? Then what does? Don't think in terms of the object. Thing in terms of qualitative differences in tactical capability. There really aren't that many. The whole "line-up-and-shoot-at-each-other" thing was an artifact of the lack of communication on a battlefield. Commanders couldn't issue orders effectively over long distances, so groups had to stay big, and they had to say together. The Colonials in the south fought much the same as modern soldiers. They advanced through the woods in loose skirmish lines, took cover, and used small-team tactics. New guns haven't really changed how battles are fought. Even the Maxim gun didn't really. The whole firing line style was already dying, the maxim gun was just the final nail in the coffin. In any case, you're dancing around the issue which is that the people should never have to fear their government, regardless of the weapons they require to make it so. I'm not talking about large-scale military conflict, that's not why anybody cares about gun control except people who have some puerile fantasy of armed resistance to tyranny, because they don't understand the nature of modern power.
All power relies on force. Different means of control, like banking or controlling the media can hide the fact, but in the end, it always relies on force. Otherwise the controlling organization cannot enforce its desires.
On January 28 2013 14:21 feanor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 14:03 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:59 sam!zdat wrote:On January 28 2013 13:58 Millitron wrote:On January 28 2013 13:45 sam!zdat wrote:
Yes but what is the shape of "better" More effective. Lighter, more reliable, easier to use.....better. Those things don't describe the transformation between 1776 arms and 2013 arms. Do you admit I'm right yet? Then what does? Don't think in terms of the object. Thing in terms of qualitative differences in tactical capability. Here is my main point, in 1776 you could have a farmer with a rifle and he was just as well armed as you typical soldier of his day. This is as far from our current situation. And the second amendment was not written with the people rising up against their government in mind. Show nested quote + A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Show nested quote + We no longer accept, as the authors of the now obsolete Second Amendment did, that “a well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free state.” Rather than leaving national defense to citizens’ militias, we now, for a variety of compelling reasons, cede the right of national defense to certain state-authorized professional institutions: the Army, Navy, and so on. Anyhow that isn't a realistic view of the United States in today's world. Show nested quote +Individuals with handguns are no match for a modern army. It’s also a delusion to suppose that the government in a liberal democracy such as the United States could become so tyrannical that armed insurrection, rather than democratic procedures, would be the best means of constraining it. This is not Syria; nor will it ever be.
Individuals with small-arms won in VietNam. Individuals with small-arms haven't lost in Afghanistan. Individuals with small-arms are giving the French a run for their money right now in Mali.
Look at the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany in the 30's. Look at the Reign of Terror in France in the 1800's. Look at Mexico pretty much throughout the 20th century. Democracies can and have turned tyrannical.
I agree that democratic procedures are a preferable path, but you should not put all your eggs in one basket. Especially when those eggs are so important.
|
This DHS RFP/bid request is in the news again. It''s a couple months old and has been updated a few times.
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0
Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation
Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Location: ICE-OAQ-MS
It's a bid for select fire DHS personal defense weapons.
This announcement is being placed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) paragraph 5.207. It is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items. 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation and proposals are being requested. See attachments for complete details.
Civilian owns a select fire .223 = Assault Weapon (if you had the money to get one)
DHS owns a select fire .223 = Personal Defense
And I don't think in the RFP there's a limit on mag capacity. (edit - MINIMUM 30 rounds)
4.18 Magazine. All samples submitted will be visually and physically examined to verify compliance. The magazine shall be capable of holding thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.
And another gem from the Bid :
3.1 General. DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required. Only one specific nomenclature firearm from each Contractor shall be submitted for solicitation testing and considered for contract award.
|
On January 28 2013 14:21 Millitron wrote:
We didn't really make a jump. We were discussing the 2nd Amendment. Weapons being more effective does not invalidate the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Which is to ensure that people can always hold the government accountable, even when peaceful measures fail.
I would be all for a harmonious relationship, but I'm not sure that's a possibility. I'll be all for gun control and civilian disarmament when the government disarms too.
Why are you unsure? There are plenty societies that function without its people having access to firearms. Guns are not required to hold a government accountable, elections and other democratic mechanisms are and they are effective because they are based on consensus, not force. That´s what checks and balances are for, aren´t they?
All power relies on force. Different means of control, like banking or controlling the media can hide the fact, but in the end, it always relies on force. Otherwise the controlling organization cannot enforce its desires.
I disagree. Power comes from submission, not force. Civil disobedience lends far greater power than an armed populace could ever have, because it is based on solidarity. A government only has as much power as it is given by the cooperation of its people, which of course may be through fear. Guns don´t change that. They are merely a means of escalation. If the US government would turn tyrannical, then it would not be subdued by people with guns, but by refusal of cooperation. Guns, in terms of governing, are essentially only useful for minorities, who try to extend their actual power by means of threatening with violence. And that is indeed dangerous for a society based on consensus.
Individuals with small-arms won in VietNam. Individuals with small-arms haven't lost in Afghanistan. Individuals with small-arms are giving the French a run for their money right now in Mali.
Look at the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany in the 30's. Look at the Reign of Terror in France in the 1800's. Look at Mexico pretty much throughout the 20th century. Democracies can and have turned tyrannical.
In all the examples you have given violence led to more violence. What about India´s independency, what about the civil rights movement? They had a much more stable impact compared to armed uprisings.
I agree that democratic procedures are a preferable path, but you should not put all your eggs in one basket. Especially when those eggs are so important.
Laws make it so not all eggs are in one basket. Is there any instance where guns in the US had a positive impact on government decisions?
Also a related question: Do you actually fear your country´s (US) government?
|
On January 28 2013 14:21 Millitron wrote:
Individuals with small-arms won in VietNam. Individuals with small-arms haven't lost in Afghanistan. Individuals with small-arms are giving the French a run for their money right now in Mali.
Look at the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany in the 30's. Look at the Reign of Terror in France in the 1800's. Look at Mexico pretty much throughout the 20th century. Democracies can and have turned tyrannical.
I agree that democratic procedures are a preferable path, but you should not put all your eggs in one basket. Especially when those eggs are so important.
AK-47s aren't exactly small arms. Nor are they legal, or going to be legal any time soon. Rebel groups aren't doing too well in Afghanistan and Mali.
Ok I looked at it. They had popular support, which means that civilians having guns wouldn't have changed anything. When 'tyranny' is the government, the police, the army, AND your neighbor? Good luck.
Having hand guns and semi-automatics isn't an egg. Hate to break it to you.
|
On January 29 2013 00:10 Jormundr wrote:
AK-47s aren't exactly small arms.
Having hand guns and semi-automatics isn't an egg. Hate to break it to you.
Assault rifles are small arms. Therefore AKMs and ak 47 are small arms.
I think what he meant by "your eggs" wasn't "having handguns and carabines" but rather you and your freedom / rights.
On January 28 2013 23:45 Daswollvieh wrote:
Power comes from submission, not force. Civil disobedience lends far greater power than an armed populace could ever have, because it is based on solidarity. A government only has as much power as it is given by the cooperation of its people, which of course may be through fear. If the US government would turn tyrannical, then it would not be subdued by people with guns, but by refusal of cooperation.
If you're running a company, and your employees refuse to work ( cooperate ) , you can simply fire them and replace them by other people who want the job right ? How would a tyrannical government be any different when there are plenty of immigrants willing to come and work ?
On January 28 2013 23:45 Daswollvieh wrote:
Guns, in terms of governing, are essentially only useful for minorities, who try to extend their actual power by means of threatening with violence. And that is indeed dangerous for a society based on consensus.
Then why does the government has so many guns ? In a "society based on consensus" they aren't needed right ?
Fact : if you break the law, the police will come to arrest you. If you refuse to come with them they will use FORCE ( understand : VIOLENCE ) to bring you with them.
On January 28 2013 23:45 Daswollvieh wrote:
Also a related question: Do you actually fear your country´s (US) government?
Regardless of his answer, i'd like to say that there is a huge difference between fearing and not having absolute infaillible faith/ trust in it.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that what you're saying is inherently wrong, but it seems to me like you're assuming we're living in a fantasy world where harmony reigns and people need and trust each other.
edit : couple of typo mistakes
|
Obviously people should be allowed to aim nuclear weapons toward the white house, so that the government can fear its people. And they should have tanks and air craft carriers in their backyards for similar purposes.
In any case, the reason rightwingers want weapons is because they cling to violent fantasies about the breakdown of society, whether it's the uprising against the state or protection against looters. Or it's a macho fantasy about being the man in the house who has to protect his family. There's a reason few women are involved in the fight against gun control, it's because it relies on outdated conceptions of masculinity.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 29 2013 01:12 Grumbels wrote:
Obviously people should be allowed to aim nuclear weapons toward the white house, so that the government can fear its people. And they should have tanks and air craft carriers in their backyards for similar purposes.
In any case, the reason rightwingers want weapons is because they cling to violent fantasies about the breakdown of society, whether it's the uprising against the state or protection against looters. Or it's a macho fantasy about being the man in the house who has to protect his family. There's a reason few women are involved in the fight against gun control, it's because it relies on outdated conceptions of masculinity.
So, I assume you're a licensed mental health professional who treats a lot of American gun owners? Or are you just talking out your ass?
I'd almost never source the NRA, but since they tend to source where they pull the stories from...
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?pageNum=1
Thinking "It could happen to me" isn't a "macho fantasy".
|
On January 29 2013 00:27 Marti wrote:#
Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that what you're saying is inherently wrong, but it seems to me like you're assuming we're living in a fantasy world where harmony reigns and people need and trust each other.
I really don´t. I tried to keep it short and that usually ends up to sound rather idealistic. But what I really want to question is the notion of "a government" as a singular body with an agenda, which can be friendly or hostile. Also I want to oppose the sort of macho-life-is-tough-only-the-strong-survive-attitude that I see at the base of most pro-weapons, pro-force arguments. They are as unrealistic as lofty ideals, only in a manly, grizzled way.
If you're running a company, and your employees refuse to work ( cooperate ) , you can simply fire them and replace them by other people who want the job right ? How would a tyrannical government be any different when there are plenty of immigrants willing to come and work ?
I don´t want to sound snarky, but by that logic, if the US government turned tyrannical and the people refused to cooperate, then the US government would import an e.g. Asian populace? Did the British "fire" the Indian populace and send Irish settlers to take their place?
I mean, after all, this is about the US government being kept in check by armed citizens, or else they (the thousands individuals of which a government is comprised) could all turn tyrannical.
Then why does the government has so many guns ? In a "society based on consensus" they aren't needed right ?
Fact : if you break the law, the police will come to arrest you. If you refuse to come with them they will use FORCE ( understand : VIOLENCE ) to bring you with them.
The "governement" does not have guns. The president doesn´t wield a gun and forces random citizens to comply. The government consists of white collar workers, doing their jobs, following laws, like any other citizen. Yes, there is the police and the army, and in the US the national guard and whoever else is permitted and required by law to be armed in order to enforce the laws which have been passed by representatives of the people. But they are not armed for personal interest (like a civilian would be), but to fulfil a necessary duty for the community, which is to protect it against threats. It is only natural to distribute the necessary duties within a community to a specialized group of people (e.g. delivering mail, baking bread, enforcing laws). And in case of police work and military enterprises these duties require force and thus guns. And they being distributed by the government is not a sign of the government having all the guns, but of the government being charged with basic services for the community.
Would Ghandi and Martin Luther King have been more successful in their endeavors if they and their followers were armed?
|
On January 28 2013 23:45 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 14:21 Millitron wrote:
We didn't really make a jump. We were discussing the 2nd Amendment. Weapons being more effective does not invalidate the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Which is to ensure that people can always hold the government accountable, even when peaceful measures fail.
I would be all for a harmonious relationship, but I'm not sure that's a possibility. I'll be all for gun control and civilian disarmament when the government disarms too. Why are you unsure? There are plenty societies that function without its people having access to firearms. Guns are not required to hold a government accountable, elections and other democratic mechanisms are and they are effective because they are based on consensus, not force. That´s what checks and balances are for, aren´t they? Show nested quote +All power relies on force. Different means of control, like banking or controlling the media can hide the fact, but in the end, it always relies on force. Otherwise the controlling organization cannot enforce its desires. I disagree. Power comes from submission, not force. Civil disobedience lends far greater power than an armed populace could ever have, because it is based on solidarity. A government only has as much power as it is given by the cooperation of its people, which of course may be through fear. Guns don´t change that. They are merely a means of escalation. If the US government would turn tyrannical, then it would not be subdued by people with guns, but by refusal of cooperation. Guns, in terms of governing, are essentially only useful for minorities, who try to extend their actual power by means of threatening with violence. And that is indeed dangerous for a society based on consensus. Show nested quote +Individuals with small-arms won in VietNam. Individuals with small-arms haven't lost in Afghanistan. Individuals with small-arms are giving the French a run for their money right now in Mali.
Look at the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany in the 30's. Look at the Reign of Terror in France in the 1800's. Look at Mexico pretty much throughout the 20th century. Democracies can and have turned tyrannical. In all the examples you have given violence led to more violence. What about India´s independency, what about the civil rights movement? They had a much more stable impact compared to armed uprisings. Show nested quote +I agree that democratic procedures are a preferable path, but you should not put all your eggs in one basket. Especially when those eggs are so important. Laws make it so not all eggs are in one basket. Is there any instance where guns in the US had a positive impact on government decisions? Also a related question: Do you actually fear your country´s (US) government?
I'm not sure harmony is a possibility. I know people don't need guns to survive, but they do help protect your rights. What good is survival if the life isn't worth living?
Power does come from submission, submission to force. I agree that guns are a means of escalation, but if the government's got them and you don't, what do you do when they decide to escalate?
The VietCong's victory didn't lead to more violence. Once North and South Vietnam were unified, they went right back to being at peace. The others led to more violence because they aren't over yet.
India and the Civil Rights movement are admirable, but they got lucky. The British backed down in India, but they could've deployed troops and began martial law. The Civil Rights movement only fought a few State governments. Most other States were either indifferent or in favor of the movement.
What do you do when peaceful protest doesn't work, and they start shooting at you?
On January 29 2013 00:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2013 14:21 Millitron wrote:
Individuals with small-arms won in VietNam. Individuals with small-arms haven't lost in Afghanistan. Individuals with small-arms are giving the French a run for their money right now in Mali.
Look at the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany in the 30's. Look at the Reign of Terror in France in the 1800's. Look at Mexico pretty much throughout the 20th century. Democracies can and have turned tyrannical.
I agree that democratic procedures are a preferable path, but you should not put all your eggs in one basket. Especially when those eggs are so important. AK-47s aren't exactly small arms. Nor are they legal, or going to be legal any time soon. Rebel groups aren't doing too well in Afghanistan and Mali. Ok I looked at it. They had popular support, which means that civilians having guns wouldn't have changed anything. When 'tyranny' is the government, the police, the army, AND your neighbor? Good luck. Having hand guns and semi-automatics isn't an egg. Hate to break it to you.
AK47 are small arms. Any weapon capable of being carried and operated by one person is a small arm. And they are legal. Even the fully automatic ones, or at least the full-auto ones that were grandfathered in by FOPA.
Why does it matter what odds the rebellion would face? Isn't it better to at least be able to try?
|
On January 29 2013 01:16 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 01:12 Grumbels wrote:
Obviously people should be allowed to aim nuclear weapons toward the white house, so that the government can fear its people. And they should have tanks and air craft carriers in their backyards for similar purposes.
In any case, the reason rightwingers want weapons is because they cling to violent fantasies about the breakdown of society, whether it's the uprising against the state or protection against looters. Or it's a macho fantasy about being the man in the house who has to protect his family. There's a reason few women are involved in the fight against gun control, it's because it relies on outdated conceptions of masculinity. So, I assume you're a licensed mental health professional who treats a lot of American gun owners? Or are you just talking out your ass? I'd almost never source the NRA, but since they tend to source where they pull the stories from... http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?pageNum=1Thinking "It could happen to me" isn't a "macho fantasy".
I'm sorry that I need to be a licensed mental health professional who treats a lot of American gun owners before I can credibly talk about this, but in any case, it's primarily republican men with strong patriarchal (often racist) world views that strongly advocate gun ownership. Given that this world view is already quite evil and deluded, it should not come as a surprise that their reasons for advocating gun ownership play into this, such as racist fantasies about having to defend their family against uprising from minorities that have come to collect their fair share, and of course the government has the ability to displace private tyrannies and redistribute and is therefore hated. This is all patently obvious if you look at anything written about this issue on right wing blogs and the like.
(obviously you can have a rational conversation about gun control or gun ownership, but there are lots of people that do feel this way and this encourages them to feel very strongly about the issue and somewhat drive the debate, similarly to how discussion about pro-choice/life is often hijacked by people that want to punish women for having sex outside of the confines of patriarchal society)
|
On January 29 2013 02:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 01:16 JingleHell wrote:On January 29 2013 01:12 Grumbels wrote:
Obviously people should be allowed to aim nuclear weapons toward the white house, so that the government can fear its people. And they should have tanks and air craft carriers in their backyards for similar purposes.
In any case, the reason rightwingers want weapons is because they cling to violent fantasies about the breakdown of society, whether it's the uprising against the state or protection against looters. Or it's a macho fantasy about being the man in the house who has to protect his family. There's a reason few women are involved in the fight against gun control, it's because it relies on outdated conceptions of masculinity. So, I assume you're a licensed mental health professional who treats a lot of American gun owners? Or are you just talking out your ass? I'd almost never source the NRA, but since they tend to source where they pull the stories from... http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?pageNum=1Thinking "It could happen to me" isn't a "macho fantasy". I'm sorry that I need to be a licensed mental health professional who treats a lot of American gun owners before I can credibly talk about this, but in any case, it's primarily republican men with strong patriarchal (often racist) world views that strongly advocate gun ownership. Given that this world view is already quite evil and deluded, it should not come as a surprise that their reasons for advocating gun ownership play into this, such as racist fantasies about having to defend their family against uprising from minorities that have come to collect their fair share, and of course the government has the ability to displace private tyrannies and redistribute and is therefore hated. This is all patently obvious if you look at anything written about this issue on right wing blogs and the like.
You keep making offensive, insulting blanket statements regarding a group of people you probably have little to no real-world interaction with.
Hey, all people from the Netherlands are terrorists who go shoot up kid's day camps. Maybe we shouldn't listen to you, you just want us unarmed so you can shoot OUR children next. You the next Breivik?
[/makingpoint]
I don't believe that, and I try to avoid saying offensive shit like that, because I don't have experience.
It's ironic you suggest racist mindsets behind gun ownership, when you're bigoted against all gun owners.
Right-wing blogs don't speak for me, or for a lot of people. As it turns out, they speak for the people speaking, who are either nuts, or trying to get pageviews through sensationalism.
|
On January 29 2013 02:59 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2013 02:53 Grumbels wrote:On January 29 2013 01:16 JingleHell wrote:On January 29 2013 01:12 Grumbels wrote:
Obviously people should be allowed to aim nuclear weapons toward the white house, so that the government can fear its people. And they should have tanks and air craft carriers in their backyards for similar purposes.
In any case, the reason rightwingers want weapons is because they cling to violent fantasies about the breakdown of society, whether it's the uprising against the state or protection against looters. Or it's a macho fantasy about being the man in the house who has to protect his family. There's a reason few women are involved in the fight against gun control, it's because it relies on outdated conceptions of masculinity. So, I assume you're a licensed mental health professional who treats a lot of American gun owners? Or are you just talking out your ass? I'd almost never source the NRA, but since they tend to source where they pull the stories from... http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx?pageNum=1Thinking "It could happen to me" isn't a "macho fantasy". I'm sorry that I need to be a licensed mental health professional who treats a lot of American gun owners before I can credibly talk about this, but in any case, it's primarily republican men with strong patriarchal (often racist) world views that strongly advocate gun ownership. Given that this world view is already quite evil and deluded, it should not come as a surprise that their reasons for advocating gun ownership play into this, such as racist fantasies about having to defend their family against uprising from minorities that have come to collect their fair share, and of course the government has the ability to displace private tyrannies and redistribute and is therefore hated. This is all patently obvious if you look at anything written about this issue on right wing blogs and the like. You keep making offensive, insulting blanket statements regarding a group of people you probably have little to no real-world interaction with. Hey, all people from the Netherlands are terrorists who go shoot up kid's day camps. Maybe we shouldn't listen to you, you just want us unarmed so you can shoot OUR children next. You the next Breivik? [/makingpoint] I don't believe that, and I try to avoid saying offensive shit like that, because I don't have experience. It's ironic you suggest racist mindsets behind gun ownership, when you're bigoted against all gun owners. Right-wing blogs don't speak for me, or for a lot of people. As it turns out, they speak for the people speaking, who are either nuts, or trying to get pageviews through sensationalism.
It's on right wing blogs where you find the purest formulations of right wing ideology, and in general, if a lot of them think a certain way then it's not a stretch to speak of a tendency to have these sort of beliefs. I know that on TL you have to be respectful towards people that don't share your opinion yadayada, but personally I can never really be bothered to add a million disclaimers to my comments just to make them not offensive to anyone - I would rather advise people that if they don't feel like something I say applies to them that they ignore what I say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
